Context is everything :) If the line was found in a loaded userland program (which the OP doesn't mention, but I'm going to presume), here's probably how it originated. The mov
instruction was reading a valid DWORD sized variable from the program's data section, and the module was either loaded at its preferred load address, or contained a relocation record that would adjust the address in the mov
command to the correct address.
The ds:
prefix was just a case of disassembler trying to cover all bases. The mov reg, mem
command uses ds
by default.
In general, you can't access any old address. HOWEVER, any program needs some memory - at the very least to store its statically declared variables. When the OS loads the program, it has to allocate some memory for the code and the data. The layout of the program in the memory, once it's loaded, is predictable. The linker knows that if the program was loaded starting from, say, 0x8300000, its variable called foo
will be found at 0x83f413c. So reading the value of that variable can be coded directly - assuming the program was loaded at its preferred address, which in this example is 0x8300000. The preferred address is stored in the program header so that the OS knows it while loading.
What if the program is NOT loaded at the preferred address? Then there's another technique in play, it's called relocation. The program header contains a set of records that tell the loader to adjust the code while loading. Something like: "in the code section at offset 0x7000 there's a mov reg, mem
command that's using a memory offset that's relative to the loading address, please adjust accordingly". The program loader, which is a part of the OS, sees that and does as told.
All in all, a mov
command like this, i. e. reading from a static address, can be safe, as long as it's being generated by the build toolchain (compiler/linker) that knows what it's doing. With some help from the OS-based program loader, static addresses like this are safe to work with.
All that was written from the assumption that the OP encountered the line in question in a compiled userland program targeting a protected mode OS (Windows, Linux, etc.). If it was, say, in a device driver or in an OS kernel, or a bootloader, or a real mode 32-bit program (those exist!), then different considerations would apply.