DOCSLIB.ORG

Krakatoa: Decompilation in Java (Does Bytecode Reveal Source?)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Krakatoa: Decompilation in Java (Does Bytecode Reveal Source?) The following paper was originally published in the Proceedings of the Third USENIX Conference on Object-Oriented Technologies and Systems Portland, Oregon, June 1997 Krakatoa: Decompilation in Java (Does Bytecode Reveal Source?) Todd A. Proebsting, Scott A. Watterson The University of Arizona For more information about USENIX Association contact: 1. Phone: 510 528-8649 2. FAX: 510 548-5738 3. Email: [email protected] 4. WWW URL: http://www.usenix.org Krakatoa: Decompilation in Java Does Bytecode Reveal Source? To dd A. Pro ebsting Scott A. Watterson The University of Arizona Abstract well known. Presently,we fo cus our researchon two subproblems: recovering source-level expres- This pap er presents our technique for automati- sions and synthesizing high-level control constructs cally decompiling Javabyteco de into Java source. from goto-like primitives. Our technique reconstructs source-level expres- Krakatoa uses a stack-simulation technique to re- sions from byteco de, and reconstructs readable, cover expressions and p erform typ e inference. Ex- high-level control statements from primitive goto- pression recovery creates source-level assignments like branches. Fewer than a dozen simple co de- and comparisons from primitivebyteco de op era- rewriting rules reconstruct the high-level state- tions. We extend Ramshaw's goto-elimination al- ments. gorithm to structure and create source for ar- bitrary reducible control ow graphs. This tech- nique pro duces source co de with lo ops and multi- 1 Intro duction level break's. Subsequent techniques recover more intuitive constructs e.g., if statements via appli- Decompilation transforms a low-level language into cation of simple co de rewrite rules. a high-level language. The Java Virtual Machine JVM sp eci es a low-level byteco de language for a Traditional decompilation systems use graph stack-based machine [LY97]. This language de nes transformations to recover high-level control con- 203 op erators, with most of the control ow sp eci- structs. These systems require the author of the ed by simple explicit transfers and lab els. Compil- decompiler to anticipate all high-level control id- ing a Java class yields a class le that contains typ e ioms. When faced with an unexp ected language information and byteco de. The JVM requires a sig- idiom, these systems either ab ort, or pro duce gotos ni cant amountoftyp e information from the class illegal in Java. Krakatoa represents a di erent ap- les for ob ject linking. Furthermore, the byteco de proach. Krakatoa rst pro duces legal Java source must b e veri ably wel l-behaved in order to ensure given legal Javabyteco de with arbitrary reducible safe execution. Decompilation systems can exploit control ow, and then recovers intuitive high-level this typ e information and well-b ehaved prop ertyto constructs from this source. recover Java source co de from the class le. We present a technique for transforming low-level Figure 1 gives the ve steps of decompilation Javabyteco de into legal Java source co de. Our sys- p erformed by Krakatoa. First, the expression 1 tem, Krakatoa, p erforms typ e inference to issue builder reads byteco de, recovers expressions and lo cal variable declarations. The veri er do es the typ e information, and pro duces a control ow same typeoftyp e inference, and the techniques are graph CFG. Next, the sequencer orders the CFG no des for Ramshaw's goto-elimination technique. Address: Department of Computer Science, Uni- Ramshaw's algorithm pro duces a convoluted|yet versity of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721; Email: fto dd, [email protected]. legal|Java abstract syntax tree AST. Our sys- 1 Krakatoa is a volcano lo cated in the Sunda Strait b e- tem then transforms this AST into a less convo- tween Java and Sumatra. Its 1983 eruption threw ve cubic luted AST using a set of simple rewrites. The nal miles of debris into the air and was heard 2200 miles away in Australia. phase pro duces Java source by traversing the AST. class foo { int sam; Java Bytecodes int barint a, int b { if sam > a { Expression Builder b = a*2; } Flow graph with expressions and conditional gotos return b; } Node Sequencer } Augmented Flow graph Compiled from foo.java class foo extends java.lang.Object { int sam; Goto Eliminator (Ramshaw's Algorithm) int barint,int; Java AST Method int barint,int 0 aload_0 Code