Recently I've been using lot of assembly language in *NIX operating systems. I was wondering about the Windows domain.
Calling convention in Linux:
mov $SYS_Call_NUM, %eax
mov $param1 , %ebx
mov $param2 , %ecx
int $0x80
Thats it. That is how we should make a system call in Linux.
Reference of all system calls in Linux:
Regarding which $SYS_Call_NUM & which parameters we can use this reference : http://docs.cs.up.ac.za/programming/asm/derick_tut/syscalls.html
OFFICIAL Reference : http://kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online/dir_section_2.html
Calling convention in Windows:
???
Reference of all system calls in Windows:
???
Unofficial : http://www.metasploit.com/users/opcode/syscalls.html , but how do I use these in assembly unless I know the calling convention.
OFFICIAL : ???
If you say, they didn't documented it. Then how is one going to write libc for windows without knowing system calls? How is one gonna do Windows Assembly programming? Atleast in the driver programming one needs to know these. right?
Now, whats up with the so called Native API? Is Native API & System calls for windows both are different terms referring to same thing? In order to confirm I compared these from two UNOFFICIAL Sources
System Calls: http://www.metasploit.com/users/opcode/syscalls.html
Native API: http://undocumented.ntinternals.net/aindex.html
My observations:
All system calls are beginning with letters Nt where as Native API is consisting of lot of functions which are not beginning with letters Nt.
System Call of windows are subset of Native API. System calls are just part of Native API.
Can any one confirm this and explain.
EDIT:
There was another answer. It was a 2nd answer. I really liked it but I don't know why answerer has deleted it. I request him to repost his answer.
If you're doing assembly programming under Windows you don't do manual syscalls. You use NTDLL and the Native API to do that for you.
The Native API is simply a wrapper around the kernelmode side of things. All it does is perform a syscall for the correct API.
You should NEVER need to manually syscall so your entire question is redundant.
Linux syscall codes do not change, Windows's do, that's why you need to work through an extra abstraction layer (aka NTDLL).
EDIT:
Also, even if you're working at the assembly level, you still have full access to the Win32 API, there's no reason to be using the NT API to begin with! Imports, exports, etc all work just fine in assembly programs.
EDIT2:
If you REALLY want to do manual syscalls, you're going to need to reverse NTDLL for each relevant Windows version, add version detection (via the PEB), and perform a syscall lookup for each call.
However, that would be silly. NTDLL is there for a reason.
People have already done the reverse-engineering part: see https://j00ru.vexillium.org/syscalls/nt/64/ for a table of system-call numbers for each Windows kernel. (Note that the later rows do change even between versions of Windows 10.) Again, this is a bad idea outside of personal-use-only experiments on your own machine to learn more about asm and/or Windows internals. Don't inline system calls into code that you distribute to anyone else.
The other thing you need to know about the windows syscall convention is that as I understand it the syscall tables are generated as part of the build process. This means that they can simply change - no one tracks them. If someone adds a new one at the top of the list, it doesn't matter. NTDLL still works, so everyone else who calls NTDLL still works.
Even the mechanism used to perform syscalls (which int, or sysenter) is not fixed in stone and has changed in the past, and I think that once upon a time the same version of windows used different DLLs which used different entry mechanisms depending on the CPU in the machine.
I was interested in doing a windows API call in assembly with no imports (as an educational exercise), so I wrote the following FASM assembly to do what NtDll!NtCreateFile does. It's a rough demonstration on my 64-bit version of Windows (Win10 1803 Version 10.0.17134), and it crashes out after the call, but the return value of the syscall is zero so it is successful. Everything is set up per the Windows x64 calling convention, then the system call number is loaded into RAX, and then it's the syscall assembly instruction to run the call. My example creates the file c:\HelloWorldFile_FASM, so it has to be run "as administrator".
