skip to main content
10.1145/3359789.3359825acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesacsacConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Artifacts Evaluated & Functional

Function boundary detection in stripped binaries

Published:09 December 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Automated cyber defense tools require the ability to analyze binary applications, detect vulnerabilities and automatically patch those vulnerabilities. The insertion of security mechanisms that operate at function boundaries (e.g, control flow mitigation, stack guards) require automated detection of those boundaries. This paper introduces a publicly available function boundary detection tool for 32 and 64-bit Intel binaries running under Linux, that is more accurate than other reported approaches.

References

  1. M. Abadi, M. Budiu, U. Erlingsson,, and J. Ligatti. 2008. Control-flow integrity---principles, implementations, and applications. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security 13, 1 (2008), 1--40.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. National Security Agency. 2017. Ghidra Reverse Engineering Tool. (2017). https://www.nsa.gov/resources/everyone/ghidra/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Dennis Andriesse, Asia Slowinska, and Herbert Bos. 2017. Compiler-Agnostic Function Detection in Binaries. In 2017 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P). 177--189.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. T. Avgerinos, D. Brumley, J. Davis, R. Goulden, T. Nighswander, A. Rebert, and N. Williamson. 2018. The Mayhem Cyber Reasoning System. IEEE Security & Privacy 16, 2 (2018), 52--60.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Tiffany Bao and David Brumley. 2014. ByteWeight: Recognizing Functions in Binary Code. (2014). http://security.ece.cmu.edu/byteweight/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Tiffany Bao, Jonathan Burket, Maverick Woa, Rafael Turner, and David Brumley. 2014. ByteWeight: Learning to Recognize Functions in Binary Code. In Proc. USENIX Security Symposium. 845--860.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. BAP 2019. BAP: Binary analysis platform. (2019). http://bap.ece.cmu.edu/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Capstone 2019. Capstone: The Ultimate Disassembler. (2019). http://www.capstone-engine.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. SPEC Corp. 2017. SPEC Benchmarks. (2017). http://www.spec.orgGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Alessandro Di Federico, Mathias Payer, and Giovanni Agosta. 2017. REV.NG: A Unified Binary Analysis Framework to Recover CFGs and Function Boundaries. In 52nd Annual IEEE Carnahan Conference on Security Technology. 131--141. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. IDA 2019. Hex-Rays IDA. (2019). https://www.hex-rays.com/products/ida/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Nucleus 2018. Nucleus source code. (2018). https://www.vusec.net/projects/function-detectionGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. N. E. Rosenblum, X. Zhu, B. P. Miller, and K. Hunt. 2008. Learning to analyze binary computer code.. In National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 798--804.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Eui Chul Richard Shin, Dawn Song, and Reza Moazzezi. 2015. Recognizing Functions in Binaries with Neural Networks. In Proc. USENIX Security Symposium. 611--626.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Jia Song and Jim Alves-Foss. 2015. The DARPA Cyber Grand Challenge: A Competitor's Perspective, Part 1. IEEE Security & Privacy 13, 6 (2015), 72--76.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Jia Song and Jim Alves-Foss. 2016. The DARPA Cyber Grand Challenge: A Competitor's Perspective, Part 2. IEEE Security & Privacy 14, 1 (2016), 76--81.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. M. Zhang and R. Sekar. 2013. Control flow integrity for COTS binaries. In 22nd USENIX Security Symposium. 337--352.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Function boundary detection in stripped binaries

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      ACSAC '19: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference
      December 2019
      821 pages
      ISBN:9781450376280
      DOI:10.1145/3359789

      Copyright © 2019 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 9 December 2019

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      ACSAC '19 Paper Acceptance Rate60of266submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate104of497submissions,21%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader