Our app is ran from SU or normal user. We have a library we have connected to our project. In that library there is a function we want to call. We have a folder called notRestricted in the directory where we run application from. We have created a new thread. We want to limit access of the thread to file system. What we want to do is simple - call that function but limit its access to write only to that folder (we prefer to let it read from anywhere app can read from).
Update:
So I see that there is no way to disable only one thread from all FS but one folder...
I read your propositions dear SO users and posted some kind of analog to this question here so in there thay gave us a link to sandbox with not a bad api, but I do not really know if it would work on anething but GentOS (but any way such script looks quite intresting in case of using Boost.Process command line to run it and than run desired ex-thread (which migrated to seprate application=)).
There isn't really any way you can prevent a single thread, because its in the same process space as you are, except for hacking methods like function hooking to detect any kind of file system access.
Perhaps you might like to rethink how you're implementing your application - having native untrusted code run as su isn't exactly a good idea. Perhaps use another process and communicate via. RPC, or use a interpreted language that you can check against at run time.
In my opinion, the best strategy would be:
Don't run this code in a different thread, but run it in a different process.
When you create this process (after the fork but before any call to execve), use chroot to change the root of the filesystem.
This will give you some good isolation... However doing so will make your code require root... Don't run the child process as root since root can trivially work around this.
Inject a replacement for open(2) that checks the arguments and returns -EACCES as appropriate.
This doesn't sound like the right thing to do. If you think about it, what you are trying to prevent is a problem well known to the computer games industry. The most common approach to deal with this problem is simply encoding or encrypting the data you don't want others to have access to, in such a way that only you know how to read/understand it.
Related
Lets take an example here which is known everywhere in the IT world:
We have a game, for example solitaire, and someone makes and releases a trainer for it that your moves are always '0'.
How do I programatically determine which adresses and what values that "hack" changes?
What way would be the best, if this is possible?
From within the game [injecting/loading my own dll?]
By intercepting traffic between the hack and target process with my own process?
I ask this question because of 2 things:
Protect an application from being "hacked" (at least by the script kiddies)
Reverse engineer a trainer (so you don't have to reinvent the wheel / avoid NIH syndrome)
You can't. Some broken attempts may be setting two addresses and then comparing them (they will find the other address though). Or they can simply remove your compare call.
They can alter any protection function that you use to "programatically determine" to always return false results. They can do anything to your executable, so there is no way.
Unless you hook the kernel functions that open your process to modify the memory. But that is also breakable and if I am not wrong you need to get your "protection kernel driver" digitally signed now.
There is another way in which you load a DLL in every running and newly spawned processes (which will probably alert antiviruses about your program being a virus), with that DLL you hook OpenProcess (and if there is another alternative to it, that too) functions in each process and check if its targeted at your program, and prevent it if so. Search about function hooking. I believe there was something called "MS Detour" or something for it.
And still, the game will not even be close to safe.
To sum up, no way is good to protect your game locally. If you are storing scores or something you should create a server program and client should report every move to server.
Even then, they can create a bot to automatically respond to server. Then the best you can do is somehow verify it is a human that is playing. (maybe captcha or comparing the solving speed with human avarage?)
Ok so I have a few ideas for checking whether or not an instance of a process is already running but I wanna find out what other people already do/use first. I'm looking to do something like firefox does sometimes where it says firefox is already running blah blah blah, it only checks to see if there is another copy of itself running, I'm not really looking to check to see if there is just an arbitrary named process running just if there is another copy of itself.
I don't know whether or not it would be easier to just set up a system to look for an arbitrary process and just look for itself or if it would be better to implement a system for looking for just that process.
I am trying to eventually to lead into being able to communicate with another process so that I could send messages to it.
So say to do the following just as an example: suppose you have firefox already running then you do a command of firefox URLHERE it opens up the new url in the original window that was opened.
I am also trying to figure out how to implement this so if you have any ideas on the best ways in which to do this then by all means please do let me know as well.
Thanks
Assuming Windows - other operating systems may provide similar constructs but implementation details will vary.
Look into named pipes or named mutexes.
