3 ms·
Please re-read my original comment. If the binary is stripped, no internal symbols would have been visible or even present in the file to be scanned. The jumps
by junon 5y ago
Please re-read my original comment. If the binary is stripped, no internal symbols would have been visible or even present in the file to be scanned. The jumps between subroutines happen directly, without a symbol jump table (because a jump table adds runtime overhead and is largely unnecessary, especially in statically linked executables).
- ncmncm 5y agoYou do not need internal symbols. All the public entry points are spelled out exactly by name, and all the external symbol dependencies.
- junon 5y agoI addressed the point about symbol tables, and that's assuming the vulnerable code was pulled in via an external dependency or exported directly (flat function/subroutine) from an .SO. That also assumes that the binary wasn't linked statically - in which case, there are no external symbols to even look for. Lastly, please stop calling someone educating you "BS".
- ncmncm 5y agoYou instead wholly failed to address the point about symbol tables.
- junon 5y agoSymbol table patching doesn't do anything if the functionality is internal... Do you know how programs are linked?
- nitrogen 5y agoWe're all on the same team here, there's no need for this hostility back and forth. Binary patching, JAR patching, disassembly, library interception, syscall interception, whatever, these are all tools that are on the table. You do what it takes to get the job done, knowing and weighing the pros and cons.
- ncmncm 5y agoDo you? Have you, e.g., written a linker? Educating is an entirely different process than you are engaged in.