Prev: Call for review: Hashing by hand algorithm
Next: An application of indirectness and variability
From: balzer on 23 Apr 2010 17:25
does anyone know good and reliable PE scrambler?
some time ago there were some cool PE Scrambler utility (console
application) with very interesting technique that scrambled and obfuscated
compiled binaries at the machine code instruction level. Also obfuscated
function calls. But time goes ahead and
counter programs have learnt to decompile even such sophisticated methods,
and binaries scrambled with this tool now detected. Perhaps someone have own
idea how to make strong scrambler, or even source code of this tool.

From: unruh on 23 Apr 2010 17:48
On 2010-04-23, balzer <balzer(a)news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
> does anyone know good and reliable PE scrambler?
> some time ago there were some cool PE Scrambler utility (console
> application) with very interesting technique that scrambled and obfuscated
> compiled binaries at the machine code instruction level. Also obfuscated
> function calls. But time goes ahead and
> counter programs have learnt to decompile even such sophisticated methods,
> and binaries scrambled with this tool now detected. Perhaps someone have own
> idea how to make strong scrambler, or even source code of this tool.
>

Write it in Forth. the code is very effectively scrambled.

From: Mok-Kong Shen on 24 Apr 2010 03:16
balzer wrote:
> does anyone know good and reliable PE scrambler?

I don't know, but wouldn't it be a tremendous risk in using
such software in view of the fact that decades of efforts
in providing more reliable "normal" software, e.g. in developing
program verification systems and better programming languages
(for example ADA, though people may have different opinions on
that, I surmise), would yet be considered by quite many people today
as not having fully achieved their goals in practice?

M. K. Shen
From: balzer on 25 Apr 2010 06:19

"Mok-Kong Shen" <mok-kong.shen(a)t-online.de> wrote in message
news:hqu5sc$mro$03$1(a)news.t-online.com...
> balzer wrote:
> > does anyone know good and reliable PE scrambler?
>
> I don't know, but wouldn't it be a tremendous risk in using
> such software in view of the fact that decades of efforts
> in providing more reliable "normal" software, e.g. in developing
> program verification systems and better programming languages
> (for example ADA, though people may have different opinions on
> that, I surmise), would yet be considered by quite many people today
> as not having fully achieved their goals in practice?
>
> M. K. Shen

Is there PE cryptors coded in ADA or Fortran? Would be interesting to test
it. Some people still use C++ coded, so that's probably why it's so
unreliable. I know only 1-2 good cryptors that is command line tools, does
not damage executable, add very small stub(5-10KB), and very difficult to
crack encrypted exe.

From: Mok-Kong Shen on 25 Apr 2010 07:07
balzer wrote:

> Is there PE cryptors coded in ADA or Fortran? Would be interesting to test
> it. Some people still use C++ coded, so that's probably why it's so
> unreliable. I know only 1-2 good cryptors that is command line tools, does
> not damage executable, add very small stub(5-10KB), and very difficult to
> crack encrypted exe.

Maybe some experts would help you in that question, though I highly
doubt that. I like however to stress that my metioning of ADA in my
previous follow-up is solely due to the fact that ADA was designed with
a main goal to facilitate more reliable (including in my view hopefully
unambigiously and "clearly"/"obviously" correct) software. So it would
have been a very strong irony indeed, if ADA "itself" is ever being
used to produce a piece of software that "helps" to transform software
products that are "regularly" developed into ones that are more obscure
and ambiguous (and probably IMHO more likely to lead to errors).

M. K. Shen


 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Call for review: Hashing by hand algorithm
Next: An application of indirectness and variability