full-disclosure - Re: The Mystery of the Duqu Framework

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAPGeVWM3o2OZYFborXi0gMHO=MktLL0j2KuEdzwnHjijkx0u+w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:50:43 -0600
From: Sanguinarious Rose <SanguineRose@...ultusTerra.com>
To: Laurelai <laurelai@...echan.org>, full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: The Mystery of the Duqu Framework

https://www.securelist.com/en/blog/677/The_mystery_of_Duqu_Framework_solved

"The code was written using a custom OO C framework, based on macros
or custom preprocessor directives. This was suggested by your
comments, because it is the most common way to combine object-oriented
programming with C. "


Not Told [ ]
Told [x]

Here let me re-quote my email for prosperity

>Yea, I have been thinking on ideas for that as well, I see no one has
>thought outside the box yet.

>I would look into OO'ed C (www.planetpdf.com/codecuts/pdfs/ooc.pdf) as
>being a possibility. Long before in the time when the mighty C++ was
>young, it was translated to C code for compilation. I have not had the
>time to dig into it yet to see how you could code it in OO C style
>code yet. You can implement much of the functionality of OO parts of
>C++ including virtual functions and other things.

>Well, these are my thoughts on it. More speculation at the moment but
>might be of use to someone.

So, next time I would suggest actually reading and understanding what
I post to the mailing list instead of cheerleader with that crappy
"told" and "not told" meme.

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Laurelai <laurelai@...echan.org> wrote:
> On 3/10/12 2:16 PM, William Pitcock wrote:
>> On 3/10/2012 9:00 AM, 夜神　岩男 wrote:
>>> On 03/10/2012 03:51 AM, fd@...erted.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.securelist.com/en/blog/667/The_Mystery_of_the_Duqu_Framework
>>>>
>>>> Haven't seen this (or much discussion around this) here yet, so I
>>>> figured I'd share.
>>>>
>>>      From the description, it looks like someone pushed some code from a
>>> Lisp[1] variant (like Common Lisp, which is preprocesed into ANSI C by
>>> GCL, for example, before compilation) into a C++ DLL. Normal in the
>>> deper end of Linux dev or Hurd communities, but definitely not standard
>>> practice in any established industry that makes use of Windows.
>>>
>>> I could be wrong, I didn't take the time to walk myself through the
>>> decompile with any thoroughness and compare it to code I generate.
>>> Anyway, I have no idea the differences between how VC++ and g++ do
>>> things -- so my analysis would probably be trash. But from the way the
>>> Mr. Soumenkov describes things it seems this, or something similar,
>>> could be the case and why the code doesn't conform to what's expected in
>>> a C++ binary.
>>>
>>>
>> LISP would refer to specific constructor/destructor vtable entries as
>> "cons" and there would be no destructor at all.  The structs use vtables
>> which refer to "ctor" and "dtor", which indicates that the vtables were
>> most likely generated using a C++ compiler (since that is standard
>> nomenclature for C++ compiler symbols).  It pretty much has to be
>> Microsoft COM.  The struct layouts pretty much *reek* of Microsoft COM
>> when used with a detached vtable (such as if the implementation is
>> loaded from a COM object file).  The fact that specific vtable entries
>> aren't mangled is also strong evidence of it being Microsoft COM (since
>> there is no need to mangle vtable entries of a COM object due to type
>> information already being known in the COM object).
>>
>> If it looks like COM, smells like COM, and acts like COM, then it's
>> probably COM.  It certainly isn't "some new programming language" like
>> Kaspersky says.  That's just the dumbest thing I've heard this year.
>>
>> William
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
> I think William just told everyone...again.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/