Journal in Computer Virology

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 73–84 | Cite as

In situ reuse of logically extracted functional components

Original Paper

Abstract

Programmers often identify functionality within a compiled program that they wish they could reuse in a manner other than that intended by the program’s original authors. The traditional approach to reusing pre-existing functionality contained within a binary executable is that of physical extraction; that is, the recreation of the desired functionality in some executable module separate from the program in which it was originally found. Towards overcoming the inherent limitations of physical extraction, we propose in situ reuse of logically extracted functional components. Logical extraction consists of identifying and retaining information about the locations of the elements comprising the functional component within its original program, and in situ reuse is the process of driving the original program to execute the logically extracted functional component in whatever manner the new programmer sees fit.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Research Announcement-Binary Executable Transforms (BET) - DARPA-RA-11-56. Technical report, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buck B., Hollingsworth J.K.: An API for runtime code patching. Int. J. High Performance Comput. Appl. 14(4), 317–329 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Caballero, J.: Binary code extraction and interface identification for security applications. Technical report, DTIC Document (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cifuentes C., Fraboulet, A.: Intraprocedural static slicing of binary executables. In: Software Maintenance. Proceedings., International Conference on IEEE, pp. 188–195 (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Egyed, A., Balzer, R.: Unfriendly COTS integration-instrumentation and interfaces for improved plugability. In: Automated Software Engineering, 2001.(ASE 2001). Proceedings of 16th Annual International Conference on IEEE, pp. 223–231 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kolbitsch, C., Holz, T., Kruegel, C., Kirda, E.: Inspector Gadget: Automated extraction of proprietary gadgets from malware binaries. In: 2010 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, IEEE, pp. 29–44 (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kiss, A., Jász, J., Lehotai, G., Gyimóthy, T.: Interprocedural static slicing of binary executables. In: Source Code Analysis and Manipulation, 2003. Proceedings of Third IEEE International Workshop on IEEE, pp. 118–127 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Luk, C.K., Cohn, R., Muth, R., Patil, H., Klauser, A., Lowney, G., Wallace, S., Reddi, V.J., Hazelwood, K.: Pin: Building customized program analysis tools with dynamic instrumentation. In: ACM SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 40, pp. 190–200. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ravipati, G., Bernat, A.R., Rosenblum, N., Miller, B.P., Hollingsworth, J.K.: Toward the deconstruction of Dyninst. Technical report, Computer Sciences Department, University of Wisconsin, Madison (ftp://ftp.cs.wisc.edu/paradyn/papers/Ravipati07SymtabAPI.pdf) (2007)
  10. 10.
    Weiser, M.: Program slicing. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on software engineering, pp. 439–449. IEEE Press (1981)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Williams, C.C., Hollingsworth, J.K.: Interactive binary instrumentation. In: International Works on Remote Analytic and Measurement of Software System, pp. 312–327 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Advanced Computer StudiesUniversity of Louisiana at LafayetteLafayetteUSA
  2. 2.School of Informatics and Computer ScienceUniversity of Louisiana at LafayetteLafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations