BinDiff Case Studies: Real-World Reverse Engineering ExamplesBinDiff is a binary diffing tool widely used by reverse engineers, vulnerability researchers, and malware analysts to compare compiled binaries, identify similar functions, and track code changes across different builds or variants. This article presents several real-world case studies that illustrate how BinDiff accelerates analysis, uncovers hidden similarities, and supports remediation and attribution efforts. Each case study includes the problem context, the BinDiff-driven approach, key findings, and lessons learned.
Background: What BinDiff does and why it matters
BinDiff analyzes two binary files (or their disassemblies) and produces a mapping between functions, highlighting identical, similar, and unmatched routines. It combines multiple heuristics — function hashes, control-flow graph (CFG) structure, instruction patterns, and data references — to determine similarity scores and propose matches. For reversed-engineering teams, BinDiff reduces repetitive manual work, focuses attention on changed or suspicious regions, and enables rapid triage of new samples or updated software releases.
Case Study 1 — Patching a Closed-Source Application: Identifying Fixes Between Releases
Problem: A vendor released an updated version of a closed-source application after customers reported crashes and data-corruption issues. The client’s internal systems still used the prior version; before deploying the vendor patch, the security team needed to confirm the patch’s scope and ensure no new backdoors were introduced.
Approach:
- Extracted binaries from both versions (v1.2.3 and v1.2.4).
- Imported both into IDA Pro and generated FLIRT signatures where possible.
- Ran BinDiff to produce a function-level correspondence and a ranked list of changed functions.
- Focused manual review on functions flagged as “modified” or “unmatched” with high cyclomatic complexity or many cross-references.
- Used BinDiff’s visualization to inspect altered control-flow and spot added branches or calls to new helper routines.
Key findings:
- Approximately 92% of functions matched as identical; ~6% marked similar and ~2% unmatched.
- Root-cause of the crash was narrowed to a single modified function handling input parsing where additional bounds checks had been added.
- A small number of additional modified functions introduced new logging and telemetry calls — benign but noteworthy.
- No evidence of new network-access routines or obfuscated backdoors.
Lesson: BinDiff rapidly isolated the minimal patch surface, enabling the team to verify that the update fixed the bug and did not introduce suspicious behavior. For closed-source maintenance, diffing releases is often faster and more reliable than searching release notes or running dynamic regressions.
Case Study 2 — Malware Variant Attribution: Linking Samples via Shared Code
Problem: An analyst received several malware samples suspected to belong to the same family but compiled with different packers and minor code changes. They needed to determine whether distinct samples shared core code or were independent binaries.
Approach:
- Unpacked samples when necessary using common unpacking tools and memory-dumping techniques.
- Disassembled with Ghidra and exported function listings.
- Ran pairwise BinDiff comparisons between samples; used a threshold to classify strong matches (e.g., >75% matched functions and many high-confidence function hashes).
- Created a similarity matrix to cluster samples and then prioritized clusters for deeper static and dynamic analysis.
Key findings:
- Two samples that initially appeared dissimilar due to different packer stubs shared >80% of core functions with near-identical CFGs — indicating the same codebase compiled with different options.
- A purportedly related sample shared only ~10% of functions and appeared to be a clean utility; further analysis revealed it was a false positive due to packaging similarities.
- Shared code included an uncommon algorithm for C2 (command-and-control) message framing, which served as a strong fingerprint for family attribution.
Lesson: BinDiff is effective at peeling away packing/obfuscation layers and highlighting core shared code, which helps cluster malware into families and attribute samples to known campaigns. Combining BinDiff matches with unique algorithmic fingerprints yields robust attribution signals.
Case Study 3 — Finding Regression Introduced Vulnerabilities
Problem: During continuous integration, a large application introduced a security regression after a refactor. Dynamic tests failed sporadically, and reproducing the issue in development was time-consuming.
Approach:
- Built or obtained binaries from the last known-good and the faulty build.
- Used BinDiff to detect functions with altered control-flow or new instructions.
- Focused on mismatches in memory-management and serialization-related functions.
- Cross-referenced BinDiff results with sanitizer logs and symbols where available.
Key findings:
- BinDiff highlighted a function where an optimization changed buffer allocation size and removed a conditional check; this omission allowed a size mismatch leading to intermittent overreads.
- The offending change was traced to a refactor that replaced a wrapper routine with an inlined version; the inlined copy missed edge-case handling.
