> - Decompiler too stubborn sometimes, ignoring user input (e.g. Instead, I would be interested in learning about more fundamental differences between the two decompilers. But instead of displaying a warning it just shows you the part it could decompile and you have to figure out by yourself that something is missing.īut most of the above issues are fixable. Quite dangerous: Sometimes the decompiler gets lost, especially if a function contains handwritten assembly code with unusual control flows. Decompiler needs better heuristics for the treatment of some common cases (e.g., often doesn't recognize for-loops and array accesses) Decompiler too stubborn sometimes, ignoring user input (e.g. Too many frequently-used dialogs are not optimized for keyboard usage. Maybe ML trained on source code? Function signatures of the latest malware?Īfter several hundred hours with Ghidra, I think it certainly would need some polishing, in particular: ![]() obfuscated code)? I heard about their cloud-based stuff, although I don't know what they are exactly doing there. C++, Windows), or for a specific use case (e.g. Is it better in general, for a specific programming language or platform (e.g. Can you elaborate? I would really like to see what the HexRay decompiler does better (or worse) than Ghidra, but I am too poor to buy it (and is not interactive, so I cannot edit function signatures to "help" the decompiler etc.).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |