How people come up with such nice writeup? Is that by experience or by reading books? Just out of Curiosity, I'm loving it..

Amazing Knowledge it is, Amazing Article.

This is standard level reverse engineering, nothing too advanced. So, if this is a "tutorial" then it's for beginners, though the author uses terms like "unpacking", "fixing the dump", "OEP" without further explanation. Anyway, nice work.

I never really had an idea about reverse engineering, seems like it is a great subject to dive into.

How is it that this binary has all the symbols in it still? All of these trojan functions can't be Windows API calls.

Those function names are almost certainly set in IDA by the reverse engineer (I think it's "n" to rename a function).

Yes, exactly, so if that is the case then hasn't the author skipped over the most important part about the work. That being the process they went through to identify each of these functions purpose? aka: the actual RCE work?

This is kind of a pet peeve of mine with many RCE articles. They always seem to leave out the difficult parts. In that respect I view most of them as bragging rather than providing much in the way of a useful tutorial or learning material.

I'm assuming you're thinking about the functions that are named "DecodeRc4Key" and "XorDecode" and the like? I guess a lot of it is just reading the code (the disassembly, or the pseudo-C if your tool of choice can produce that), and possibly compare it mentally against things you've seen before, and/or to see how the data flows, to determine its purpose?

Also, in this article, it's more interesting to be learning about the overall structure of the malware piece, which algorithms are employed, and a small bonus about the c&c at the end. The author skips the usually boring details for us and presents a summary of his findings (xor, rc4, etc).

I'm sure there are other articles around that focus more on the low level mundane RCE work of actually identifying each subroutine, but that's not what this article is focused on. In fact, going further in the details about that here would have been a distraction, I think. On that note I agree the "...for dummies" headline is a bit of a stretch, though :)

Great stuff. Finally something that makes it worthwhile to take apart those trojans.

This is some very impressive work. Good job!

Tinsey nitpick: It's Spammers. There is no apostrophe before the plural 's'. The graphic has it correct.

Sorry, that bothers me :-)

The rest of the article was fascinating.

I guess the nusances of the ten major languages spoken in the author's homeland of Kasmhir are as well developed and that you can point out minor nitpicks in the offical Kashmiri language of Urdu.