Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Reverse engineers .NET malware using dnSpy decompiler and debugger to analyze C#/VB.NET source code, identify obfuscation techniques, extract configurations, and understand malicious functionality including stealers, RATs, and loaders. Activates for requests involving .NET malware analysis, C# malware decompilation, managed code reverse engineering, or .NET obfuscation analysis.
.claude/skills/reverse-engineering-dotnet-malware-with-dnspy/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-05 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-12 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-15 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-10 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
Do not use for native (unmanaged) PE binaries; use Ghidra or IDA for native code analysis.
https://github.com/de4dot/de4dot)Verify the sample is a .NET binary and detect protection:
bash# Check if file is .NET assembly file suspect.exe # Output should contain "PE32 executable" with .NET metadata # Detect obfuscator with Detect It Easy diec suspect.exe # Python-based .NET detection python3 << 'PYEOF' import pefile pe = pefile.PE("suspect.exe") # Check for .NET COM descriptor if hasattr(pe, 'DIRECTORY_ENTRY_COM_DESCRIPTOR'): print("[*] .NET assembly detected") print(f" Runtime version: {pe.DIRECTORY_ENTRY_COM_DESCRIPTOR}") else: # Check for mscoree.dll import (alternative detection) for entry in pe.DIRECTORY_ENTRY_IMPORT: if entry.dll.decode().lower() == "mscoree.dll": print("[*] .NET assembly detected (mscoree.dll import)") break else: print("[!] Not a .NET assembly") # Check section names for .NET indicators for section in pe.sections: name = section.Name.decode().rstrip('\x00') if name in ['.text', '.rsrc', '.reloc']: print(f" Section: {name} (typical .NET)") PYEOF
Remove common .NET obfuscation before manual analysis:
bash# Run de4dot to identify and remove obfuscation de4dot suspect.exe -o suspect_cleaned.exe # Force specific deobfuscator de4dot suspect.exe -p cf # ConfuserEx de4dot suspect.exe -p sa # SmartAssembly de4dot suspect.exe -p dr # Dotfuscator de4dot suspect.exe -p rv # Reactor de4dot suspect.exe -p bl # Babel.NET # Verbose output for debugging de4dot -v suspect.exe -o suspect_cleaned.exe # Handle multi-file assemblies de4dot suspect.exe suspect_helper.dll -o cleaned/
Common .NET Obfuscators:
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
ConfuserEx: String encryption, control flow, anti-debug, anti-tamper
SmartAssembly: String encoding, flow obfuscation, pruning
Dotfuscator: Renaming, string encryption, control flow
.NET Reactor: Native code generation, necrobit, anti-debug
Babel.NET: String encryption, resource encryption, code virtualization
Crypto Obfuscator: String encryption, anti-debug, watermarking
Custom: Malware-specific obfuscation (manual de4dot configuration needed)Load the deobfuscated assembly in dnSpy for source-level analysis:
dnSpy Analysis Workflow:
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
1. File -> Open -> Select cleaned assembly
2. Navigate to the entry point:
- Assembly Explorer -> <namespace> -> Program class -> Main method
- Or: Right-click assembly -> Go to Entry Point
3. Key areas to examine:
- Entry point (Main) for initialization and execution flow
- Form classes for UI-based malware (RATs, stealers)
- Network/HTTP classes for C2 communication
- Crypto/encryption classes for data protection
- Resource access for embedded payloads
- Timer/Thread classes for persistence and scheduling
4. Navigation shortcuts:
Ctrl+G - Go to token/address
Ctrl+Shift+K - Search assemblies
F12 - Go to definition
Ctrl+R - Analyze (find usages)
F5 - Start debugging
F9 - Toggle breakpointLocate hardcoded configuration in the decompiled source:
csharp// Common .NET malware configuration patterns: // Pattern 1: Static class with hardcoded values public static class Config { public static string Host = "185.220.101.42"; public static int Port = 4782; public static string Key = "GhOsT_RaT_2025"; public static string Mutex = "AsyncMutex_6SI8OkPnk"; public static bool Install = true; public static string InstallFolder = "%AppData%"; } // Pattern 2: Encrypted strings decrypted at runtime public static string Decrypt(string input) { byte[] data = Convert.FromBase64String(input); byte[] key = Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes("SecretKey123"); for (int i = 0; i < data.Length; i++) { data[i] ^= key[i % key.Length]; } return Encoding.UTF8.GetString(data); } // Pattern 3: Resource-embedded configuration byte[] configData = Properties.Resources.config; string config = AES.Decrypt(configData, derivedKey);
python# Python script to extract .NET resource strings import subprocess import re import base64 # Use monodis (Mono) or ildasm (.NET SDK) to dump IL result = subprocess.run( ["monodis", "--output=il_dump.il", "suspect_cleaned.exe"], capture_output=True, text=True ) # Search for string literals in IL dump with open("il_dump.il", errors="ignore") as f: il_code = f.read() # Find ldstr (load string) instructions strings = re.findall(r'ldstr\s+"([^"]+)"', il_code) for s in strings: # Check for Base64 encoded strings try: decoded = base64.b64decode(s).decode('utf-8', errors='ignore') if len(decoded) > 3 and decoded.isprintable(): print(f" Base64: {s[:40]}... -> {decoded[:100]}") except: pass # Check for URLs/IPs if re.match(r'https?://', s) or re.match(r'\d+\.\d+\.\d+\.\d+', s): print(f" Network: {s}")
Set breakpoints and debug the malware to observe runtime behavior:
