I’ve recently analyzed a malware sample that parsed and modified raw network packet data. That means I had to deal with many register relative offsets in IDA Pro. The most practical way for this is to define and apply structs.
While IDA’s type libraries contain some of the packet structures (i.e., ETHERNET_FRAME, IP, TCP, and UDP_HEADER), other protocols (i.e., ARP) are missing. Additionally, I did not find structures encompassing multiple communication layers – for example ETHERNET_FRAME, IP, and TCP grouped in one structure.
As an optimization, compilers inline functions. In general, this makes reverse engineering a disassembled program more cumbersome. And often times its confusing to novice reverse engineers. Frequently, compilers inline the functions memset and memcpy. Due to this IDA Pro may produce multiple stack variables when in reality there should only be one. In this post I am going to share a script that will help you to automatically modify stack variable sizes and definitions for a function’s stack frame. This will make the disassembled code easier to understand. Moreover, it can improve code decompilation.
The FireEye Labs Obfuscated String Solver (FLOSS) automatically extracts obfuscated strings from Windows executables and shellcode. The tool integrates with various reverse engineering tools including IDA Pro, radare2, and x64dbg. In this post, I will show how to leverage strings that FLOSS decoded when reverse engineering malware using IDA Pro and debugging it using x64dbg. Continue reading “Integrating FLOSS deobfuscated strings into IDA Pro and x64dbg”
Highlighting important and suspicious instructions helps me tremendously to understand and quickly navigate a disassembled binary. Every time I browse a freshly opened binary in IDA Pro I feel that something is missing. Reversing without colors is less fun!
Look at the two screenshots below. I’m having a much easier time navigating the highlighted disassembly on the right.
When triaging malicious executable files I always try the FireEye Labs Obfuscated String Solver (FLOSS) to quickly decode obfuscated strings. In short, FLOSS uses heuristics to identify decoding routine candidates and emulates them using vivisect’s disassembly and emulation modules.
While vivisect is an awesome tool, it sometimes is not as robust as IDA Pro in parsing and disassembling binaries. In addition, IDA Pro provides the Fast Library Identification and Recognition Technology (FLIRT) that helps to distinguish standard library functions and functions written by the program’s author.
One of IDA Pro’s most important features is that it allows us to interactively modify the disassembly – hence, the I in IDA. This includes renaming of function names, variable names, and names of addresses. IDA Pro refers to these names as identifiers and enforces a certain naming scheme on them. After working with IDA Pro for a couple of weeks most people develop a good understanding of valid names and what to avoid when renaming identifiers. However, I wanted to know how IDA Pro checks identifiers and describe my findings in this blog post. In addition to this, I discuss the character encoding used for comments in IDA Pro. Adding comments to a disassembled program is another useful feature many reverse engineers take advantage of. While users normally don’t have to worry about the comment encoding this information can be handy in certain situations – especially when dealing with comments in IDAPython scripts.
While it is a lot of fun to parse structures from a hex dump or disassemble opcodes in my head, I rely on many tools to reverse engineer software efficiently. In general, it does not matter which tools you use. It only matters that you know how to use them. However, finding the right tool for the task at hand is not always easy.
Below is a non-exhaustive list of tools I use regularly during malware analysis. Many of these tools have been recommended to me by very talented and experienced colleagues. Others I found while reading blogs or malware analysis reports. I hope this list inspires you to incorporate some of these tools into your analysis process.
In this blog post I am going to discuss how you can interact with basic blocks in IDAPython. Before we jump into the technical details, I want to provide some context and show why I became interested in exploring this feature of IDA Pro.
Background and Motivation
The other day I reverse engineered a backdoor that was heavily armored with two classic anti-disassembly techniques. The first technique substitutes jmp instructions with sequences of push and retn instructions. Figure 1 shows how this hinders the program’s control flow analysis. First, IDA Pro interprets the retn instruction to mark a function’s end. Second, IDA Pro is not able to identify the target addresses as code and hence does not disassemble them.