Anonymous Coward writes:
"Dan Luu, in his blog, suggests that editing binaries is something that we should consider from time to time. From that blog:
Editing binaries is a trick that comes in handy a few times a year. You don't often need to, but when you do, there's no alternative. When I mention patching binaries, I get one of two reactions: complete shock or no reaction at all. As far as I can tell, this is because most people have one of these two models of the world:
- There exists source code. Compilers do something to source code to make it runnable. If you change the source code, different things happen.
- There exists a processor. The processor takes some bits and decodes them to make things happen. If you change the bits, different things happen.
If you have the first view, breaking out a hex editor to modify a program is the action of a deranged lunatic. If you have the second view, editing binaries is the most natural thing in the world. Why wouldn't you just edit the binary?"
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Adrian Harvey on Monday March 24 2014, @05:18PM
On the fly, automated editing of the binaries as they load into memory was basically how VMWare got around the old Intel instruction set's limitations that prevented proper virtualisation.
Direct editing in the binary tends to have two issues these days 1: automated system updates change the binary back without telling you, and 2: integrity checks/ signed binaries / IDPS systems don't like binaries being changed without their consent.