in reply to Re^5: Interpreting Assembly
in thread Interpreting Assembly

> ... but this doesn't matter much because your approach(es) are far away from what I would ever consider. :)

;) That's close to challenging me.

Admittedly, the whole approach is not exactly, what I'd consider good programming practice.

But since I've got a special goal, this might justify the .special. tools.

And an assembly interpreter could be of some use; for debugging, e.g.

Oh, about reverse engineering and the obfuscator,
youtube: REcon 2015 - The movfuscator (Christopher Domas) 33m20s
--nope. :)

There are a few parts, the password hashing, salting and storage to be exact, where this is exactly what I need.

I still don't really get, how a program consisting of only mov instructions can work.
But this seems perfect.

Albeit I again have to reread the encryption algorithms now, I must find a way to separate the "secret" passphrase from the rest of the algorithm.
Movfusculating the whole enc-/decryption algorithm might be a tiny little bit hungry for resources.
Even this is great for a cryptographic tool. But the process should finish within, say, a few minutes..

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: Interpreting Assembly
by LanX (Saint) on Dec 04, 2019 at 14:23 UTC
    > I still don't really get, how a program consisting of only mov instructions can work.

    I didn't look into the concrete implementation but...

    In the assembler I used JMP was basically just a MOV into the PC register.

    And any arithmetic calculation can be simulated with lookup tables.

    So what's left?

    > But this seems perfect

    From an academic point of view ... ;)

    Honestly it shouldn't be too difficult to decode once the approach is obvious.

    And security by obscurity is not a very strong approach.

    Cheers Rolf
    (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
    Wikisyntax for the Monastery FootballPerl is like chess, only without the dice

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom