Open strictlymike opened 7 years ago
Please hold off - I think that by not deleting the original sc_hashes.db
, I added HashPJW
in addition to hash_Carbanak
. I'll look into this...
Fixed sc_hashes.db
and retested, ready for review.
Based on learning that INTERESTING_DLLS
is inaccurate or outdated, I have reverted my changes to sc_hashes.db
and will leave those updates to the maintainer.
Be advised that in a scenario where we are just renaming an algorithm, running make_sc_hash_db.py
against sc_hashes.db
without first deleting the .db
file will result in the hash algorithm and all associated data appearing twice in sc_hashes.db
- once under the original name and again under the new name. This would also make the resulting sqlite file bigger than it was before (as I noticed previously).
As discussed,
hash_Carbanak
is actually the well-known PJW hash that is commonly used for hash tables (ref: Mastering Algorithms in C, ElfHash, etc.). This change renames the hash as such so it can be more easily recognized, but adds a comment to the pseudocode to retain the information that it has notably been used in Carbanak. I tested this by copyingINTERESTING_DLLS
from thesystem32
directory on a 64-bit system to a directory and creating a newsc_hashes.db
which I have added to this branch. The updatedsc_hashes.db
is 22MB versus the previous one which was only 16MB.During testing, I updated the documentary string
srsvc.dll
in theINTERESTING_DLLS
string tosrvsvc.dll
which I believe is what was intended.