Simplifier 1 getfield 3 <Field foo.sam I> 4 iload_1 Restructured Java AST 5 if_icmple 12 8 iload_1 Final Java printer 9 iconst_2 10 imul Java Source 11 istore_2 12 iload_2 13 ireturn } Figure 1: Java Byteco de Decompilation System Figure 2: Simple Metho d and Byteco de Disassem- bly via javap -c. 2 Expression Recovery instance, iload_1, which loads the value of the Javabyteco des b ear a very close corresp ondence rst lo cal variable|with typ e int|could b e rep- to Java source. As a result, recovering expres- resented on the stackas\i1". Similarly,if i1 and sions from Javabyteco de is often simple|much 2 were the top two elements of the symb olic stack, simpler than recovering expressions from machine and the next byteco de were iadd integer addition, language. Java class les include information that those elements would b e p opp ed o the stack and makes recovering high-level op erations like eld ref- replaced with \i1+2". The symb olic execution erences easy. The fact that the byteco de must b e of some expressions, like assignment, requires emit- well-b ehaved i.e., veri able also simpli es analy- ting Java source. sis. Figure 2 gives a sample program and its abbre- Our algorithm recovers expressions one basic viated disassembly. Note the level of typ e informa- blo ck at a time. Some basic blo cks such as those tion in the disassembly pro duced by Sun's javap pro duced by the conditional expression op eration, utility. A?B:C do not b egin with empty stacks, so some Symb olic execution of the byteco de creates the information is required to prop ogate from prede- corresp onding Java source expressions. It also cre- cessors. Also, basic blo cks that b egin exception- ates conditional and unconditional goto's, which handling blo cks|which are easily identi ed|b egin will b e removed by subsequent decompilation steps. with the raised exception on the stack. Symb olic execution simulates the Java Virtual Ma- Figure 3 provides the step-by-step decompilation chine's evaluation stack with strings that represent of the byteco de in Figure 2. The initial aload_0 the source-level expressions b eing computed. For instruction pushes a Java reference onto the stack. program with exactly the same control owasthe In virtual functions, the \0'th" lo cal variable, a0, goto-only program. always refers to this. The getfield instruction Ramshaw's algorithm requires two inputs: the references a named eld, \sam", of the current top control ow graph, and an instruction ordering. His of stack. Therefore, the \this" is p opp ed and algorithm enco des this order into the ow graph replaced with \this.sam". iload_1 pushes \i1" using augmenting edges, such that every instruc- onto the stack. The ifcmple compares the top two tion has an augmenting edge to the next instruc- stack elements and branches to the appropriate in- tion in sequence. These augmenting edges o ccur struction if the lower is less than or equal to the between every pair of physically adjacent instruc- top element. Symb olically executing the ifcmple tions even if actual control owbetween them is requires p opping the top two elements and emit- imp ossible. He proves that if this augmented graph ting the appropriate conditional branch. Translat- is reducible, then a structural ly equivalent [PKT73] ing the remaining instructions is similar. program can b e created without goto's. How- ever, Ramshaw provides no algorithm for nding Most of the byteco de instructions are equally a reducible augmented ow graph from a given re- simple to symb olically execute. Unfortunately,a ducible ow graph. few require more information. Some of the stack The control- ow graphs of Java programs are manipulation routines e.g., pop2, dup2, etc. de- reducible. Therefore, the compiled byteco de will p end on byte o sets from the stack top. For in- likely form a reducible control- ow graph. Unfor- stance, pop2 removes the top 8 bytes from the tunately, simple optimizations likeloopinversion stack, whether those 8 bytes represent one 8-byte create irreducible augmented ow graphs. The ow double value, or two 4-byte scalar values. To cor- graph of the program in Figure 8 has this problem rectly simulate these instructions the symb olic ex- b ecause the augmenting edge b etween the rst two ecution keeps track of the size and typ e of each statements creates a \jump" into the b o dy of the stack element. lo op formed by the next seven statements. To utilize Ramshaw's algorithm, we develop ed an 3 Instruction Ordering algorithm that orders a reducible graph's instruc- tions such that the resulting augmented graph is After recovering expressions, conditional and un- also reducible. conditional goto's along with implicit fal l through b ehavior determine control ow. Java, however, 3.1 Augmenting the Flow Graph has no goto statement, so its control owmust b e expressed with structured statements. Creating a reducible augmented ow graph re- Ramshaw presented an algorithm for eliminating quires that no augmenting edge enters a lo op any- goto's from Pascal programs while preserving the where other than at its header.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The LLVM Instruction Set and Compilation Strategy
