OffensiveCon19 - Alex Ionescu - Keynote - Reversing Without Reversing
OffensiveCon1 HN recommender · recommended in 1 month, 2019-2021
20K views · 7 years ago · talk · evergreen
Alex Ionescu's OffensiveCon 2019 keynote on how reverse engineering is done on Windows without conventional reversing. It covers legal ways to obtain names of variables, exported functions and structures.
Cited in ReactOS threads as an authoritative account of how Windows reverse engineering works and as a rebuttal to claims about ReactOS.
38:49DEF CON 23 - Chris Domas - Repsych: Psychological Warfare in Reverse Engineering
DEFCONConference
173K views • 10 years ago
46:04DEF CON 26 - Christopher Domas - GOD MODE UNLOCKED Hardware Backdoors in redacted x86
DEFCONConference
86K views • 8 years ago
45:14DEF CON 19 - Artem Dinaburg - Bit-squatting: DNS Hijacking Without Exploitation
DEFCONConference
4K views • 13 years ago
44:50My personal fight against the modern laptop
linux conf au 2017 - Hobart, Australia
121K views • 9 years ago
45:14DEFCON 19: Bit-squatting: DNS Hijacking Without Exploitation (w speaker)
Christiaan008
24K views • 14 years ago
33:36Keynote: Greg Kroah-Hartman (Linux Foundation) - "I Don't Want Your Code"
Linaro On Air
0 views • 13 years ago
1:41:27Defcon 21 - Decapping Chips The Strike Easy Hard Way
HackersOnBoard
69K views • 12 years ago
42:45RustConf 2017 - Closing Keynote: Safe Systems Software and the Future of Computing by Joe Duffy
Confreaks
2K views • 9 years ago
44:29Breaking the x86 Instruction Set
Black Hat
381K views • 9 years ago
51:00GOD MODE UNLOCKED - Hardware Backdoors in x86 CPUs
Black Hat
319K views • 8 years ago
1:03:22REcon 2013 - The Future of RE : Dynamic Binary Visualization (Christopher Domas)
Sébastien Duquette
9K views • 12 years ago
52:51DEF CON 22 - Zoz - Don't Fuck It Up!
DEFCONConference
546K views • 11 years ago
1:02:52Joanna Rutkowska: Towards (reasonably) trustworthy x86 laptops
media.ccc.de
27K views • 10 years ago
53:09DEF CON 23 - Zoz - And That's How I Lost My Other Eye...Explorations in Data Destruction (Fixed)
DEFCONConference
533K views • 11 years ago
53:0236C3 - A systematic evaluation of OpenBSD's mitigations
media.ccc.de
18K views • 6 years ago
54:35BlueHat IL 2023 - David Weston - Default Security
Microsoft Israel R&D Center
47K views • 3 years ago
55:59DEF CON 18 - Jason Scott - You're Stealing It Wrong! 30 Years of Inter-Pirate Battles
DEFCONConference
60K views • 13 years ago
10:41Ralph Langner: Cracking Stuxnet, a 21st-century cyber weapon
TED
323K views • 15 years ago
53:44Console Hacking 2016 (33c3)
media.ccc.de
166K views • 9 years ago
43:40DEF CON 29 - Richard Henderson - Old MacDonald Had a Barcode, E I E I CAR
DEFCONConference
18K views • 5 years ago
5 comments from Hacker News
It was by one "I am very smart. Nobody can be as smart as me" Microsoft programmer. Who completely dismissed this explanation ▶ this video
> Last time ReactOS came up here some folks were concerned about legality too, and I think there even was a salty Microsoft employee ranting about stolen code from the source leaks. Link to the actual dicussion here with the comments of the MS employee: link ReactOS developer's explanation on how they work: ▶ this video
Well, now please re-read your statement Do you understand that internal data structures entirely from the NT kernel, including (why?) their names != verbatim code from NT in your source The program code is logic first of all. For the similarities of names and structures itself - the answer is in this already mentioned video ▶ this video from the 9:53 moment of time. TL:DW there are a lot of legal ways of obtaining names of variables, exported functions and structures
The more you write in these threads the more you sound like a fool. ▶ this video Start around the 9 minute mark.
Well that's categorically untrue. Sure they don't release private symbols intentionally but they have done in the past accidentally. At that point it becomes a bit of a grey area, undoubtedly leaked/stolen source code is a no-no but reversing from private symbols when they do leak seem harder to quantify as you still need to reverse engineer the code, just structures/names etc are already known. Private symbols are not the only way of gleaning more information, other examples I can think of are: * Checked builds (prior to Win10). These builds shipped de-optimized kernels (e.g. no inlines) typically with copious debug strings which gave away important details. For example I gleaned a lot of knowledge of ALPC MSRPC from the checked build of rpcrt4.dll from Windows 8. * SDK/DDK headers, especially in the brave new world of insider previews with preview SDK/DDKs there is sometimes information present which should not have been released including "private" information. Again bit of a grey area. * The private symbols MS do ship. For example a significant proportion of the COM runtime has private symbols, intentionally. You can extract from those a surprising amount of system call structure information. I'd recommend watching Alex Ionescu's talk at OffensiveCon about how he does reverse engineering on Windows to see many of these things in action. ▶ this video I'm not saying any of this would make it a clean-room re-implementation but to say ReactOS cannot possibly have been reverse engi