Binary Analysis Core

Purpose

Provide a disciplined baseline workflow for vulnerability-oriented binary analysis.

Inputs

• binary_path
• architecture
• runtime_environment
• recon_targets (optional)

Analysis Workflow

Phase 1: Structural Analysis

1. Build call graph and function role map.
2. Identify parser paths and data transformations.
3. Locate boundary checks and memory operations.

Phase 2: Primitive Hunting

1. Stack/heap overflow opportunities.
2. UAF/double-free and allocator misuse.
3. Integer arithmetic leading to memory mis-sizing.
4. Format string and command construction flaws.

Phase 3: Control and Data Influence

1. Determine attacker control over size, offset, and content.
2. Determine repeatability and trigger reliability.
3. Determine crashability vs control-flow influence.

Phase 4: Dynamic Validation

1. Instrument breakpoints around candidate primitives.
2. Validate assumptions under realistic input.
3. Capture traces that prove or refute exploit conditions.

Phase 5: Prioritized Findings

1. Rank by exploitability and preconditions.
2. Note required bypasses for mitigations.
3. Prepare handoff for exploit development.

Primitive Classification

Class	Required Proof
overflow	controlled overwrite target and bounds failure
UAF	stale reference reuse with attacker influence
integer	arithmetic error drives dangerous memory behavior
format string	attacker-controlled format reaches formatter

Output Contract

{
  "analysis_scope": {},
  "candidate_primitives": [],
  "validated_primitives": [],
  "mitigation_interactions": [],
  "exploitability_ranking": []
}

Constraints

• Distinguish speculation from validated behavior.
• Keep architecture assumptions explicit.

Quality Checklist

• Candidate primitives include proof strategy.
• Dynamic checks support conclusions.
• Ranking reflects real attacker constraints.

Detailed Operator Notes

Validation Discipline

• Confirm static assumptions with targeted runtime checks.
• Keep one controlled input per hypothesis.
• Separate symbol-level hints from observed behavior.

Exploitability Heuristics

• Control quality over corrupted bytes/pointers.
• Trigger repeatability across process restarts.
• Mitigation interaction required for practical exploitation.

Common Blind Spots

• Architecture-specific undefined behavior differences.
• Parser edge cases reachable only through nested formats.
• Configuration-dependent code paths not visible in default runs.

Reporting Rules

• Include prerequisite runtime conditions.
• Include why alternative bug classes were rejected.
• Include a minimal regression-test suggestion for remediation.

Quick Scenarios

Scenario A: Control Validation

• Trigger candidate primitive with minimal input.
• Confirm memory/register side effect.
• Repeat across restarts for stability.
• Record constraints that break control.

Scenario B: Mitigation Interaction

• Confirm active hardening controls.
• Test whether primitive survives mitigations.
• Distinguish crash-only from exploit-capable outcomes.
• Capture bypass requirements if needed.

Scenario C: Reporting Readiness

• Verify prerequisite environment notes.
• Verify reproduction steps are deterministic.
• Verify impact statement is evidence-bound.
• Verify remediation target is specific.

Conditional Decision Matrix

Condition	Action	Evidence Requirement
Crash reproduces inconsistently	reduce input and isolate triggering fields	minimal trigger artifact
Primitive appears but control unclear	instrument memory/register checkpoints	control-surface trace
Mitigation blocks direct exploitation	model required bypass preconditions	mitigation interaction notes
Parser path uncertain	force parser branch with crafted corpus	branch-selection evidence
Static finding lacks runtime proof	add targeted runtime probe before reporting	runtime validation artifact

Advanced Coverage Extensions

1. Compare behavior across compiler optimization levels when possible.
2. Check locale/encoding effects on parser and boundary logic.
3. Check integer truncation across 32/64-bit interfaces.
4. Check allocator behavior differences under memory pressure.
5. Check cryptographic error oracles via differential response paths.