|Main Archive Page > Month Archives > metasploit-framework archives|
No problem. Glad to help out.
Although after much messing around the framework I got myself into a bit of trouble:
msf exploit(adobe_geticon) > exploit
[-] Exploit failed: uninitialized constant Rex::Exploitation::JSidle
[*] Exploit completed, but no session was created.
Why am I getting the uninitialized constant error? I must have broken something. Anyone else getting this error?
--- On Mon, 7/12/10, Sven Taute <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
From: Sven Taute <email@example.com>
To: "Miguel Rios" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: email@example.com, "Jonathan R" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Monday, July 12, 2010, 5:30 PM
Thanks for testing. I think it is very difficult to permanently
contrast to web-based exploits, AV can flag the usage of JS obfuscation
as malicious, though it does not see the real exploit (therefore the
In the first development phase I only targeted web-based exploits - the
usage for PDFs was more of a side product.
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
Miguel Rios <email@example.com> wrote:
> Well, just thought I'd share my results with NOD after applying the
> jsidle patch for new icon adobe exploit. Bottom line, NOD still flags
> it as PDF/Exploit.Gen. Tried encrypting it also and it did cut down
> on detections but NOD still flags it as PDF/Exploit.Gen. Seems NOD is
> doing a pretty good job in flagging malicious PDFs.
> --- On Sat, 7/10/10, Jonathan R <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> From: Jonathan R <email@example.com>
> To: "Miguel Rios" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
> email@example.com Date: Saturday, July 10, 2010, 11:15 PM
> NOD prides themselves on having one of the best heuristics engines, so
> I believe NOD would mark the PDF as suspicious and not a specific
> threat. You can do what many malware writers do and split the PDF into
> multiple parts and you can narrow the range of where/what in the PDF
> is getting flagged. Then change things accordingly.
> This idea of delaying code to bypass detection has been brought up
> before by well known virus writers like Z0mbie and Second Part To
> http://vxheavens.com/lib/vzo23.html <--- Z0mbie's Paper
> http://www.hack0wn.com/view.php?xroot=72.0&cat=papers <--- SPTH/rHlf
> This is all based upon the fact that a anti virus like Norton or NOD
> can only spend about 3 or 4 seconds on each file. Otherwise a AV scan
> would take to long.