    The LLVM Instruction Set and Compilation Strategy Chris Lattner Vikram Adve University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign lattner,vadve ¡ @cs.uiuc.edu Abstract This document introduces the LLVM compiler infrastructure and instruction set, a simple approach that enables sophisticated code transformations at link time, runtime, and in the field. It is a pragmatic approach to compilation, interfering with programmers and tools as little as possible, while still retaining extensive high-level information from source-level compilers for later stages of an application’s lifetime. We describe the LLVM instruction set, the design of the LLVM system, and some of its key components. 1 Introduction Modern programming languages and software practices aim to support more reliable, flexible, and powerful software applications, increase programmer productivity, and provide higher level semantic information to the compiler. Un- fortunately, traditional approaches to compilation either fail to extract sufficient performance from the program (by not using interprocedural analysis or profile information) or interfere with the build process substantially (by requiring build scripts to be modified for either profiling or interprocedural optimization). Furthermore, they do not support optimization either at runtime or after an application has been installed at an end-user’s site, when the most relevant information about actual usage patterns would be available. The LLVM Compilation Strategy is designed to enable effective multi-stage optimization (at compile-time, link-time, runtime, and offline) and more effective profile-driven optimization, and to do so without changes to the traditional build process or programmer intervention. LLVM (Low Level Virtual Machine) is a compilation strategy that uses a low-level virtual instruction set with rich type information as a common code representation for all phases of compilation.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward IFVM Virtual Machine: a Model Driven IFML Interpretation
    Toward IFVM Virtual Machine: A Model Driven IFML Interpretation Sara Gotti and Samir Mbarki MISC Laboratory, Faculty of Sciences, Ibn Tofail University, BP 133, Kenitra, Morocco Keywords: Interaction Flow Modelling Language IFML, Model Execution, Unified Modeling Language (UML), IFML Execution, Model Driven Architecture MDA, Bytecode, Virtual Machine, Model Interpretation, Model Compilation, Platform Independent Model PIM, User Interfaces, Front End. Abstract: UML is the first international modeling language standardized since 1997. It aims at providing a standard way to visualize the design of a system, but it can't model the complex design of user interfaces and interactions. However, according to MDA approach, it is necessary to apply the concept of abstract models to user interfaces too. IFML is the OMG adopted (in March 2013) standard Interaction Flow Modeling Language designed for abstractly expressing the content, user interaction and control behaviour of the software applications front-end. IFML is a platform independent language, it has been designed with an executable semantic and it can be mapped easily into executable applications for various platforms and devices. In this article we present an approach to execute the IFML. We introduce a IFVM virtual machine which translate the IFML models into bytecode that will be interpreted by the java virtual machine. 1 INTRODUCTION a fundamental standard fUML (OMG, 2011), which is a subset of UML that contains the most relevant The software development has been affected by the part of class diagrams for modeling the data apparition of the MDA (OMG, 2015) approach. The structure and activity diagrams to specify system trend of the 21st century (BRAMBILLA et al., behavior; it contains all UML elements that are 2014) which has allowed developers to build their helpful for the execution of the models.
