Open nieldk opened 4 years ago
@nieldk The problem is that you are limited by the flash size of the LOGITacker supported device. Anyways, Covertchannel is just a normal script payload, and using script
command functions would do the job.
Normal, apart from the number of lines in the payload ...
Marcus explained on Twitter a number of issues with the proposal, that need to be carefully considered.
I do wonder, though, if it is possible to change the flash allocation map to make more flash pages available for storage, at the cost of program space?
On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 22:29 Mohamed A. Baset notifications@github.com wrote:
@nieldk https://github.com/nieldk The problem is that you are limited by the flash size of the LOGITacker supported device. Anyways, Covertchannel is just a normal script payload, and using script command functions would do the job.
— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/RoganDawes/LOGITacker/issues/54?email_source=notifications&email_token=AABHBC5ELNJFEY6LHBNGCKLRG2PKJA5CNFSM4LFCK6V2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEONA3TY#issuecomment-597298639, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABHBCZ5LTR4ZSUY7UBGXITRG2PKJANCNFSM4LFCK6VQ .
I believe it would be fairly simple to change the code for coveetchannel payloads (sharplocker atm is ‘hardcoded’. Since the payload is executed by a simple powershell base64 encoded string, we could change the function to add options for loading/storing the base64 string, similar to when devices are added/stored. Practically, that would make LOGITacker an advanced Rubberducky. I will look into that, if no one do before me ;)