[Dailydave] Trojan Languages

[Justin Ferguson]

> Obviously one reason is that Immunity has a ton of Python experience. But in trojans, Python is hardly most people's first pick for a language. You're
> hauling 40Mb of code and data with you when you want to run somewhere. This isn't ideal for a lot of scenarios.
> But you're getting one, *very* important thing when you use Python:
> 1. Your most complex code will be a lot less buggy.

So you load a C program to prevent writing bugs in C? Seems like there
is an exportable idea that doesnt require 40MB of interpreter being
hard-baked in, but I dunno.

> People tend to write complex things more CORRECTLY in Python than in Ruby or Lua or (Naudhubillah!) C.

Well the setup is the conjecture of some stuxnet style infiltration
where reliability is requisite. Then the second part is "we have to
pay attention less and debug less if we write it in
$scriptinglanguage", which is sorta an anti-thesis to the first point.
Is Python, Ruby or Lua not written in C? At this point you're trusting
a random assortment of 3rd party developers over your own?

> That reason alone is why the future of remote access trojans is embedded Python engines.

If anything, the small footprint and ease of integration seems to lend
itself more to Lua than Python.

>  If you're trying to build trojans that have emergent behavior, then you need a language that makes that behavior as clear and easy to understand as
> possible.

Are airplanes allowed to use python et al in their control systems? Or
is it more or less plain and straight C with a lot of focus on
debugging and verification of the code paths and such?

> I mean, deep down, I refuse to give any ground whatsoever to the new industry of incident response people who just realized how useful instrumentation > and anomaly detection is. It's time to tool up for the challenges ahead! :>

/signed

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Dave Aitel <dave at immunityinc.com> wrote:
> So as much as Chris tries to drive all of the complexity for INNUENDO to the
> server, I find there's a sort of feature-gravity that makes you want to put
> it onto the client. Even the simplest of modules has a big enough state
> table and complexity that I'm tempted to call it a "Behavior" and not a
> module at all. INNUENDO's client is of course running Python, and I wanted
> to explore WHY for a second.
>
> Obviously one reason is that Immunity has a ton of Python experience. But in
> trojans, Python is hardly most people's first pick for a language. You're
> hauling 40Mb of code and data with you when you want to run somewhere. This
> isn't ideal for a lot of scenarios.
>
> But you're getting one, *very* important thing when you use Python:
>
> 1. Your most complex code will be a lot less buggy.
>
> For advanced remote access trojans, you are operating in a completely
> unknown environment and frankly, you may NEVER be able to update it or reach
> it again. Any detection or failure could be globally catastrophic. This
> means your code has to be forward thinking in a way that is not typical. So
> it simply has to be much more correct than code usually is. People tend to
> write complex things more CORRECTLY in Python than in Ruby or Lua or
> (Naudhubillah!) C. That reason alone is why the future of remote access
> trojans is embedded Python engines. If you're trying to build trojans that
> have emergent behavior, then you need a language that makes that behavior as
> clear and easy to understand as possible.
>
> I mean, deep down, I refuse to give any ground whatsoever to the new
> industry of incident response people who just realized how useful
> instrumentation and anomaly detection is. It's time to tool up for the
> challenges ahead! :>
>
> -dave
> (P.S. You can mess with INNUENDO at INFILTRATE 2014 in Miami!)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dailydave mailing list
> Dailydave at lists.immunityinc.com
> https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave
>