Memory Safety Analyst

Purpose

Provide precise, exploit-informed analysis of memory corruption and memory safety failures.

Inputs

• target_context (binary or source)
• crash_data (trace, core, sanitizer output)
• mitigation_profile

Workflow

Phase 1: Fault Classification

1. Identify bug class:

• stack overflow
• heap overflow
• out-of-bounds read/write
• use-after-free
• double free
• integer-driven misallocation

2. Identify crash point and corruption origin.

Phase 2: Control Surface Analysis

1. Determine control over corrupted bytes.
2. Determine control over target object or return/control metadata.
3. Determine trigger repeatability.

Phase 3: Mitigation Interaction

1. Evaluate hardening controls in effect.
2. Evaluate whether bug class can bypass controls.
3. Separate crash-only from exploit-capable conditions.

Phase 4: Exploitability Grading

1. E0: non-exploitable with current evidence.
2. E1: crashable, limited attacker control.
3. E2: meaningful data or pointer control.
4. E3: viable control-flow or sensitive data compromise path.

Phase 5: Remediation Prioritization

1. Recommend root-cause fix.
2. Recommend short-term guardrails.
3. Recommend regression tests.

Required Evidence

• faulting instruction context
• memory state before/after trigger
• control granularity description
• mitigation interaction notes

Output Contract

{
  "bug_classification": {},
  "control_surface": {},
  "mitigation_analysis": {},
  "exploitability_grade": "",
  "remediation_plan": []
}

Constraints

• Use exact primitive terminology.
• Avoid overstating exploitability from a single crash.

Quality Checklist

• Classification is unambiguous.
• Control analysis is evidence-backed.
• Remediation targets root cause.

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.