For compiled programs, how hard is it to reverse engineer and de-compile it into it's source code (ie: HL2 Beta)
- Thread starter JEDI
- Start date
You can get assembly code.
You lose all the stuff that makes the code readable like variable names and comments.
You lose all the stuff that makes the code readable like variable names and comments.
Depends on the programming language. If it's c/c++ (almost all games are written in c++) and it's a not a debug version - it's virtually impossible. It might be slightly easier for java/c#.
Incredibly hard to get useful code unless you are a truely gifted programmer. You would have better things to do than hack on games though.
tools exist to get back to c/c++ code, but you lose comments and sensible variable names so understanding the resulting code is a lot more work.
instead of
// ship speed add thrusters
velocity += accel ;
// time for more shields
shields += regen_factor ;
you get
V0120 += V0138 ;
V0087 += V0242;
which over hundreds of thousands of lines can be pretty hard to unravel.
> Incredibly hard to get useful code unless you are a truely gifted programmer. You would have better things to do than hack on games though.
That too. The people writing cheats are the losers without the creativity or talent to do something useful with their lives.
instead of
// ship speed add thrusters
velocity += accel ;
// time for more shields
shields += regen_factor ;
you get
V0120 += V0138 ;
V0087 += V0242;
which over hundreds of thousands of lines can be pretty hard to unravel.
> Incredibly hard to get useful code unless you are a truely gifted programmer. You would have better things to do than hack on games though.
That too. The people writing cheats are the losers without the creativity or talent to do something useful with their lives.
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,769
- 19
- 81
to copy the program would be a lot easier than reverse engineering it....you know what it does basically....find an engine and go with it.
Now the comment about cheat writers??? WTF did that mean....some cheat apps are pretty elaborate and some are just commandline based, either way they aren't requirements to use.
It's a game the player should enjoy it, if that means being able to cast "Lightning Lvl. 1,000,000 Your body explodes into a fine bloody mist." their first time playing the game or have a BFG900000000 with unlimted ammo....
Now the comment about cheat writers??? WTF did that mean....some cheat apps are pretty elaborate and some are just commandline based, either way they aren't requirements to use.
It's a game the player should enjoy it, if that means being able to cast "Lightning Lvl. 1,000,000 Your body explodes into a fine bloody mist." their first time playing the game or have a BFG900000000 with unlimted ammo....
DT4K
Diamond Member
- Jan 21, 2002
- 6,944
- 3
- 81
With standard java and c# or vb.net code, it's super easy because they are interpreted instead of native compiled. There are tons of tools. MS even includes a tool with dotnet called ILDASM. It stands for Intermediate Language Disassembler.
But there are also tools to obfuscate your compiled code and make it much more difficult to get anything readable or useful back.
Fine if you're playing with yourself, using built-in cheat codes or something like a character editor in an RPG.
Not fine if you're hacking for multiplayer to see through walls, use an aimbot, get extra damage resistence, etc. to ruin the game for everyone else who is playing honestly.
Don't say interpreted
They're compiled, just to an intermediate language; IL for .NET, bytecode for Java.Once compiled to "native" (which has a relative meaning) code there is absolutely no way to recover the original source code without insane amounts of metadata emitted in the binary itself (which is done in some cases). Compilers perform A LOT of optimizations that would seriously obfuscate the meaning of your code in its compiled-reverse-engineed form.
For those that understand how to reverse-engineer an application, it makes little sense to convert it to a higher-level language. Most cracks are done using interactive debuggers which display opcodes and the associated assembly instruction only, and the higher-level language like C or C++ are then used to exploit what's been discovered.
For those that understand how to reverse-engineer an application, it makes little sense to convert it to a higher-level language. Most cracks are done using interactive debuggers which display opcodes and the associated assembly instruction only, and the higher-level language like C or C++ are then used to exploit what's been discovered.
JoLLyRoGer
Diamond Member
- Aug 24, 2000
- 4,153
- 4
- 81
Right, but even reverse engineering the program in to assembaly code would allow you to re-compile it for a different OS or processor, provided you have a compiler on hand. (For example: Porting the program onto Linux using the source code and a linux native compiler.) Correct?
AgaBoogaBoo
Lifer
- Feb 16, 2003
- 26,108
- 5
- 81
Exactly. Back in the old days, it was easier because programs were simpler, but nowadays they are more complicated from an assembly code point of view. Sure, C++ or Java make it easier, but the final result is much more complicated for most things these days. If someone can really read the binary code and reverse engineer it AND has the time to do it, they could be making a lot more money working for a security company.
So, theoretically, it is possible, but for something as large as this, its not realistically possible 99.99999998% of the times.
Negative. There's a large variance of the instruction set CPUs support, especially when you consider bit-boundaries (32-bit, 64-bit like the Itanium, etc.). Different assemblers (nasm, masm, ...) support different instructions as well (e.g. masm has support for instructions that make procedure calls easier), and what works in one assembler might not work in another depending on what you used to reverse-engineer the application in the first place.
DT4K
Diamond Member
- Jan 21, 2002
- 6,944
- 3
- 81
Semantics really. It's compiled into an intermediate language that is interpreted at runtime by either the JVM or the .net frameworkOriginally posted by: Descartes
Don't say interpreted
The point was that the distributed executable file is not native machine code but is an intermediate language that is easier to reverse engineer than native machine code.
Originally posted by: Shanti
Semantics really. It's compiled into an intermediate language that is interpreted at runtime by either the JVM or the .net frameworkOriginally posted by: Descartes
Don't say interpreted
The point was that the distributed executable file is not native machine code but is an intermediate language that is easier to reverse engineer than native machine code.
Tru dat.
JoLLyRoGer
Diamond Member
- Aug 24, 2000
- 4,153
- 4
- 81
OK, that makes sense. I suppose libraries or header files would vary between compilers too, therefore a function called from a library using compiler "a" may not necessarily be availiable in compiler "b" (especially true if the software company wrote custom header files to include during the original build.)
--I'm a rookie who's still learning, I only know enough about programming to confuse myself and come off sounding like an idiot.
Not to mention everything (little as that may be) I do know revolves around C (not C++) or Java...nearly impossible. certainly impossible for now. maybe in the future ai will be advanced enough to do that, but even then the produced result would not be identical to the original by any means.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter