Researcher profile

Chengbin Pang

Chengbin Pang contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 11 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
1works
0followers
1topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

1 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

SoK: All You Ever Wanted to Know About x86/x64 Binary Disassembly But Were Afraid to Ask

Disassembly of binary code is hard, but necessary for improving the security of binary software. Over the past few decades, research in binary disassembly has produced many tools and frameworks, which have been made available to researchers and security professionals. These tools employ a variety of strategies that grant them different characteristics. The lack of systematization, however, impedes new research in the area and makes selecting the right tool hard, as we do not understand the strengths and weaknesses of existing tools. In this paper, we systematize binary disassembly through the study of nine popular, open-source tools. We couple the manual examination of their code bases with the most comprehensive experimental evaluation (thus far) using 3,788 binaries. Our study yields a comprehensive description and organization of strategies for disassembly, classifying them as either algorithm or else heuristic. Meanwhile, we measure and report the impact of individual algorithms on the results of each tool. We find that while principled algorithms are used by all tools, they still heavily rely on heuristics to increase code coverage. Depending on the heuristics used, different coverage-vs-correctness trade-offs come in play, leading to tools with different strengths and weaknesses. We envision that these findings will help users pick the right tool and assist researchers in improving binary disassembly.