Ghidra: DOS MZ "LE" loader support

[tzizi]

Describe the bug

When loading certain MZ executables (in this specific instance, the Quarantine DOS game), Ghidra detects it as a Raw Binary.

Expected behavior
It should be detected as a DOS MZ executable

Environment (please complete the following information):

• OS: Linux
• Java Version: 11.0
• Ghidra Version: 9.0.2

[GhidraKnight]

Sorry you're having issues. Could you provide an ascii hex dump of the first 0x40 bytes of the binary? Please don't attach the actual binary. Ghidra decides if a binary is a DOS/MZ by checking the values of e_magic, e_lfanew, and e_lfarlc from the DOS header. The checks might be incorrect for some cases.

Thanks!

[tzizi]

Thanks for looking into this issue. Sure:

Q_40.log

Attached it as .log because github didn't support attaching a .exe. The executable runs fine under DOSBOX by the way.

[tzizi]

Sorry, I read 40 bytes, not 0x40. Here's the first 64 bytes as requested:

Q_40.log

[GhidraKnight]

Hey! I see what's happening here. All WIN/PE's contain an embedded DOS/MZ. GHIDRA determines if a binary is a plain DOS/MZ (vs WIN/PE) by checking several fields in the DOS_HEADER. GHIDRA expects "e_lfanew==0x0", but in your binary the value is 0x2998.

Could you tell me what int value exists at offset 0x2998 in your binary?

Thanks!

       0000:0000 4d 5a 92        IMAGE_DOS_HEADER
          0000:0000 4d 5a           char[2]   "MZ"                    e_magic
          0000:0002 92 01           dw        192h                    e_cblp
          0000:0004 15 00           dw        15h                     e_cp
          0000:0006 06 00           dw        6h                      e_crlc
          0000:0008 06 00           dw        6h                      e_cparhdr
          0000:000a 86 00           dw        86h                     e_minalloc
          0000:000c ff ff           dw        FFFFh                   e_maxalloc
          0000:000e 99 02           dw        299h                    e_ss
          0000:0010 00 08           dw        800h                    e_sp
          0000:0012 00 00           dw        0h                      e_csum
          0000:0014 16 02           dw        216h                    e_ip
          0000:0016 00 00           dw        0h                      e_cs
          0000:0018 40 00           dw        40h                     e_lfarlc
          0000:001a 00 00           dw        0h                      e_ovno
          0000:001c 00 00 00 00 00  dw[4]                             e_res[4]
          0000:0024 00 00           dw        0h                      e_oemid
          0000:0026 00 00           dw        0h                      e_oeminfo
          0000:0028 00 00 00 00 00  dw[10]                            e_res2[10]
          0000:003c 98 29 00 00     ddw       2998h                   e_lfanew

[tzizi]

The value is 0x4C450000. Maybe it's IMAGE_OS2_SIGNATURE_LE?

[GhidraKnight]

Yes, that's it. Sorry, GHIDRA doesn't support the LE format.

[tzizi]

Thank you for following up on this. Should I open a new issue for tracking adding support for the LE format?

[ryanmkurtz]

I altered this issue to reflect your requested enhancement.

[Gh0stBlade]

Same issue with original Tomb Raider game for DOS.

[oshogbo]

You can try my: https://github.com/oshogbo/ghidra-lx-loader

[tzizi]

@oshogbo Awesome work, however I believe LX and LE are different executable formats, so I don't think it would help with this issue specifically unfortunately.

[oshogbo]

@tzizi I'm also not sure. Although could you point me the LE documentation?
They suggests that the LE format is similar to the LX.
https://github.com/BoomerangDecompiler/boomerang/blob/next/loader/exe/dos4gw/DOS4GWBinaryFile.cpp
and
http://fileformats.archiveteam.org/wiki/Linear_Executable

[ssokolow]

Can you clarify what you mean by "the LE documentation"?

Your fileformats.archiveteam.org link's "Specifications" section does already link to two different documents, one which describes a format with "LX" as its signature bytes and another which describes a format with "LE" as its signature bytes, so my first impulse would be to think that you overlooked what you're asking for in what you linked to.

[oshogbo]

@ssokolow If you look into the "Specifications" they look quite the same :)
And the "http://faydoc.tripod.com/formats/exe-LE.htm" doesn't look like anything close to the official one.
The loader I build look for both magic values "LE" and "LX".

[ssokolow]

Ahh. Given the context, I suspect the only more official source will be either a print programmers' reference on a used book seller like AbeBooks.com or, if someone took the time to scan it in, maybe Archive.org.

[oshogbo]

@ssokolow Sorry If I was unclear. :)
Non the less I would try to use the loader for the LE.
Please notice that I do not implement all the object types yet, but if you would point me to some binary, I may find time to look into it.

[ssokolow]

...but this might prove useful.

https://www.program-transformation.org/Transform/PcExeFormat

Since it combines all things that could have a .exe header into a single unified document, it's more likely to draw distinctions between LE and LX clearly.