A named mutex solution will be easier to code but it will not give you inter-process communication. The theory goes like this: your process attempts to create a named mutex. If it fails it means that another copy of the process is already running. This is guaranteed by the OS - only one named mutex can be created with a specific name. The trick is then in choosing an appropriate name for your mutex so you don't run the risk of accidental conflict with another program wanting to create/use the same named mutex. For this you could use a GUID. Note however, that a nefarious application could create the named mutex that you're looking for and prevent your application from ever running
The second option is to use a named pipe (same story regarding choosing the name). Your process will attempt to create a pipe with a certain name on startup. If creating the pipe fails because the pipe already exists it will go ahead and attempt to connect to the pipe and then you can have the second process exchange information with the first process (i.e. pass on its arguments so that the original process can perform an action)
I'm trying to find an easy way to execute a java vm in windows using a C++ wrapper. I can use CreateProcess() to launch java.exe directly with all of my parameters that I need to give it. The problem is this now shows up as two processes in process manager. So, if I kill the parent process, the java.exe instance still sticks around.
The reason I need to do this is that we have a few java programs, all of which will be running concurrently. I want to be able to give them distinguishable names in the process explorer, so that if a user has trouble with one of them, they don't have to guess which java.exe process that corresponds to.
You can replace java.exe with your own executable. This article from the Java Glossary discusses how java.exe works and where to find the source for it. It's possible that you could get by simply by copying and then renaming java.exe
I know that in a DOS/Windows application, you can issue system commands from code using lines like:
system("pause");
or
system("myProgram.exe");
...from stdlib.h. Is there a similar Linux command, and if so which header file would I find it in?
Also, is this considered bad programming practice? I am considering trying to get a list of loaded kernal modules using the lsmod command. Is that a good idea or bad idea? I found some websites that seemed to view system calls (at least system("pause");) in a negative light.
system is a bad idea for several reasons:
Your program is suspended until the command finishes.
It runs the command through a shell, which means you have to worry about making sure the string you pass is safe for the shell to evaluate.
If you try to run a backgrounded command with &, it ends up being a grandchild process and gets orphaned and taken in by the init process (pid 1), and you have no way of checking its status after that.
There's no way to read the command's output back into your program.
For the first and final issues, popen is one solution, but it doesn't address the other issues. You should really use fork and exec (or posix_spawn) yourself for running any external command/program.
Not surprisingly, the command is still
system("whatever");
and the header is still stdlib.h. That header file's name means "standard library", which means it's on every standard platform that supports C.
And yes, calling system() is often a bad idea. There are usually more programmatic ways of doing things.
If you want to see how lsmod works, you can always look-up its source code and see what the major system calls are that it makes. Then use those calls yourself.
A quick Google search turns up this link, which indicates that lsmod is reading the contents of /proc/modules.
Well, lsmod does it by parsing the /proc/modules file. That would be my preferred method.
I think what you are looking for are fork and exec.
I'm trying to read variables from memory. Variables, that doesn't belong to my own program. For instance, let's say I have this Adobe Shockwave (.dcr) application running in browser and I want to read different variables from it. How it's being done? Do I need to hook the process? But it's running under virtual machine, so I don't know how to do it.
This task is pretty much trivial in normal w32 applications (as it is mainly just
CBT-hooking / subclassing), but as I mentioned before, I've got no idea how it's being
done with flash / shockwave.
I'm using C++ (VS9) as my development-environment, in case you wish to know.
Any hints would be highly appreciated, so thank you in advance.
Best regards,
nhaa123
If you're trying to do it manually just for one or two experiments, it's easy.
Try a tool like Cheat engine which is like a free and quick and simple process peeker. Basically it scans the process's memory space for given key values. You can then filter those initial search hits later as well. You can also change those values you do find, live. The link above shows a quick example of using it to find a score or money value in a game, and editing it live as the game runs.
without having debug Binaries/DLLs of the Apps, your only chance is asking some hackers.
Normally you can connect to a process with a debugger, but without the debugging symbols of the binaries you don't see any variable names - just memory addresses.
Further the Flash/Shockwave code runs inside a sandbox inside the browser to prevent security holes by manipulated Flash code. So you don't have a real chance to get access to the running Flash code / to the plugin executing the Flash code - except you have a manipulated version of such a plugin.
So your task is quite hard to solve without using less legal methods. The next hard thing is the virtual machine - this could be solved by implementing your app as a client/server solution, where the "inspector" / watchdog runs as server inside the virtual machine and the client requesting the variable status/content running on your normal host. The communication could be done as simple socket connection.
If you have the chance to write your own Flash/Shockwave plugin, you maybe could be able to see contents of variables.
Sorry, that I cannot help you any further.
ciao,
3DH