    [Show full text]
  • Superoptimization of Webassembly Bytecode
    Superoptimization of WebAssembly Bytecode Javier Cabrera Arteaga Shrinish Donde Jian Gu Orestis Floros [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Lucas Satabin Benoit Baudry Martin Monperrus [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT 2 BACKGROUND Motivated by the fast adoption of WebAssembly, we propose the 2.1 WebAssembly first functional pipeline to support the superoptimization of Web- WebAssembly is a binary instruction format for a stack-based vir- Assembly bytecode. Our pipeline works over LLVM and Souper. tual machine [17]. As described in the WebAssembly Core Specifica- We evaluate our superoptimization pipeline with 12 programs from tion [7], WebAssembly is a portable, low-level code format designed the Rosetta code project. Our pipeline improves the code section for efficient execution and compact representation. WebAssembly size of 8 out of 12 programs. We discuss the challenges faced in has been first announced publicly in 2015. Since 2017, it has been superoptimization of WebAssembly with two case studies. implemented by four major web browsers (Chrome, Edge, Firefox, and Safari). A paper by Haas et al. [11] formalizes the language and 1 INTRODUCTION its type system, and explains the design rationale. The main goal of WebAssembly is to enable high performance After HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, WebAssembly (WASM) has be- applications on the web. WebAssembly can run as a standalone VM come the fourth standard language for web development [7]. This or in other environments such as Arduino [10]. It is independent new language has been designed to be fast, platform-independent, of any specific hardware or languages and can be compiled for and experiments have shown that WebAssembly can have an over- modern architectures or devices, from a wide variety of high-level head as low as 10% compared to native code [11].
    [Show full text]
  • Coqjvm: an Executable Specification of the Java Virtual Machine Using
    CoqJVM: An Executable Specification of the Java Virtual Machine using Dependent Types Robert Atkey LFCS, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh Mayfield Rd, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, UK [email protected] Abstract. We describe an executable specification of the Java Virtual Machine (JVM) within the Coq proof assistant. The principal features of the development are that it is executable, meaning that it can be tested against a real JVM to gain confidence in the correctness of the specification; and that it has been written with heavy use of dependent types, this is both to structure the model in a useful way, and to constrain the model to prevent spurious partiality. We describe the structure of the formalisation and the way in which we have used dependent types. 1 Introduction Large scale formalisations of programming languages and systems in mechanised theorem provers have recently become popular [4–6, 9]. In this paper, we describe a formalisation of the Java virtual machine (JVM) [8] in the Coq proof assistant [11]. The principal features of this formalisation are that it is executable, meaning that a purely functional JVM can be extracted from the Coq development and – with some O’Caml glue code – executed on real Java bytecode output from the Java compiler; and that it is structured using dependent types. The motivation for this development is to act as a basis for certified consumer- side Proof-Carrying Code (PCC) [12]. We aim to prove the soundness of program logics and correctness of proof checkers against the model, and extract the proof checkers to produce certified stand-alone tools.
    [Show full text]
  • Program Dynamic Analysis Overview
