Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've used LLMs to help with decompilation since the original release of GPT-4. They're excellent at recognizing the purpose of functions and refactoring IDA or Ghidra pseudo-C into readable code.
How does it do on things that were originally written in assembly?
The unexpected effectiveness of one-shot decompilation with Claude
21–30 of 133 posts
Re: The unexpected effectiveness of one-shot decompilation with Claude
#22If you aren't using LLMs for your reverse engineering tasks, you're missing out, big time. Claude kicks ass. It's good at cleaning up decompiled code, at figuring out what functions do, at uncovering weird assembly tricks and more.
Makes sense because LLMs are quite good at translating between natural languages. Anyway, we're reaching the point where documentation can be generated by LLMs and this is great news for developers.
Re: The unexpected effectiveness of one-shot decompilation with Claude
#23If you aren't using LLMs for your reverse engineering tasks, you're missing out, big time. Claude kicks ass. It's good at cleaning up decompiled code, at figuring out what functions do, at uncovering weird assembly tricks and more.
Re: The unexpected effectiveness of one-shot decompilation with Claude
#24What LLMs are (still?) not good at is one-shot reverse engineering for understanding by a non-expert. If that's your goal, don't blindly use an LLM. People already know that you getting an LLM to write prose or code is bad, but it's worth remembering that doing this for decompilation is even harder :)
Re: The unexpected effectiveness of one-shot decompilation with Claude
#25If you aren't using LLMs for your reverse engineering tasks, you're missing out, big time. Claude kicks ass. It's good at cleaning up decompiled code, at figuring out what functions do, at uncovering weird assembly tricks and more.
Re: The unexpected effectiveness of one-shot decompilation with Claude
#26It's worth noting here that the author came up with a handful of good heuristics to guide Claude and a very specific goal, and the LLM did a good job given those constraints. Most seasoned reverse engineers I know have found similar wins with those in place. What LLMs are (still?) not good at is one-shot reverse engineering for understanding by a non-expert. If that's your goal, don't blindly use an LLM. People alrea…
Re: The unexpected effectiveness of one-shot decompilation with Claude
#27Re: The unexpected effectiveness of one-shot decompilation with Claude
#28Re: The unexpected effectiveness of one-shot decompilation with Claude
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Makes sense because LLMs are quite good at translating between natural languages. Anyway, we're reaching the point where documentation can be generated by LLMs and this is great news for developers.
Maybe documentation meant for other llms to ingest. Their documentation is like their code, it might work, but I don't want to have to be the one to read it. Although of course if you don't vibe document but instead just use them as a tool, with significant human input, then yes go ahead.