Talk:OpenSharedCacheFile - Revision history

Sjeezpwn at 22:33, 24 March 2015

2015-03-24T22:33:37Z

Sjeezpwn at 22:32, 24 March 2015

2015-03-24T22:32:52Z

Awesomebing1 at 22:20, 23 March 2015

2015-03-23T22:20:38Z

Awesomebing1: Reply

2015-03-23T17:17:27Z

Rzhikharevich at 17:16, 23 March 2015

2015-03-23T17:16:06Z

Rzhikharevich at 17:14, 23 March 2015

2015-03-23T17:14:25Z

Awesomebing1: Info

2015-03-23T02:13:31Z

Info

New page

Does this allow root access? Also, could we add that it was patched in 6.1.3/6.1.4 (possibly 6.1.6, I'll test that)? --[[User:Awesomebing1|Awesomebing1]] ([[User talk:Awesomebing1|talk]]) 02:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:33, 24 March 2015
Line 8:		Line 8:
	Not sure if that means if it was patched. I'm guessing it means it does, since in the presentation I was copying off it said it Segementation Faulted.--[[User:Awesomebing1\|Awesomebing1]] ([[User talk:Awesomebing1\|talk]]) 22:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)		Not sure if that means if it was patched. I'm guessing it means it does, since in the presentation I was copying off it said it Segementation Faulted.--[[User:Awesomebing1\|Awesomebing1]] ([[User talk:Awesomebing1\|talk]]) 22:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

−	yes this is patched, when i said 1024 A's, that was just a guess, you have to try around 30-40 times to see where the PC register is, once you know where PC is you need to insert your shellcode right after	+	<sjeezpwn>yes this is patched, when i said 1024 A's, that was just a guess, you have to try around 30-40 times to see where the PC register is, once you know where PC is you need to insert your shellcode right after

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:32, 24 March 2015
Line 7:		Line 7:

	Not sure if that means if it was patched. I'm guessing it means it does, since in the presentation I was copying off it said it Segementation Faulted.--[[User:Awesomebing1\|Awesomebing1]] ([[User talk:Awesomebing1\|talk]]) 22:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)		Not sure if that means if it was patched. I'm guessing it means it does, since in the presentation I was copying off it said it Segementation Faulted.--[[User:Awesomebing1\|Awesomebing1]] ([[User talk:Awesomebing1\|talk]]) 22:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	yes this is patched, when i said 1024 A's, that was just a guess, you have to try around 30-40 times to see where the PC register is, once you know where PC is you need to insert your shellcode right after

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:20, 23 March 2015
Line 2:		Line 2:
	:[http://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2013-3950/ CVE Details] stands, that the last vulnerable version is 6.1.3. I don't think, that this vulnerability can cause any privilege escalations. --[[User:Rzhikharevich\|Rzhikharevich]] ([[User talk:Rzhikharevich\|talk]]) 17:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)		:[http://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2013-3950/ CVE Details] stands, that the last vulnerable version is 6.1.3. I don't think, that this vulnerability can cause any privilege escalations. --[[User:Rzhikharevich\|Rzhikharevich]] ([[User talk:Rzhikharevich\|talk]]) 17:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
	::I don't know for sure, but since the only changed files are various executables (e.g recompiling stuff) and the OpenSSL fix, there's nothing else changed. I will test this in a bit. --[[User:Awesomebing1\|Awesomebing1]] ([[User talk:Awesomebing1\|talk]]) 17:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)		::I don't know for sure, but since the only changed files are various executables (e.g recompiling stuff) and the OpenSSL fix, there's nothing else changed. I will test this in a bit. --[[User:Awesomebing1\|Awesomebing1]] ([[User talk:Awesomebing1\|talk]]) 17:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
		+	:::Well, I ran it. Turns out you actually have to put 2000 As. Ugh. Anyway, it outputs
		+	<pre>dyld: stack buffer overrun
		+	Trace/BPT trap: 5</pre>
		+
		+	Not sure if that means if it was patched. I'm guessing it means it does, since in the presentation I was copying off it said it Segementation Faulted.--[[User:Awesomebing1\|Awesomebing1]] ([[User talk:Awesomebing1\|talk]]) 22:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:17, 23 March 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Does this allow root access? Also, could we add that it was patched in 6.1.3/6.1.4 (possibly 6.1.6, I'll test that)? --[[User:Awesomebing1\|Awesomebing1]] ([[User talk:Awesomebing1\|talk]]) 02:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)		Does this allow root access? Also, could we add that it was patched in 6.1.3/6.1.4 (possibly 6.1.6, I'll test that)? --[[User:Awesomebing1\|Awesomebing1]] ([[User talk:Awesomebing1\|talk]]) 02:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
	:[http://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2013-3950/ CVE Details] stands, that the last vulnerable version is 6.1.3. I don't think, that this vulnerability can cause any privilege escalations. --[[User:Rzhikharevich\|Rzhikharevich]] ([[User talk:Rzhikharevich\|talk]]) 17:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)		:[http://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2013-3950/ CVE Details] stands, that the last vulnerable version is 6.1.3. I don't think, that this vulnerability can cause any privilege escalations. --[[User:Rzhikharevich\|Rzhikharevich]] ([[User talk:Rzhikharevich\|talk]]) 17:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
		+	::I don't know for sure, but since the only changed files are various executables (e.g recompiling stuff) and the OpenSSL fix, there's nothing else changed. I will test this in a bit. --[[User:Awesomebing1\|Awesomebing1]] ([[User talk:Awesomebing1\|talk]]) 17:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:16, 23 March 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Does this allow root access? Also, could we add that it was patched in 6.1.3/6.1.4 (possibly 6.1.6, I'll test that)? --[[User:Awesomebing1\|Awesomebing1]] ([[User talk:Awesomebing1\|talk]]) 02:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)		Does this allow root access? Also, could we add that it was patched in 6.1.3/6.1.4 (possibly 6.1.6, I'll test that)? --[[User:Awesomebing1\|Awesomebing1]] ([[User talk:Awesomebing1\|talk]]) 02:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
−	:[[http://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2013-3950/~~\|This~~ ~~resource]~~] stands, that the last vulnerable version is 6.1.3. I don't think, that this vulnerability can cause any privilege escalations.	+	:[http://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2013-3950/ CVE Details] stands, that the last vulnerable version is 6.1.3. I don't think, that this vulnerability can cause any privilege escalations. --[[User:Rzhikharevich\|Rzhikharevich]] ([[User talk:Rzhikharevich\|talk]]) 17:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:14, 23 March 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Does this allow root access? Also, could we add that it was patched in 6.1.3/6.1.4 (possibly 6.1.6, I'll test that)? --[[User:Awesomebing1\|Awesomebing1]] ([[User talk:Awesomebing1\|talk]]) 02:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)		Does this allow root access? Also, could we add that it was patched in 6.1.3/6.1.4 (possibly 6.1.6, I'll test that)? --[[User:Awesomebing1\|Awesomebing1]] ([[User talk:Awesomebing1\|talk]]) 02:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
		+	:[[http://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2013-3950/\|This resource]] stands, that the last vulnerable version is 6.1.3. I don't think, that this vulnerability can cause any privilege escalations.