format PE64 GUI 4.0
entry start
section '.text' code readable executable
start:
;puting the first four parameters into the right registers
mov rcx, _Handle
mov rdx, [_access_mask]
mov r8, objectAttributes
mov r9, ioStatusBlock
;I think we need 1 stack word of padding:
push 0x0DF0AD8B
;pushing the other params in reverse order:
push [_eaLength]
push [_eaBuffer]
push [_createOptions]
push [_createDisposition]
push [_shareAcceses]
push [_fileAttributes]
push [_pLargeInterger]
;adding the shadow space (4x8)
; push 0x0
; push 0x0
; push 0x0
; push 0x0
;pushing the 4 register params into the shadow space for ease of debugging
push r9
push r8
push rdx
push rcx
;now pushing the return address to the stack:
push endOfProgram
mov r10, rcx ;copied from ntdll!NtCreateFile, not sure of the reason for this
mov eax, 0x55
syscall
endOfProgram:
retn
section '.data' data readable writeable
;parameters------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_Handle dq 0x0
_access_mask dq 0x00000000c0100080
_pObjectAttributes dq objectAttributes ; at 00402058
_pIoStatusBlock dq ioStatusBlock
_pLargeInterger dq 0x0
_fileAttributes dq 0x0000000000000080
_shareAcceses dq 0x0000000000000002
_createDisposition dq 0x0000000000000005
_createOptions dq 0x0000000000000060
_eaBuffer dq 0x0000000000000000 ; "optional" param
_eaLength dq 0x0000000000000000
;----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
align 16
objectAttributes:
_oalength dq 0x30
_rootDirectory dq 0x0
_objectName dq unicodeString
_attributes dq 0x40
_pSecurityDescriptor dq 0x0
_pSecurityQualityOfService dq securityQualityOfService
unicodeString:
_unicodeStringLength dw 0x34
_unicodeStringMaxumiumLength dw 0x34, 0x0, 0x0
_pUnicodeStringBuffer dq _unicodeStringBuffer
_unicodeStringBuffer du '\??\c:\HelloWorldFile_FASM' ; may need to "run as adinistrator" for the file create to work.
ioStatusBlock:
_status_pointer dq 0x0
_information dq 0x0
securityQualityOfService:
_sqlength dd 0xC
_impersonationLevel dd 0x2
_contextTrackingMode db 0x1
_effectiveOnly db 0x1, 0x0, 0x0
I used the documentation for Ntdll!NtCreateFile, and I also used the kernel debugger to look at and copy a lot of the params.
__kernel_entry NTSTATUS NtCreateFile(
OUT PHANDLE FileHandle,
IN ACCESS_MASK DesiredAccess,
IN POBJECT_ATTRIBUTES ObjectAttributes,
OUT PIO_STATUS_BLOCK IoStatusBlock,
IN PLARGE_INTEGER AllocationSize OPTIONAL,
IN ULONG FileAttributes,
IN ULONG ShareAccess,
IN ULONG CreateDisposition,
IN ULONG CreateOptions,
IN PVOID EaBuffer OPTIONAL,
IN ULONG EaLength
);
Windows system calls are performed by calling into system DLLs such as kernel32.dll or gdi32.dll, which is done with ordinary subroutine calls. The mechanisms for trapping into the OS privileged layer is undocumented, but that is okay because DLLs like kernel32.dll do this for you.
And by system calls, I'm referring to documented Windows API entry points like CreateProcess() or GetWindowText(). Device drivers will generally use a different API from the Windows DDK.
OFFICIAL Calling convention in Windows: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/7kcdt6fy.aspx
(hope this link survives in the future; if it doesn't, just search for "x64 Software Conventions" on MSDN).
The function calling convention differs in Linux & Windows x86_64. In both ABIs, parameters are preferably passed via registers, but the registers used differ. More on the Linux ABI can be found at http://www.x86-64.org/documentation/abi.pdf
Related
When I was investigating in an executable file,I reached to the piece of code below:
MOV EAX,11B9
MOV EDX,7FFE0300
CALL DWORD PTR DS:[EDX]
RETN 10
This is used to demand a system call. Until here, there is no problem.
I searched within the whole system call code of Windows OS, but none of them is equal to 11B9 in the instruction in the first row "MOV EAX,11B9".
Could everybody guide me, what it means here exactly?
Syscalls numbered 0x1XXX are calls to win32k.sys.
Here is a great table created and updated by j00ru showing the win32k syscall IDs for different versions of Windows:
According to the docs I can find on calling windows functions, the following applies:-
The Microsoft x64 calling convention[12][13] is followed on Windows
and pre-boot UEFI (for long mode on x86-64). It uses registers RCX,
RDX, R8, R9 for the first four integer or pointer arguments (in that
order), and additional arguments are pushed onto the stack (right to
left). Integer return values (similar to x86) are returned in RAX if
64 bits or less.
In the Microsoft x64 calling convention, it's the caller's
responsibility to allocate 32 bytes of "shadow space" on the stack
right before calling the function (regardless of the actual number of
parameters used), and to pop the stack after the call. The shadow
space is used to spill RCX, RDX, R8, and R9,[14] but must be made
available to all functions, even those with fewer than four
parameters.
