Advertisement

BinHunt: Automatically Finding Semantic Differences in Binary Programs

  • Debin Gao
  • Michael K. Reiter
  • Dawn Song
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5308)

Abstract

We introduce BinHunt, a novel technique for finding semantic differences in binary programs. Semantic differences between two binary files contrast with syntactic differences in that semantic differences correspond to changes in the program functionality. Semantic differences are difficult to find because of the noise from syntactic differences caused by, e.g., different register allocation and basic block re-ordering. BinHunt bases its analysis on the control flow of the programs using a new graph isomorphism technique, symbolic execution, and theorem proving. We implement a system based on BinHunt and demonstrate the application of the system with three case studies in which BinHunt manages to identify the semantic differences between an executable and its patched version, revealing the vulnerability that the patch eliminates.

Keywords

Basic Block Theorem Prove Matched Function Symbolic Execution Intermediate Representation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Balakrishnan, G., Gruian, R., Reps, T., Teitelbaum, T.: Codesurfer/x86 - a platform for analyzing x86 executables. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Compiler Construction (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brumley, D., Poosankam, P., Song, D., Zheng, J.: Automatic patch-based exploit generation is possible: techniques and implications. In: Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (May 2008) (to appear)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dullien, T., Rolles, R.: Graph-based comparison of executable objects. In: Proceedings of SSTIC 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Flake, H.: Structural comparison of executable objects. In: Proceedings of the GI International Conference on Detection of Intrusions & Malware, and Vulnerability Assessment 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ganesh, V., Dill, D.: A decision procedure for bit-vectors and arrays. In: Damm, W., Hermanns, H. (eds.) CAV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4590. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    DataRescue Inc. IDA Pro, http://www.datarescue.com/idabase/
  7. 7.
    King, J.: Symbolic execution and program testing. Communications of the ACM 19(7) (1976)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krissinel, E., Henrick, K.: Common subgraph isomorphism detection by backtracking search. Software — Practice and Experience 34 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Levi, G.: A note on the derivation of maximal common subgraphs of two directed or undirected graphs. Calcolo 9 (1972)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Linn, C., Debray, S.: Obfuscation of executable code to improve resistance to static disassembly. In: Proceedings of the 11th ACM Conference on Computer & Communication Security (CCS 2003) (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Raymond, J., Willett, P.: Maximum common subgraph isomorphism algorithms for the matching of chemical structures. Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design 16 (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sankoff, D., Kruskal, J.B.: Time Warps, String Edits, and Macromolecules: the Theory and Practice of Sequence Comparison. Addison-Wesley Pu. Co., Reading (1983)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ullman, J.: An algorithm for subgraph isomorphism. Journal of the Association of Computers and Machines 23 (1976)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vintsyuk, T.K.: Speech discrimination by dynamic programming. Cybernetics and Systems Analysis 4(1) (1968)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang, Z., Pierce, K., McFarling, S.: Bmat - a binary matching tool for stale profile propagation. J. Instruction-Level Parallelism 2 (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Debin Gao
    • 1
  • Michael K. Reiter
    • 2
  • Dawn Song
    • 3
  1. 1.Singapore Management UniversitySingapore
  2. 2.University of North Carolina at Chapel HillUSA
  3. 3.University of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations