Magnet Forensics is running a weekly forensic CTF. More information can be found on their blog. It is a fun way to practice, so let’s get to it!
|Week 1||Week 2||Week 3|
Download the Android data from here. Note that the data was released October 5th, 2020 @ 11AM ET.
Calculate the hash of the suspect data:
sha1sum MUS_Android.tar 10cc6d43edae77e7a85b77b46a294fc8a05e731d MUS_Android.tar
Week 2 question:
What domain was most recently viewed via an app that has picture-in-picture capability?
Alright, so we know that we are interested in a domain (URL) and an app that supports picture-in-picture capability.
I would typically start with a regular expression, parse out URLs, then sort by date, and go through each hit until I found a picture-in-picture-supporting app.
Instead, let’s learn a bit more about picture-in-picture first. Take a look at Android developers Picture-in-picture support docs, and we find this little gem:
By default, the system does not automatically support PIP for apps. If you want support PIP in your app, register your video activity in your manifest by setting
So we know the app’s manifest file must have
supportPictureInPicture="true". This is where file indexing comes in handy. If your case is already indexed, you can run keyword searches over the file contents.
If I do an ‘exact match’ keyword search for “PictureInPicture,” I get two hits. It looks like one from Twitter and one from Google. Both might need more investigation. I find it hard to believe only two apps support PIP, so let’s try a substring match (partial keyword match) instead of an exact match.
Using a partial match, I get 103 results. Many are apps, but some are things like
zram_swap, which we can probably skip for now, but keep in mind if we need to dig a bit later.
Substring match for ‘PictureInPicture=”true”’ returned no matches, bleah. That may have been a good filter.
Substring match for ‘supportsPictureInPicture’ returned two matches - both for Google Chrome. Note that I cannot see the =”true” assignment, just the configuration option in “base.vdex.” According to this post .vdex is the uncompressed dex code of the APK. According to this post a dex file holds class information and data… like manifest config information, perhaps?!
Looking back at the substring search for “PictureInPicture”, a lot of base.vdex and base.apk files were found, but most have directives such as
onPictureInPictureModeChanged instead of
This leads me to the hypothesis (read: guess) that app manifest configurations are included in a vdex file if they are set - at least for supportsPictureInPicture.
To prove this, I should first check if anyone else has a blog or paper on vdex (I bet someone does). If not, I need to set up an Android compiler and create some app manifests with different configurations, then compile and analyze the resulting vdex to see the changes.
However, we have a specific question we are looking to answer, which helps quite a bit. In this case - if my hypothesis holds - then Chrome supports picture-in-picture mode. I can verify that it does on my Android device.
Since Chrome was the only PIP app that returned with the result
supportsPictureInPicture, and it can connect to domains, Chrome is a good candidate for the target app.
In that case, all we need to do is check the Chrome history. In this case, our target history file is:
/data/com.android.chrome/app_chrome/Default/History. Parsing this file with your favorite history parser should reveal
http://malliesae[.]com/investor-page/ as the most recently accessed URL at 2020-03-23 23:53:22 UTC. However, we want only the domain and not the full URL. So we get malliesae[.]com.
NOTE I the URL above has been “defanged” with [.], so someone doesn’t accidentally go to the URL.
Entering that domain into the CTF system, and BING! Correct.
Last week I said, “try the easy things first.” You can also see from the week 1 post that I already knew the domain. Most forensic tools will automatically parse out web browsing history. In fact, browsing history was already parsed in my tool. I could have just clicked on it, scrolled to the most recent one, and found the domain. I would have been correct. Sometimes, the problem with trying the easy thing first is that you don’t learn anything new.
I know how to parse out Chrome history. I do it all the time. I don’t know much about vdex files. By adding the PictureInPicture element to the question, I now need to show two things: this app supports PIP, and this is the domain. Did I need to go through all that trouble? Nope. I could have tried the easy thing first. But did I learn something from taking the long way around? Sure did.
Is the long way around practical in real investigations? Well, maybe. In real investigations, we don’t have a CTF platform to confirm the answer. If we are just looking at the results of our tools without strongly answering all relevant questions we might be coming to wrong, or incomplete, conclusions.
So I’ll revise last week’s conclusion: Try the easy things first, but make sure all conclusions are strongly supported.