    4/14/16 Program Dynamic Analysis Overview • Dynamic Analysis • JVM & Java Bytecode [2] • A Java bytecode engineering library: ASM [1] 2 1 4/14/16 What is dynamic analysis? [3] • The investigation of the properties of a running software system over one or more executions 3 Has anyone done dynamic analysis? [3] • Loggers • Debuggers • Profilers • … 4 2 4/14/16 Why dynamic analysis? [3] • Gap between run-time structure and code structure in OO programs Trying to understand one [structure] from the other is like trying to understand the dynamism of living ecosystems from the static taxonomy of plants and animals, and vice-versa. -- Erich Gamma et al., Design Patterns 5 Why dynamic analysis? • Collect runtime execution information – Resource usage, execution profiles • Program comprehension – Find bugs in applications, identify hotspots • Program transformation – Optimize or obfuscate programs – Insert debugging or monitoring code – Modify program behaviors on the fly 6 3 4/14/16 How to do dynamic analysis? • Instrumentation – Modify code or runtime to monitor specific components in a system and collect data – Instrumentation approaches • Source code modification • Byte code modification • VM modification • Data analysis 7 A Running Example • Method call instrumentation – Given a program’s source code, how do you modify the code to record which method is called by main() in what order? public class Test { public static void main(String[] args) { if (args.length == 0) return; if (args.length % 2 == 0) printEven(); else printOdd(); } public
    [Show full text]
  • A New JIT Compiler in Zing JVM Agenda
    Falcon a new JIT compiler in Zing JVM Agenda • What is Falcon? Why do we need a new compiler? • Why did we decide to use LLVM? • What does it take to make a Java JIT from LLVM? • How does it fit with exiting technology, like ReadyNow? 2 Zing JVM Zing: A better JVM • Commercial server JVM • Key features • C4 GC, ReadyNow!, Falcon 5 What is Falcon? • Top tier JIT compiler in Zing JVM • Replacement for С2 compiler • Based on LLVM 6 Development Timeline PoC GA on by default Apr Dec Apr 2014 2016 2017 Estimated resource investment ~20 man-years (team of 4-6 people) 7 Why do we need a new compiler? • Zing used to have C2 like OpenJDK • C2 is aging poorly — difficult to maintain and evolve • Looking for competitive advantage over competition 8 Alternatives • Writing compiler from scratch? Too hard • Open-source compilers • GCC, Open64, Graal, LLVM… 9 Alternatives • Writing compiler from scratch? Too hard • Open-source compilers short list • Graal vs LLVM 10 “The LLVM Project is a collection of modular and reusable compiler and toolchain technologies” – llvm.org Where LLVM is used? • C/C++/Objective C • Swift • Haskell • Rust • … 12 Who makes LLVM? More than 500 developers 13 LLVM • Started in 2000 • Stable and mature • Proven performance for C/C++ code 14 LLVM IR General-purpose high-level assembler int mul_add(int x, int y, int z) { return x * y + z; } define i32 @mul_add(i32 %x, i32 %y, i32 %z) { entry: %tmp = mul i32 %x, %y %tmp2 = add i32 %tmp, %z ret i32 %tmp2 } 15 Infrastructure provides • Analysis, transformations • LLVM IR => LLVM IR •
    [Show full text]
  • JVM Bytecode
    Michael Rasmussen ZeroTurnaround Intro The JVM as a Stack Machine Bytecode taxonomy Stack manipulation Using locals Control flow Method invocation Tooling Next time public class Test { public static void main(String[] args) { System.out.println("Hello World!"); } } 00000000 ca fe ba be 00 00 00 31 00 22 0a 00 06 00 14 09 |.......1."......| 00000010 00 15 00 16 08 00 17 0a 00 18 00 19 07 00 1a 07 |................| 00000020 00 1b 01 00 06 3c 69 6e 69 74 3e 01 00 03 28 29 |.....<init>...()| 00000030 56 01 00 04 43 6f 64 65 01 00 0f 4c 69 6e 65 4e |V...Code...LineN| 00000040 75 6d 62 65 72 54 61 62 6c 65 01 00 12 4c 6f 63 |umberTable...Loc| 00000050 61 6c 56 61 72 69 61 62 6c 65 54 61 62 6c 65 01 |alVariableTable.| 00000060 00 04 74 68 69 73 01 00 06 4c 54 65 73 74 3b 01 |..this...LTest;.| 00000070 00 04 6d 61 69 6e 01 00 16 28 5b 4c 6a 61 76 61 |..main...([Ljava| 00000080 2f 6c 61 6e 67 2f 53 74 72 69 6e 67 3b 29 56 01 |/lang/String;)V.| 00000090 00 04 61 72 67 73 01 00 13 5b 4c 6a 61 76 61 2f |..args...[Ljava/| 000000a0 6c 61 6e 67 2f 53 74 72 69 6e 67 3b 01 00 0a 53 |lang/String;...S| . 000001d0 b6 00 04 b1 00 00 00 02 00 0a 00 00 00 0a 00 02 |................| 000001e0 00 00 00 04 00 08 00 05 00 0b 00 00 00 0c 00 01 |................| 000001f0 00 00 00 09 00 10 00 11 00 00 00 01 00 12 00 00 |................| 00000200 00 02 00 13 |....| Compiled from "Test.java” public class Test { public Test(); Code: 0: aload_0 1: invokespecial #1 // Method java/lang/Object."<init>":()V 4: return public static void main(java.lang.String[]); Code: 0: getstatic #2 // Field java/lang/System.out:Ljava/io/PrintStream; 3: ldc #3 // String Hello World! 5: invokevirtual #4 // Method java/io/PrintStream.println: // (Ljava/lang/String;)V 8: return } Welcome my son Welcome to the machine Where have you been? It's alright we know where you've been.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 1: Introduction to Java®
