New ask Hacker News story: JNISleuth-MCP – Recover Stripped JNI Bindings and Ollvm Branches for Ghidra/Ida

JNISleuth-MCP – Recover Stripped JNI Bindings and Ollvm Branches for Ghidra/Ida
2 by akdapunk | 0 comments on Hacker News.
Hi HN, I’m a security engineer focused on Android anti-malware and reverse engineering. When reversing hardened Android apps or wild malware, one of the most tedious parts is crossing the Java-to-Native (JNI) boundary when `.so` binaries are stripped, methods are bound dynamically via `RegisterNatives` inside an OLLVM-flattened `JNI_OnLoad`, and `JNIEnv ` vtable calls decompile as raw pointer offsets like `(*(code *)( param_1 + 0x548))`. I built JNISleuth-MCP to automate that workflow: 1. It parses multi-DEX APKs for `native` declarations and sweeps `.rodata` / `.data.rel.ro` (or section-header-stripped `PT_LOAD` segments) for `(char* name, char* sig, void* fnPtr)` triplets. 2. It statically resolves ARM64 OLLVM `CSEL` + `BR X8` indirect branches and `.rodata` jump tables in `JNI_OnLoad` (and can patch them in-place with direct `B.cond` / `B` instructions). 3. For runtime-packed samples that detect Frida, it includes a C++/NDK Dobby collector that hooks `RegisterNatives` mid-function. 4. It syncs the full 233-slot `JNIEnv*` vtable types and recovered C signatures into headless Ghidra and IDA Pro 9.0 (`idalib`/`idat64`), and exposes a model-agnostic MCP server + OpenAI/Gemini/Ollama tool schemas. The repo includes a synthetic multi-DEX + stripped ARM64 `.so` crackme so you can test the entire pipeline in 30 seconds without needing a live malware sample. Would love feedback from anyone doing mobile RE or binary analysis!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

New ask Hacker News story: Qwen3.8 Fetches Weird URLs

Qwen3.8 Fetches Weird URLs 2 by Luker88 | 0 comments on Hacker News. I am working on opencode with the last qwen3.8-27B from unsloth (with dynamic 3.0 quants). while checking documentation for a rust project, instead of fetching the url it had listed in its own reasoning, it tried fetching urls like: https://routify-file-proxy-sg.oss-ap-southeast-1.aliyuncs.com/proxy_temp_file/production/2026-08-20/trace_0baf8c2b17874702866132490e0b56/requestId_97422c0041074091a68367881782d7b7/7c0791038d2f58b3a52c0f07714d3627.html?Expires=1818574288&OSSAccessKeyId=LTAI5t…QVZr&Signature=96y%2B…w%3D this happened in the same session, different batches, 16 times in total. It convinced itself there was some rewriting proxy in the webfetch tool. `Expires`, `trace` and `requestId` were consistent for a few requests, but they do change. `AccessKeyId` was always the same, "LTAI5t…QVZr" I did not add the `…` in the signature and access key. Probably training links, but that `Expires` number...
Read more

New ask Hacker News story: Ask HN: Releasing code under AGPLv3, but want to block LLM reconstruction?

Ask HN: Releasing code under AGPLv3, but want to block LLM reconstruction? 2 by zionsati | 0 comments on Hacker News. I am preparing to release a software project under the AGPLv3. The goal is traditional copyleft reciprocity - if you use it or host it, share your changes. However, I am realistic about the current legal landscape. Big tech corps are treating public code as free raw material for LLM training under the banner of "Fair Use". I am concerned that a company will ingest my codebase and use an LLM to effectively launder the logic, allowing their users to prompt a clean, closed-source recreation of my software without triggering the AGPL. Do we have a licence specifically to prevent this but still keep OSS healthy and alive? Do we have a llm.txt / robots.txt that LLM scrapers respect? I feel that the whole OSS model is under threat here, even more than before (e.g. big corps earn billions from Linux instances without having to pay any software licensing cost, but t...
Read more