Yet another fantasy
-
DARPA wants a decompiler that can not only produce easily modified code but which will be verifiable. Why DARPA hopes to 'distill' old binaries into readable code • The Register[^] Having used decompilers over many years I don't see that this is likely. I suspect it will be similar to the DARPA Robotics Challenge. If I am reading it correctly (the 'HAR') it is even supposed to use a new representational format. So one would need to understand that first. Following is the comment from one person (paraphrased perhaps) ...
Along with being able to deconstruct, edit, and reconstruct binaries, the team said its processing pipeline is also able to comb through HARs and remove extraneous routines.
So static code analysis that removes unused code. Which means dynamic linkage is not allowed. The verification part?
The team has also, we're told, baked in verification steps to ensure changes made to code within hardware ranging from jets and drones to plain-old desktop computers work exactly as expected with no side effects.
I am just stating that seems like a really bold statement. Seems like if they can just do that then they should trash the rest and just present that to the world.
-
DARPA wants a decompiler that can not only produce easily modified code but which will be verifiable. Why DARPA hopes to 'distill' old binaries into readable code • The Register[^] Having used decompilers over many years I don't see that this is likely. I suspect it will be similar to the DARPA Robotics Challenge. If I am reading it correctly (the 'HAR') it is even supposed to use a new representational format. So one would need to understand that first. Following is the comment from one person (paraphrased perhaps) ...
Along with being able to deconstruct, edit, and reconstruct binaries, the team said its processing pipeline is also able to comb through HARs and remove extraneous routines.
So static code analysis that removes unused code. Which means dynamic linkage is not allowed. The verification part?
The team has also, we're told, baked in verification steps to ensure changes made to code within hardware ranging from jets and drones to plain-old desktop computers work exactly as expected with no side effects.
I am just stating that seems like a really bold statement. Seems like if they can just do that then they should trash the rest and just present that to the world.
I'd agree that it's unlikely - but if it worked it would be a game changer* * And they would probably get sued by Adobe, Corel, Microsoft, ... once it became clear it was used to remove anti-piracy measures ... at a guess 20 minutes after release.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony "Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
I'd agree that it's unlikely - but if it worked it would be a game changer* * And they would probably get sued by Adobe, Corel, Microsoft, ... once it became clear it was used to remove anti-piracy measures ... at a guess 20 minutes after release.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony "Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
DARPA wants a decompiler that can not only produce easily modified code but which will be verifiable. Why DARPA hopes to 'distill' old binaries into readable code • The Register[^] Having used decompilers over many years I don't see that this is likely. I suspect it will be similar to the DARPA Robotics Challenge. If I am reading it correctly (the 'HAR') it is even supposed to use a new representational format. So one would need to understand that first. Following is the comment from one person (paraphrased perhaps) ...
Along with being able to deconstruct, edit, and reconstruct binaries, the team said its processing pipeline is also able to comb through HARs and remove extraneous routines.
So static code analysis that removes unused code. Which means dynamic linkage is not allowed. The verification part?
The team has also, we're told, baked in verification steps to ensure changes made to code within hardware ranging from jets and drones to plain-old desktop computers work exactly as expected with no side effects.
I am just stating that seems like a really bold statement. Seems like if they can just do that then they should trash the rest and just present that to the world.
