Binary Recon

Purpose

Create a reliable initial profile that drives deeper vulnerability analysis.

Inputs

• binary_path
• target_platform
• runtime_assumptions (optional)

Workflow

Phase 1: Metadata and Build Context

1. Determine architecture, endianness, and binary format.
2. Identify static vs dynamic linking and dependency footprint.
3. Record compiler and build artifacts when detectable.

Phase 2: Hardening Profile

1. Check PIE, NX, RELRO, stack canary, Fortify.
2. Check symbol stripping and debug artifact presence.
3. Check obvious sandboxing or seccomp hints.

Phase 3: Interface Discovery

1. Enumerate exported/imported functions.
2. Extract protocol and command strings.
3. Identify input channels: argv, env, file parsers, network listeners.

Phase 4: Hotspot Prioritization

1. Parser-heavy code and format handlers.
2. Memory-manipulation and boundary logic.
3. Auth and crypto decision paths.
4. Dangerous call clusters.

Phase 5: Recon Handoff

1. Build prioritized function list.
2. Add rationale for each priority target.
3. Define proof requirements for deep analysis.

Recon Artifacts

Artifact	Why It Matters
hardening matrix	exploitability baseline
symbol/function map	navigation and targeting
string corpus	protocol and feature hints
risky function clusters	likely vulnerability density

Output Contract

{
  "binary_profile": {},
  "hardening_matrix": {},
  "interface_map": [],
  "priority_targets": [],
  "deep_analysis_requirements": []
}

Constraints

• Keep recon low-cost and repeatable.
• Do not produce exploit claims in recon.

Quality Checklist

• Hardening profile is complete.
• Input channels are mapped.
• Priority targets are justified.

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.