The registers RAX, RCX, RDX, R8, R9, R10, R11 are considered volatile
(caller-saved).[15]
The registers RBX, RBP, RDI, RSI, RSP, R12, R13, R14, and R15 are
considered nonvolatile (callee-saved).[15]
So, I have been happily calling kernel32 until a call to GetEnvironmentVariableA failed under certain circumstances. I finally traced it back to the fact that the direction flag DF was set and I needed to clear it.
I have not up till now been able to find any mention of this and wondered if it was prudent to always clear it before a call.
Or maybe that would cause other problems. Anyone aware of the conventions of calling in this instance?
Windows assumes that the direction flag is cleared. Despite in article said about C run-time only, this is true for whole windows (I think because windows code itself is primarily written in c/c++). So when your programme begins to execute - you can assume that DF is 0. Usually you do not need to change this flag. However if you temporarily change it (set it to 1) in some internal routine you must clear it by cld before calling any windows API or any external module (because it assumes that DF is 0).
All windows interrupts at very beginning of execution clear DF to 0 - so it is safe to temporarily set DF to 1 in own internal code, main - before any external call reset it back to 0.
I'm attempting to display "Hello, world!" with FASM on a 64-bit Windows 7 machine without using the crutches that modern assemblers seem to provide in abundance.
This rather simple task proved to be surprisingly frustrating since every example and tutorial I could find insists on resorting to macros, including prewritten code, or importing libraries from high-level languages. I thought that the kind of people who want to learn assembly typically do so to develop a direct and intimate understanding of how computers work. All these abstractions and obfuscations seem to detract from that purpose.
Rant aside, I'm looking for code that can display "Hello, world!" on a console without reusing, including, and importing anything except to directly access the Windows API. Although I'm aware that many assemblers come packaged with files that provide access to the Windows API, I'd rather not rely on them.
Also, if you have any suggestions as to what assemblers or tutorials I can use to better facilitate my approach to learning, I'd greatly appreciate it.
The big problem with "pure" windows programming is that Windows require that the program contains import section, about what functions from the system DLLs have to be provided to the program - so called import table.
This table is not a part of the program and has nothing to do with assembly programming itself. Besides, the import table has complex structure, not very convenient to be manually build. That is why FASM provides some standard way for the user to build these import tables.
The proper approach to you, if you goal is to learn assembly, is to read the FASM manuals, where these macros are described, then to read the example code provided in any FASM distribution and then to start using them and concentrate to the assembly programming.
The moderate use of macros does not make your program less assembly written!
The FASM message board is good place to ask questions and to get help, but you have to make your homework after all.
Every running process under windows gets either kernel32 or kernalbase loaded into its address space, using this fact and the PEB internals, you can easily access any windows function (provided you have the right access privileges).
This blog entry details how to go about doing this to display a message with MessageBoxA.
In all honesty, unless you have some extreme reason for doing this, you are going to just end up wasting time, rather use the tools provided (in this case, a linker, so you can access any windows API without going through 10000 hurdles and loops).
I managed to link to one library only (kernel32.dll) and make reference to 3 functions:
GetStdHandle
WriteConsole
ExitProcess
The code below is the result of my exhaustive Google search, and my own reference to MS documentation.
format PE console
entry start
include 'include\win32a.inc'
section '.data' data readable writable
msg db 'Hello World!',13,10,0
len = $-msg
dummy dd ?
section '.code' readable writable executable
start:
push STD_OUTPUT_HANDLE
call [GetStdHandle] ;STD_OUTPUT_HANDLE (DWORD)-11
push 0 ;LPVOID lpReserved
push dummy ;LPDWORD lpNumberOfCharsWritten
push len ;DWORD nNumberOfCharsToWrite
push msg ;VOID *lpBuffer;
push eax ;HANDLE hConsoleOutput
call [WriteConsole]
push 0
call [ExitProcess]
section '.idata' data import readable writable
library kernel32,'KERNEL32.DLL'
include 'include\api\kernel32.inc'
Asking google for help: http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t=14034
Trying it out yourself
; Example of 64-bit PE program
format PE64 GUI
entry start
section '.text' code readable executable
start:
sub rsp,8*5 ; reserve stack for API use and make stack dqword aligned
mov r9d,0
lea r8,[_caption]
lea rdx,[_message]
mov rcx,0
call [MessageBoxA]
mov ecx,eax
call [ExitProcess]
section '.data' data readable writeable
_caption db 'Win64 assembly program',0
_message db 'Hello World!',0
section '.idata' import data readable writeable
dd 0,0,0,RVA kernel_name,RVA kernel_table
dd 0,0,0,RVA user_name,RVA user_table
dd 0,0,0,0,0
kernel_table:
ExitProcess dq RVA _ExitProcess
dq 0
user_table:
MessageBoxA dq RVA _MessageBoxA
dq 0
kernel_name db 'KERNEL32.DLL',0
user_name db 'USER32.DLL',0
_ExitProcess dw 0
db 'ExitProcess',0
_MessageBoxA dw 0
db 'MessageBoxA',0
Using nasm to compile this hello world (16 bit) code taken from here:
.model tiny
.code
org 100h
main proc
mov ah,9 ; Display String Service
mov dx,offset hello_message ; Offset of message (Segment DS is the right segment in .COM files)
int 21h ; call DOS int 21h service to display message at ptr ds:dx
retn ; returns to address 0000 off the stack
; which points to bytes which make int 20h (exit program)
hello_message db 'Hello, world!$'
main endp
end main
Just wondering, in regards to my post Alternatives to built-in Macros, is it possible to avoid using the StdOut macro by using the int 21h windows API? Such as:
.data
msg dd 'This will be displayed'
;original macro usage:
invoke StdOut, addr msg
;what I want to know will work
push msg
int 21h ; If this does what I think it does, it should print msg
Does such a thing exist (as in using int 21h to print things), or does something like it exist, but not exactly int 21h. Or am I completely wrong.
