Forensic Blogs

An aggregator for digital forensics blogs

April 14, 2020 by Didier Stevens

Analyzing Malformed ZIP Files

With version 0.0.16 (we are now at version 0.0.18), I updated my zipdump.py tool to handle (deliberately) malformed ZIP files. My zipdump tool uses Python’s ZIP module to analyze ZIP files.

Now, zipdump has a an option (-f) to scan arbitrary binary files for ZIP records.

I will show here how this feature can be used, by analyzing a sample Xavier Mertens wrote a diary entry about. This sample is a Word document with macros, an OOXML (Office Open XML format) file (.docm). It is malformed, because 1) there’s an extra byte at the beginning and 2) there’s a byte missing at the end.

When you use my zipdump tool to look at the file, you get an error:

Using option -f l (list), we can find all PKZIP records inside arbitrary, binary files:

When using option -f with value l, a listing will be created of all PKZIP records found in the file, plus extra data. Some of these entries in this report will have an index, that can be used to select the entry.

In this example, 2 entries can be selected:

p: extra bytes at the beginning of the file (prefix)

1: an end-of-central-directory record (PK0506 end)

Using option -f p, we can select the prefix (extra data at the beginning of the file) for further analysis:

And from this hex/ascii dump, we learn that there is one extra byte at the beginning of the ZIP file, and that it is a newline characters (0x0A).

Using option -f 1, we can select the EOCD record to analyze the ZIP file:

As this generates an error, we need to take a closer look at the EOCD record by adding option -i (info):

With this info, we understand that the missing byte makes that the comment length field is one byte short, and this causes the error seen in previous image.

ZIP files can contain comments (for the ZIP container, and also for individual files): these are stored at the end of the PKZIP records, preceded by a 2-byte long, little-endian integer. This integer is the length of the comment. If there is no comment, this integer is zero (0x00).

Hence, the byte we are missing here is a NULL (0x00) byte. We can append a NULL byte to the sample, and then we should be able to analyze the ZIP file. In stead of modifying the sample, I use my tool cut-bytes.py to add a single NULL byte to the file (suffix option: -s #h#00) and then pipe this into zipdump:

File 5 (vbaProject.bin) contains the VBA macros, and can be piped into oledump.py:

I also created a video:

zipdump_v0_0_18.zip (https)
MD5: 34DC469E8CD4E5D3E9520517DEFED888
SHA256: 270B26217755D7ECBCB6D642FBB349856FAA1AE668DB37D8D106B37D062FADBB

Read the original at: Didier StevensFiled Under: Digital Forensics Tagged With: forensics, maldoc, My Software

January 27, 2020 by Didier Stevens

etl2pcapng: Support For Process IDs

You can start a packet capture on a vanilla Windows machine with command “netsh trace start capture=yes” (and end it with “netsh trace stop”).

This packet capture file, with extension .etl, can not be opened with Wireshark. Until recently, I used Microsoft’s Message Analyzer, but this tool is no longer supported and installation files have been removed from Microsoft’s site.

In comes etl2pcapng, a new open-source utility from Microsoft that converts an .etl file to .pcapng format:

“Utility that converts an .etl file containing a Windows network packet capture into .pcapng format“.

I contributed to version 1.3.0 of etl2pcapng, by adding a comment containing the Process ID to each packet. etl files contain metadata (like the PID of the process associated with the network traffic) that got lost when translating to pcapng format. As the pcapng format has no option to store the PID for each packet, but it supports packet comments, I stored the PID inside packet comments:

Notice this warning by Microsoft:

The output pcapng file will have a comment on each packet indicating the PID of the current process when the packet was logged. WARNING: this is frequently not the same as the actual PID of the process which caused the packet to be sent or to which the packet was delivered, since the packet capture provider often runs in a DPC (which runs in an arbitrary process). The user should keep this in mind when using the PID information.

Read the original at: Didier StevensFiled Under: Digital Forensics Tagged With: forensics, Networking

October 20, 2019 by Didier Stevens

Quickpost: ExifTool, OLE Files and FlashPix Files

ExifTool can misidentify VBA macro files as FlashPix files.

The binary file format of Office documents (.doc, .xls) uses the Compound File Binary Format, what I like to refer as OLE files. These files can be analyzed with my tool oledump.py.

Starting with Office 2007, the default file format (.docx, .docm, .xlsx, …) is Office Open XML: OOXML. It’s in essence a ZIP container with XML files inside. However, VBA macros inside OOXML files (.docm, .xlsm) are not stored as XML files, they are still stored inside an OLE file: the ZIP container contains a file with name vbaProject.bin. That is an OLE file containing the VBA macros.

This can be observed with my zipdump.py tool:

oledump.py can look inside the ZIP container to analyze the embedded vbaProject.bin file:

And of course, it can handle an OLE file directly:

When ExifTool is given a vbaProject.bin file for analysis, it will misidentify it as a picture file: a FlashPix file.

That’s because when ExifTool doesn’t have enough metadata or an identifying extension to identify an OLE file, it will fall back to FlashPix file detection. That’s because FlashPix files are also based on the OLE file format, and AFAIK ExifTool started out as an image tool:

That is why on VirusTotal, vbaProject.bin files from OOXML files with macros, will be misidentified as FlashPix files:

When the extension of a vbaProject.bin file is changed to .doc, ExifTool will misidentify it as a Word document:

ExifTool is not designed to identify VBA macro files (vbaProject.bin). These files are not Office documents, neither pictures. But since they are also OLE files, ExifTool tries to guess what they are, based on the extension, and if that doesn’t help, it falls back to the FlashPix file format (based on OLE).

There’s no “bug” to fix, you just need to be aware of this particular behavior of ExifTool: it is a tool to extract information from media formats, when it analyses an OLE file and doesn’t have enough metadata/proper file extension, it will fall back to FlashPix identification.

 

Quickpost info

Read the original at: Didier StevensFiled Under: Digital Forensics Tagged With: forensics, maldoc, Malware, Quickpost

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • …
  • 34
  • Next Page »

About

This site aggregates posts from various digital forensics blogs. Feel free to take a look around, and make sure to visit the original sites.

  • Contact
  • Aggregated Sites

Suggest a Site

Know of a site we should add? Enter it below

Sending

Jump to Category

All content is copyright the respective author(s)