Question

WARNING: This is an exploit. Do not execute this code.

//shellcode.c

char shellcode[] =
    "\x31\xc0\x31\xdb\xb0\x17\xcd\x80"
    "\xeb\x1f\x5e\x89\x76\x08\x31\xc0\x88\x46\x07\x89\x46\x0c\xb0\x0b"
    "\x89\xf3\x8d\x4e\x08\x8d\x56\x0c\xcd\x80\x31\xdb\x89\xd8\x40\xcd"
    "\x80\xe8\xdc\xff\xff\xff/bin/sh";

int main() { 
    int *ret; //ret pointer for manipulating saved return.

    ret = (int *)&ret + 2; //setret to point to the saved return
                           //value on the stack.

    (*ret) = (int)shellcode; //change the saved return value to the
                             //address of the shellcode, so it executes.
}

can anyone give me a better explanation ?

Answer 1

Apparently, this code attempts to change the stack so that when the main function returns, program execution does not return regularly into the runtime library (which would normally terminate the program), but would jump instead into the code saved in the shellcode array.

1) int *ret;

defines a variable on the stack, just beneath the main function’s arguments.

2) ret = (int *)&ret + 2;

lets the ret variable point to a int * that is placed two ints above ret on the stack. Supposedly that’s where the return address is located where the program will continue when main returns.

2) (*ret) = (int)shellcode;

The return address is set to the address of the shellcode array’s contents, so that shellcode‘s contents will be executed when main returns.

---

shellcode seemingly contains machine instructions that possibly do a system call to launch /bin/sh. I could be wrong on this as I didn’t actually disassemble shellcode.

---

P.S.: This code is machine- and compiler-dependent and will possibly not work on all platforms.

---

Reply to your second question:

and what happens if I use
ret=(int)&ret +2 and why did we add 2?
why not 3 or 4??? and I think that int
is 4 bytes so 2 will be 8bytes no?

ret is declared as an int*, therefore assigning an int (such as (int)&ret) to it would be an error. As to why 2 is added and not any other number: apparently because this code assumes that the return address will lie at that location on the stack. Consider the following:

• This code assumes that the call stack grows downward when something is pushed on it (as it indeed does e.g. with Intel processors). That is the reason why a number is added and not subtracted: the return address lies at a higher memory address than automatic (local) variables (such as ret).

• From what I remember from my Intel assembly days, a C function is often called like this: First, all arguments are pushed onto the stack in reverse order (right to left). Then, the function is called. The return address is thus pushed on the stack. Then, a new stack frame is set up, which includes pushing the ebp register onto the stack. Then, local variables are set up on the stack beneath all that has been pushed onto it up to this point.

Now I assume the following stack layout for your program:

+-------------------------+
|  function arguments     |                       |
|  (e.g. argv, argc)      |                       |  (note: the stack
+-------------------------+   <-- ss:esp + 12     |   grows downward!)
|  return address         |                       |
+-------------------------+   <-- ss:esp + 8      V
|  saved ebp register     |                       
+-------------------------+   <-- ss:esp + 4  /  ss:ebp - 0  (see code below)
|  local variable (ret)   |                       
+-------------------------+   <-- ss:esp + 0  /  ss:ebp - 4

At the bottom lies ret (which is a 32-bit integer). Above it is the saved ebp register (which is also 32 bits wide). Above that is the 32-bit return address. (Above that would be main‘s arguments — argc and argv — but these aren’t important here.) When the function executes, the stack pointer points at ret. The return address lies 64 bits “above” ret, which corresponds to the + 2 in

ret = (int*)&ret + 2; 

It is + 2 because ret is a int*, and an int is 32 bit, therefore adding 2 means setting it to a memory location 2 × 32 bits (=64 bits) above (int*)&ret… which would be the return address’ location, if all the assumptions in the above paragraph are correct.

---

Excursion: Let me demonstrate in Intel assembly language how a C function might be called (if I remember correctly — I’m no guru on this topic so I might be wrong):

// first, push all function arguments on the stack in reverse order:
push  argv
push  argc

// then, call the function; this will push the current execution address
// on the stack so that a return instruction can get back here:
call  main

// (afterwards: clean up stack by removing the function arguments, e.g.:)
add   esp, 8

Inside main, the following might happen:

// create a new stack frame and make room for local variables:
push  ebp
mov   ebp, esp
sub   esp, 4

// access return address:
mov   edi, ss:[ebp+4]

// access argument 'argc'
mov   eax, ss:[ebp+8]

// access argument 'argv'
mov   ebx, ss:[ebp+12]

// access local variable 'ret'
mov   edx, ss:[ebp-4]

...

// restore stack frame and return to caller (by popping the return address)
mov   esp, ebp
pop   ebp
retf

See also: Description of the procedure call sequence in C for another explanation of this topic.