Could someone clarify this for me?
Thanks,
Progrmr
The interrupt 21h was the entry point for MS-DOS functions.
For example to print something on stdout you have to:
mov ah, 09h ; Required ms-dos function
mov dx, msg ; Address of the text to print
int 21h ; Call the MS-DOS API entry-point
The string must be terminated with the '$' character.
But:
You cannot use interrupts in Windows desktop application (they're available only for device drivers).
You must write a 16 bit application if you need to call MS-DOS functions.
Then...yes, you can't use it to print messages, nothing like that exists: you have to call OS functions to print your messages and they are not available via interrupts.
DOS interrupts cannot be used in protected mode on Windows.
You can use the WriteFile Win32 API function to write to the console, or use the MASM macro instead.
The other answers saying that you cannot use interrupts in Windows are quite wrong. If you really want, you can (that's not recommended). At least on 32-bit x86 Windows there's the legacy int 2Eh-based interface for system calls. See e.g. this page for a bit of discussion of system call mechanisms on x86 and x86_64 Windows.
Here's a very simple example (compiled with FASM) of a program, which immediately exits on Windows 7 using int 0x2e (and crashes on most other versions):
format PE
NtTerminateProcess_Wind7=0x172
entry $
; First call terminates all threads except caller thread, see for details:
; http://www.rohitab.com/discuss/topic/41523-windows-process-termination/
mov eax, NtTerminateProcess_Wind7
mov edx, terminateParams
int 0x2e
; Second call terminates current process
mov eax, NtTerminateProcess_Wind7
mov edx, terminateParams
int 0x2e
ud2 ; crash if we failed to terminate
terminateParams:
dd 0, 0 ; processHandle, exitStatus
Do note though, that this is an unsupported way of using Windows: the system call numbers are changing quite often and in general can't be relied on. On this page you can see that e.g. NtCreateFile on Windows XP calls system call number 0x25, while already on Windows Server 2003 this number corresponds to NtCreateEvent, and on Vista it's NtAlpcRevokeSecurityContext.
The supported (albeit not much documented) way of doing the system calls is through the functions of the Native API library, ntdll.dll.
But even if you use the Native API, "printing things" is still very version-dependent. Namely, if you have a redirect to file, you must use NtWriteFile, but when writing to a true console window, you have to use LPC, where the target process depends on Windows version.
The description of CoLoadLibrary() says it does pretty much the same as LoadLibraryEx() - loads a DLL into the process. COM classes creation functions - CoCreateInstance() and CoGetClassObject() - both do load the necessary DLL into the process too.
Then why is CoLoadLibrary() needed in the first place and how should it be used?
Have a look at the code:
mov edi,edi
push ebp
mov ebp,esp
push 8
push 0
push dword ptr [ebp+8]
call dword ptr [ole32!_imp__LoadLibraryExW (71eb1214)]
pop ebp
ret 8
So it just calls:
LoadLibraryEx( FileName, NULL, LOAD_WITH_ALTERED_SEARCH_PATH ).
Presumably, the routine merely exists for backwards compatibility -- it probably has its roots in Win16.
Perhaps if you were writing your own regsvr32.exe? But JP's disassembly doesn't really support my guess, because you could just use LoadLibraryEx instead. Maybe in the olden days, Microsoft planned on COM DLLs someday being loaded in a different way than regular DLLs (D-COM?), so this was a way of ensuring future compatibility.