dnSpy Debugging Workflow:
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
1. Set breakpoints on key methods:
- String decryption functions (to capture decrypted values)
- Network connection methods (to capture C2 URLs)
- File write operations (to see what is dropped)
- Registry modification methods (to see persistence)
2. Debug -> Start Debugging (F5)
- Select the assembly to debug
- Set command-line arguments if needed
- Configure exception handling (break on all CLR exceptions)
3. At each breakpoint:
- Inspect local variables (Locals window)
- Evaluate expressions (Immediate window)
- View call stack to understand execution context
- Step over (F10) / Step into (F11) / Step out (Shift+F11)
4. Capture decrypted strings:
- Set breakpoint after decryption function returns
- Read the return value from the Locals window
- Document all decrypted configuration valuesCompile analysis results into a structured report:
Analysis documentation should include:
- .NET assembly metadata (CLR version, target framework, compilation info)
- Obfuscator identified and deobfuscation method used
- Complete C2 configuration (hosts, ports, encryption keys, mutex names)
- Malware capabilities (keylogging, screen capture, file theft, etc.)
- Persistence mechanisms (registry, scheduled tasks, startup folder)
- Anti-analysis techniques (VM detection, debugger detection, sandbox evasion)
- Extracted IOCs (C2 IPs/domains, file hashes, mutex names, registry keys)
- YARA rule based on unique code patterns or strings| Term | Definition | |------|------------| | CIL/MSIL | Common Intermediate Language; the bytecode format .NET assemblies compile to, which can be decompiled back to high-level C#/VB.NET | | Metadata Token | Unique identifier for .NET types, methods, and fields within the assembly metadata tables; used for navigation in dnSpy | | de4dot | Open-source .NET deobfuscator that identifies and removes protection from many commercial and malware-specific obfuscators | | ConfuserEx | Popular open-source .NET obfuscator frequently used by malware authors for string encryption and control flow obfuscation | | String Encryption | Obfuscation technique replacing string literals with encrypted data and runtime decryption calls to hide IOCs from static analysis | | Resource Embedding | Storing configuration, payloads, or additional assemblies in .NET embedded resources, often encrypted with a key derived from assembly metadata | | Assembly.Load | .NET method loading assemblies from byte arrays in memory, enabling fileless execution of embedded payloads |
Context: A phishing email delivers a .NET executable identified as AgentTesla. The sample needs analysis to determine what credentials it steals, how it exfiltrates data, and its C2 configuration.
Approach:
Pitfalls:
.NET MALWARE ANALYSIS REPORT
================================
Sample: invoice_scanner.exe
SHA-256: e3b0c44298fc1c149afbf4c8996fb924...
Type: .NET Assembly (C#)
Framework: .NET Framework 4.8
Obfuscator: ConfuserEx v1.6
Deobfuscated: Yes (de4dot -p cf)
CLASSIFICATION
Family: AgentTesla v3
Type: Information Stealer / Keylogger
Compile Date: 2025-09-10
C2 CONFIGURATION
Exfil Method: SMTP (Email)
SMTP Server: smtp.yandex[.]com:587
SMTP User: exfil.account@yandex[.]com
SMTP Pass: Str0ngP@ssw0rd2025
Recipient: operator@protonmail[.]com
Interval: 30 minutes
Encryption: AES-256 with key "AgentTesla_2025_key"
CAPABILITIES
[*] Browser credential theft (Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Opera)
[*] Email client passwords (Outlook, Thunderbird)
[*] FTP client credentials (FileZilla, WinSCP)
[*] VPN credentials (NordVPN, OpenVPN)
[*] Keylogging (SetWindowsHookEx)
[*] Screenshot capture (every 30 seconds)
[*] Clipboard monitoring
PERSISTENCE
Method: Registry Run key + Scheduled Task
Registry: HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run\WindowsUpdate
Task: \Microsoft\Windows\WindowsUpdate\Updater
EXTRACTED IOCs
SMTP Server: smtp.yandex[.]com
Exfil Email: exfil.account@yandex[.]com
Recipient: operator@protonmail[.]com
Mutex: AgentTesla_2025_Q3_MUTEX
Install Path: %AppData%\Microsoft\Windows\svchost.exe| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-03 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-11 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-16 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-18 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-04 | pass→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-13 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-05 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-12 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-15 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-10 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-20 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-17 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-08 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-06 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-14 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-21 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-07 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-19 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +36 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.
The per-case answers from this run were removed by the retention sweep, so the case table below shows the verdicts without the text either arm produced. The counts above were recorded at the time and are unaffected. Answers are now kept for 180 days.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.