3 ms·

>The same for WebAssembly: use it if you like, but please don't make your actual content unnecessarily dependent on the use of services from these multinational

• i336_ 9y ago
  It's EXEs and JARs for the Internet. Sure, it has a text format, but it's the equivalent of Lispified Java bytecode. (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/WebAssembly/Understanding_the_text_format https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/WebAssembly/Underst... (uninformative but current), http://loyc.net/2016/lesv3-and-wasm.html http://loyc.net/2016/lesv3-and-wasm.html (2016, from when wasm wasn't finalized, but has some good concrete examples that look like the wasm in the first link)) With this being said, it may actually be easier to figure out wasm than frameworkified JS since you can apply IDA-style reversing to it. Open question: what existing tools and research are good at inferring the high-level behavior of stack machines? Eg, research papers, or (preferably open source) tools for reversing eg Java code. I want links I can throw at Ph.Ds.
  • smitherfield 9y ago
    Obviously not open-source, but IntelliJ's decompiler is excellent.
  • macspoofing 9y ago
    >It's EXEs and JARs for the Internet. It's bytecode. I'm not sure if it is a big downgrade from 100,000 lines of minified JS code. >With this being said, it may actually be easier to figure out wasm than frameworkified JS since you can apply IDA-style reversing to it. It may.