Can pefile get the function names in ordinal imports mode ?

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Good morning Mr Carrera.

I've used pefile for several weeks, and I am surprised
to discover that this useful tool is not able to get
the names of functions imported by their ordinal. Then
I decided to write a few lines of code, and to suggest
you to check it and add it to the existing version.
I hope you will have time to take a look at it, I would
be very pleased to use this new feature in the next
release (considering that I need it for my work). :)

Thank you very much.

Mr Romain CARRÉ
Computer Scientist in France
romain.carre.2008@enseirb.fr

PS : attached resource :
- a shell script to patch the existing version of pefile.py
- the diff file containing information to patch pefile.py
- the html version of the diff file, for you to understand easier

You can also find all that files at : http://cyberax51.free.fr/pefile/

Original issue reported on code.google.com by carre.ro...@gmail.com on 28 Jun 2008 at 9:36

Attachments:

• patchPEfile.sh
• pefile.py.diff
• contribPEfile.htm

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Thanks, good suggestion. Thanks for the patch. 

I will enhance it so that it's not limited to Windows environment but can also 
operate in *nix and others. Most 
likely I'll just provide with a way of setting up patch where to look for 
imported DLLs and give an option when 
importing the file to resolve ordinals or not, as it might increase the loading 
time and might not be desirable in 
all use-cases.

Original comment by ero.carr...@gmail.com on 28 Jun 2008 at 10:09

• Added labels: Type-Enhancement
• Removed labels: Type-Defect

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The increase of the loading time could be reduced if
the export structure was actually a dictionary, where
the keys would be the ordinal indexes and the related
contents be the associated ExportData structures.
We shouldn't need to read all the exports structure
any more to find a function by its ordinal. We would
need only access to the whole entity. (it is even
possible to give the user the opportuny of choice
with a function parameter for instance, or sth else)
What do you think of that structural improvment ?

Original comment by carre.ro...@gmail.com on 28 Jun 2008 at 10:51

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The new release in-the-works will allow to only process specific data 
directories, so in the case of loading 
additional DLLs only the export directory needs to be parsed, I think that 
would be already a good improvement.

Original comment by ero.carr...@gmail.com on 28 Jun 2008 at 11:01

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Good morning Mr Carrera.

In the suggested code for pefile.py,

<code>
    if exports_launched:
        for current_symbol in exports_symbols:
            if current_symbol.ordinal == imp_ord:
                imp_name = current_symbol.name
                break
</code>

should be replaced by :

<code>
    if exports_launched:
        for current_symbol in exports_symbols:
            if current_symbol.ordinal == imp_ord:
                if current_symbol.name:
                    imp_name = current_symbol.name
                else:
                    imp_name = os.path.splitext(os.path.basename(
                    exports_file_path))[0].upper() + "_%s" % imp_ord
                break
</code>

to ensure cases where export names are not explicitly specified.

Thanks.

Original comment by carre.ro...@gmail.com on 1 Jul 2008 at 9:20

[GoogleCodeExporter]

This functionality belongs outside the pefile module. Given that it runs on 
multiple platforms the availability of 
the necessary DLLs can't be taken for granted. The additional information can 
be easily gathered by augmenting 
pefile's output with the code snippets mentioned in the issue.

Original comment by ero.carr...@gmail.com on 2 Jan 2009 at 1:03

• Changed state: Done