Boomerang

[theUser BL]

At
http://www.reactos.org/pipermail/ros-dev/2006-February/007878.html
and on other places there is mentioned, that the way to audit is, to look at 
the ReactOS-Source-Code, look if it looks understandable.

The problem is, that is possible, that people disasseble MS-Windows-code and 
port then the Assembler-Code in stupid C code.
And - because  (not clean room) reverse engineering isn't allowed - all 
code, which looks stupd will be eliminated.

That was also discussed in a german forum. There someone have at
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/foren/go.shtml?read=1&msg_id=9920469&…
discribed, how a normal C program can be compiled to assebler code and an 
other people create stupied C code, where you can see, that it was reverse 
engineered.

But in the same forum, someone have mentioned, that there existing 
decompiler like Boomerang
http://boomerang.sourceforge.net/
which creates from binary code logical, easy to read C code. (Don't know 
before, that something like this exists).

Have a look at
http://boomerang.sourceforge.net/cando.php


I want with this mail only to say, that it would be very hard to find the 
reverse engineered code (if there existing one).


Greatings
theuserbl

[Maarten Bosma]

Hi,

theUser BL wrote:
>   But in the same forum, someone have mentioned, that
> there existing 
>  decompiler like Boomerang
>  http://boomerang.sourceforge.net/
>  which creates from binary code logical, easy to read C code. (Don't know 
>  before, that something like this exists). 
I did already try it before: It does not work reliable yet. It most case 
it just crashes if you use it on an windows binary.

>   I want with this mail only to say, that it would be
> very hard to find 
>  the reverse engineered code (if there existing one). 
Quote from Alex Ionescu:
>   In the end, one of the best ways to figure out if
> something is reversed 
>  is not the code style, but the code quality. You tell yourself "Ok..so 
>  here we have a low-level kernel function that no driver out there uses, 
>  and which has absolutely no test case, but has 500 lines of perfectly 
>  implemented code which seem to magically know how to handle every 
>  combination of parameters, flags and situations. How was this coded?"  

Maarten Bosma