    Lecture 1: Introduction to Java MIT-AITI Kenya 2005 1 Lecture Outline • What a computer program is • How to write a computer program • The disadvantages and advantages of using Java • How a program that you write in Java is changed into a form that your computer can understand • Sample Java code and comments MIT-Africa Internet Technology Initiative ©2005 2 Computer Program vs. Food Recipe Food Recipe Computer Program A chef writes a set of A programmer writes a set of instructions called a recipe instructions called a program The recipe requires specific The program requires specific ingredients inputs The cook follows the The computer follows the instructions step-by-step instructions step-by-step The food will vary depending on The output will vary depending the amount of ingredients and on the values of the inputs and the cook the computer MIT-Africa Internet Technology Initiative ©2005 3 Recipe and Program Examples Student’s Student’s Ingredient # 1 Ingredient # 2 Name Grade Recipe Program Dinner “Bilha got an A on the exam!” MIT-Africa Internet Technology Initiative ©2005 4 What is a computer program? • For a computer to be able to perform specific tasks (i.e. print what grade a student got on an exam), it must be given instructions to do the task • The set of instructions that tells the computer to perform specific tasks is known as a computer program MIT-Africa Internet Technology Initiative ©2005 5 Writing Computer Programs • We write computer programs (i.e. a set of instructions) in programming languages such as C, Pascal, and
    [Show full text]
  • Language Processors Interpreter Compiler Bytecode Interpreter Just
    Interpreter Compiler Source Program Source Program Language Processors COMS W4115 Input Interpreter Output Compiler Prof. Stephen A. Edwards Fall 2004 Columbia University Input Executable Program Output Department of Computer Science Bytecode Interpreter Just-in-time Compiler Language Speeds Compared Language Impl. C gcc Source Program Ocaml ocaml SML mlton Source Program C++ g++ SML smlnj Common Lisp cmucl Scheme bigloo Ocaml ocamlb Compiler Java java Pike pike Forth gforth Lua lua Compiler Python python Perl perl Ruby ruby Bytecode Eiffel se Mercury mercury Awk mawk Haskell ghc Lisp rep Icon icon Bytecode Tcl tcl Javascript njs Scheme guile Just-in-time Compiler Forth bigforth Erlang erlang Awk gawk Input Output Emacs Lisp xemacs Scheme stalin Input Bytecode Interpreter Output PHP php Machine Code Bash bash bytecodes native code JIT Threaded code http://www.bagley.org/˜doug/shootout/ Separate Compilation Preprocessor The C Preprocessor foo.c bar.c “Massages” the input before the compiler sees it. cc -E example.c gives #include <stdio.h> extern int C compiler cc: • Macro expansion #define min(x, y) \ printf(char*,...); ((x)<(y))?(x):(y) ... many more declarations • foo.s bar.s printf.o fopen.o malloc.o · · · File inclusion #ifdef DEFINE_BAZ from stdio.h • Conditional compilation int baz(); Assembler as: #endif Archiver ar: void foo() void foo() · · · foo.o bar.o libc.a { { int a = 1; int a = 1; int b = 2; int b = 2; Linker ld: int c; int c; foo — An Executable c = min(a,b); c = ((a)<(b))?(a):(b); } } Compiling a Simple Program What the
    [Show full text]
  • A Little on V8 and Webassembly
    A Little on V8 and WebAssembly An V8 Engine Perspective Ben L. Titzer WebAssembly Runtime TLM Background ● A bit about me ● A bit about V8 and JavaScript ● A bit about virtual machines Some history ● JavaScript ⇒ asm.js (2013) ● asm.js ⇒ wasm prototypes (2014-2015) ● prototypes ⇒ production (2015-2017) This talk mostly ● production ⇒ maturity (2017- ) ● maturity ⇒ future (2019- ) WebAssembly in a nutshell ● Low-level bytecode designed to be fast to verify and compile ○ Explicit non-goal: fast to interpret ● Static types, argument counts, direct/indirect calls, no overloaded operations ● Unit of code is a module ○ Globals, data initialization, functions ○ Imports, exports WebAssembly module example header: 8 magic bytes types: TypeDecl[] ● Binary format imports: ImportDecl[] ● Type declarations funcdecl: FuncDecl[] ● Imports: tables: TableDecl[] ○ Types memories: MemoryDecl[] ○ Functions globals: GlobalVar[] ○ Globals exports: ExportDecl[] ○ Memory ○ Tables code: FunctionBody[] ● Tables, memories data: Data[] ● Global variables ● Exports ● Function bodies (bytecode) WebAssembly bytecode example func: (i32, i32)->i32 get_local[0] ● Typed if[i32] ● Stack machine get_local[0] ● Structured control flow i32.load_mem[8] ● One large flat memory else ● Low-level memory operations get_local[1] ● Low-level arithmetic i32.load_mem[12] end i32.const[42] i32.add end Anatomy of a Wasm engine ● Load and validate wasm bytecode ● Allocate internal data structures ● Execute: compile or interpret wasm bytecode ● JavaScript API integration ● Memory management