- Fix was minimal: restore the boundary check; rerun tests to confirm regression removal.
Lesson: Function-level diffs pin down subtle refactor-induced bugs faster than source-level code reviews in large codebases where the compilation pipeline can introduce unexpected differences. BinDiff helps bridge compiled artifacts and source-level root causes.
Case Study 4 — Vulnerability Research: Tracking a Patch to Find the Vulnerable Code
Problem: A security researcher wanted to write an exploit for a vulnerability disclosed via a vendor’s security advisory that only provided a patched binary and a brief changelog. The researcher needed to locate the exact vulnerable code region in the unpatched binary to develop proof-of-concept exploit code.
Approach:
- Obtained the patched and unpatched binaries corresponding to the advisory.
- Ran BinDiff to map changed and unmatched functions and exported diff annotations.
- Identified the small set of functions with structural differences and verified them in the unpatched binary.
- Used BinDiff’s function signatures to guide dynamic testing (e.g., targeted fuzzing and breakpoint placement).
Key findings:
- The vulnerability was due to an integer overflow in a parsing routine; BinDiff highlighted where an additional clamp and validation were added in the patched version.
- The team reproduced the crash by fuzzing the unpatched routine with crafted input that triggered the overflow.
- Mapping from the patched to unpatched function made exploit development significantly faster because the researcher could focus on a few lines of assembly corresponding to the vulnerable operation.
Lesson: Patch diffing with BinDiff is a practical first step in vulnerability research — it reduces the search space and points to precise code paths to target with fuzzers or manual exploit development.
Case Study 5 — Supply Chain Integrity: Detecting Unauthorized Code Injection
Problem: An organization suspected its third-party update server had been tampered with and that a distributed update contained unauthorized telemetry code. They needed a reliable method to verify whether the distributed binaries matched vendor-provided releases.
Approach:
- Collected vendor-provided releases and the locally distributed update binaries.
- Performed BinDiff comparisons across all major modules and analyzed mismatched functions and new imports.
- Focused on new cross-module call chains and any newly added network-related APIs.
- Supplemented BinDiff output with string and certificate checks, and examined PE/ELF headers for altered build timestamps and certificate chains.
Key findings:
- Several modules matched exactly; however, two modules contained extra functions and added references to a custom telemetry upload routine that invoked TLS libraries for outbound connections.
- Binary-level artifacts in the injected routines indicated the injector added an extra object file during linking, rather than patching existing functions — evidence consistent with supply-chain tampering.
- The organization rolled back updates and engaged the vendor to remediate the compromised distribution server.
Lesson: BinDiff is a strong tool for supply-chain verification. It can quickly reveal added code, and when combined with header and certificate checks, it forms an effective integrity-validation workflow.
Best Practices When Using BinDiff
- Preprocess consistently: ensure both binaries are similarly processed (same disassembler, same symbol-stripping approach) to avoid artificial mismatches.
- Unpack first: for packed or obfuscated samples, first unpack to reveal the inner code; BinDiff compares what is visible in the disassembly.
- Use thresholds: tune similarity thresholds (e.g., high-confidence matches vs. probable matches) for your workflow to balance false positives vs. missed links.
- Combine signals: use BinDiff together with strings, exports/imports, digging into CFGs, and dynamic instrumentation to corroborate findings.
- Automate: for large-scale datasets, script pairwise comparisons and cluster results; visualize similarity graphs to prioritize clusters for manual review.
Limitations and Pitfalls
- Compiler and optimization differences can create false negatives: small source changes or different optimization flags can appear as substantial binary diffs.
- Packing, obfuscation, and anti-analysis can hide similarities; BinDiff cannot match what is not present in the disassembly.
- Heavily inlined or optimized code may break per-function correspondence; consider whole-module or dataflow analysis in those cases.
- Relying solely on BinDiff without corroborating runtime behavior or source-level context risks misattribution.
Conclusion
These case studies show BinDiff’s practical utility across vendor patch verification, malware attribution, regression hunting, vulnerability research, and supply-chain integrity checks. While not a silver bullet, BinDiff systematically reduces the manual search space and surfaces high-value regions for deeper analysis. Combined with careful preprocessing, dynamic verification, and other static-analysis signals, it becomes a force-multiplier for reverse engineering teams.
Leave a Reply