An Investigation of Interaction and Information Needs for Protocol Reverse Engineering Automation
Samantha Katcher, James Mattei, Jared Chandler, Daniel Votipka
Abstract
Protocol reverse engineering (ProtocolREing) consists of taking streams of network data and inferring the communication protocol. ProtocolREing is critical task in malware and system security analysis. Several ProtocolREing automation tools have been developed, however, in practice, they are not used because they offer limited interaction. Instead, reverse engineers (ProtocolREs) perform this task manually or use less complex visualization tools. To give Pro-tocolREs the power of more complex automation, we must first understand ProtocolREs processes and information and interaction needs to design better interfaces.
We interviewed 16 ProtocolREs, presenting a paper prototype ProtocolREing automation interface, and ask them to discuss their approach to ProtocolREing while using the tool and suggest missing information and interactions. We designed our prototype based on existing ProtocolREing tool features and prior reverse engineering research's usability guidelines. We found ProtocolREs follow a flexible, hypothesis-driven process and identified multiple information and interaction needs when validating the automation's inferences. We provide suggestions for future interaction design.
• Security and privacy → Software reverse engineering; • Human-centered computing → Interaction design; Human computer interaction (HCI).
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext fdfc3108-1448-4cd3-ae36-9d2ea00a13f6Cited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on18
- LEMNA: Explaining Deep Learning based Security ApplicationsWenbo Guo, Dongliang Mu, Jun Xu, Purui Su et al.CCS 2018 · 336 citations
- Hackers vs. Testers: A Comparison of Software Vulnerability Discovery ProcessesDaniel Votipka, Rock Stevens, Elissa M. Redmiles, Jeremy Hu et al.S&P 2018 · 151 citations
- Statistical Deobfuscation of Android ApplicationsBenjamin Bichsel, Veselin Raychev, Petar Tsankov, Martin T. VechevCCS 2016 · 128 citations
- Helping Johnny to Analyze Malware: A Usability-Optimized Decompiler and Malware Analysis User StudyKhaled Yakdan, Sergej Dechand, Elmar Gerhards-Padilla, Matthew SmithS&P 2016 · 128 citations
- "It's a scavenger hunt": Usability of Websites' Opt-Out and Data Deletion ChoicesHana Habib, Sarah Pearman, Jiamin Wang, Yixin Zou et al.CHI 2020 · 113 citations
Related papers
- An Observational Investigation of Reverse Engineers' ProcessesDaniel Votipka, Seth M. Rabin, Kristopher K. Micinski, Jeffrey S. Foster et al.USENIX Security 2020
- DynPRE: Protocol Reverse Engineering via Dynamic InferenceZhengxiong Luo, Kai Liang, Yanyang Zhao, Feifan Wu et al.NDSS 2024
- Reverse Engineering Industrial Protocols Driven By Control FieldsZhen Qin, Zeyu Yang, Yangyang Geng, Xin Che et al.INFOCOM 2024 · 17 citations
- Breaking the Traffic Barrier: Unveiling Multi-Format of Protocols via Autonomous Program ExplorationDingzhao Xue, Yibo Qu, Bowen Jiang, Xin Chen et al.ASE 2025
- Decomperson: How Humans Decompile and What We Can Learn From ItKevin Burk, Fabio Pagani, Christopher Kruegel, Giovanni VignaUSENIX Security 2022