    [Show full text]
  • Vulnerability Discovery in Closed Source / Bytecode Encrypted PHP Applications Stefan Esser
    Vulnerability Discovery in Closed Source / Bytecode Encrypted PHP Applications Stefan Esser Power Of Community November 2008 Seoul Who am I? Stefan Esser • from Cologne/Germany • 10 years in Information Security • 8 years PHP Core Developer • Month of PHP Bugs & Suhosin • Head of Research & Development at SektionEins GmbH Stefan Esser • Vulnerability Discovery in Closed Source / Encrypted PHP Applications • November 2008 • 2 What the talk is about... • PHP Source Code Encryption • PHP Bytecode Recovery & Visualisation • Vulnerability Discovery in Bytecode • Decompilation Stefan Esser • Vulnerability Discovery in Closed Source / Encrypted PHP Applications • November 2008 • 3 Why PHP Source Code Encryption closed source PHP applications • as protection of intellectual property • as protection of software license systems • as protection against tampering • to hide own IP violations Stefan Esser • Vulnerability Discovery in Closed Source / Encrypted PHP Applications • November 2008 • 4 PHP Source Code Encryption (I) This talk is not about user-space runtime encryption <?php $z=_;$x=32;$z.=decode;$y=base;$x<<=1;$f=$y.$x. $z;eval($f(JHggPSJUaGUgZmlyc3Qgb25lIHdobyBkZWNyeXB0cyB0aGlzIGdldH MgYSBib3R0bGUgb2Ygc29qdSI7ZWNobyAiSGVsbG8gV29ybGRcbiI7));?> such encryption is defeated by hooking eval() and dumping the source code Stefan Esser • Vulnerability Discovery in Closed Source / Encrypted PHP Applications • November 2008 • 5 PHP Source Code Encryption (II) • more secure encryption • needs to be implemented below user-space • should eliminate source code completely • requires loadable PHP modules • works directly on PHP bytecode Stefan Esser • Vulnerability Discovery in Closed Source / Encrypted PHP Applications • November 2008 • 6 PHP Source Code Encryption (III) <?php ... zend_compile() PHP Bytecode zend_execute() Stefan Esser • Vulnerability Discovery in Closed Source / Encrypted PHP Applications • November 2008 • 7 PHP Source Code Encryption (IV) <?php ..
    [Show full text]
  • Extensible Virtual Machines
    UCAM-CL-TR-525 Technical Report ISSN 1476-2986 Number 525 Computer Laboratory Extensible virtual machines Timothy L. Harris December 2001 JJ Thomson Avenue Cambridge CB3 0FD United Kingdom phone +44 1223 763500 http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/ c 2001 Timothy L. Harris This technical report is based on a dissertation submitted by the author for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy to the University of Cambridge. Technical reports published by the University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory are freely available via the Internet: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/TechReports/ Series editor: Markus Kuhn ISSN 1476-2986 Abstract Virtual machines (vms) have enjoyed a resurgence as a way of allowing the same application program to be used across a range of computer systems. This flexibility comes from the abstraction that the vm provides over the native interface of a particular computer. However, this also means that the application is prevented from taking the features of particular physical machines into account in its implementation. This dissertation addresses the question of why, where and how it is useful, possible and practicable to provide an application with access to lower-level interfaces. It argues that many aspects of vm implementation can be devolved safely to untrusted applications and demonstrates this through a prototype which allows control over run-time compilation, object placement within the heap and thread scheduling. The proposed architecture separates these application-specific policy implementations from the application itself. This allows one application to be used with different policies on different systems and also allows naïve or premature optimizations to be removed.
    [Show full text]