rene77

3 ms·

1.
by rene77 5y ago
Oh, believe me, it's boring as hell. It's just endless hours of making sense of incomplete hardware manuals, converting tables to code by hand and handling subtle hardware differences. And what I did was console game modding - som
2.
by rene77 5y ago
Oh no, they were sore about this like you wouldn't believe. They'd rather refuse a legitimate customer than risk a leak. I can't even say they were entirely wrong: the sensitive nature of reverse engineering makes it hard to
3.
by rene77 5y ago
Doesn't this just prove that Ghidra is actually very, very old? By the UX alone, I'd place it in the 2003-2006 range, the time when the excitement of Mac OS X turned into a new generation of bombastic widget toolkits.
4.
by rene77 5y ago
I believe the pricing is high by necessity - we're talking about employing some dozen of people on the higher end of competency doing terribly unexciting work. Hobbyists should settle on the Hopper tool, which is $99 a year. Also, if y
5.
by rene77 5y ago
Decompilation isn't exactly a rocket science: just about anyone capable of hacking on clang or gcc can write a simple decompiler. The entire point of IDA was that they've done that, and also a lot of tedious, boring work on provid
6.
by rene77 5y ago
Ghidra's existance is a bit unfortunate, really. While it was released relatively recently, it's already a dated product permanently stuck with a clunky UI. And by being free, it'll create an extremely high bar for possible c
7.
by rene77 5y ago
Shenanigans like that the product owe to its author, Ilfak Guilfanov, who's a bit of a meme in the ex-USSR SRE community. Back in the '00s, when IDA pretty much had no alternative, one couldn't just buy it. No, to pay them mo