full-disclosure - Re: A modest proposal

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: <CAD6s_XvrxuK7Vqs5jDp6QL56XmnbmSe71DndGytcCJ4GZXtqbw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:11:15 +0200
From: Christian Sciberras <uuf6429@...il.com>
To: Thor <thor@...merofgod.com>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk,
	Glenn and Mary Everhart <everhart@....com>
Subject: Re: A modest proposal

For what it's worth, I wrote a system in the past whose code changed on
each generation.
I did it mostly as an exercise, but it seemed to worked well. It had two
different layers; an obfuscation layer and a code modifier layer.
Obfuscation worked like you would expect today; substituting
function/variable names etc.
The second layer actually changed the code with functionally equivalents
(as Valdis mentioned).
However, I disagree with Valdis' points about the opcodes. Seems his
interest lies in fixing a potential issue.
I beg to differ, this concept isn't about fixing existing code, but rather
leave it as is (with the existing bugs).
>>From a development perspective, if a bug comes up in the end system, it
will be much harder to debug since function names etc won't correspond with
the original code.
You might want to put some sort of logging mechanism to figure out these
bugs, but it defeats the purpose of hiding code in the first place.

My two cents.



On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Thor <thor@...merofgod.com> wrote:

> There's no need to insult him like that.   The idea itself may be a bit
> lacking in overall effectiveness,  but it certainly isn't "childish."
>
> t
>
> On Jul 19, 2012, at 11:55 PM, Memory Vandal wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Glenn and Mary Everhart
> > <everhart@....com> wrote:
> >> Hello, FD...
> >> A thought occurred to me:
> >> Why not use the same kind of polymorphism and software metamorphism that
> >> is used by malware writers as a protective measure?
> >
> > So you want to make a "Batman" malware?
> >
> > I would say its nice thought but still childish.
> >
> > MemoryVandal
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
>

Content of type "text/html" skipped

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