The rev.ng decompiler goes open source
1–10 of 63 posts
Re: The rev.ng decompiler goes open source
#2> Very briefly:
> The rev.ng framework is fully open source. You can decompile anything you want from the CLI. > The UI will be available in the following forms: > free to use in the cloud for public projects; > available through a subscription in the cloud for private projects; > available at a cost as a fully standalone, fully offline application.
In comparison, Hopper costs 100 USD with one year of updates [1]. Ghidra and Radare2 are FOSS and completely free to use, IDA Pro costs a fortune
Re: The rev.ng decompiler goes open source
#3"He also met a partner in crime, Pietro. Romantically enough, he met him thanks to a book which will turn out to be foundational for company."
Congrats on the launch.
Re: The rev.ng decompiler goes open source
#4Price model: > Very briefly: > The rev.ng framework is fully open source. You can decompile anything you want from the CLI. > The UI will be available in the following forms: > free to use in the cloud for public projects; > available through a subscription in the cloud for private projects; > available at a cost as a fully standalone, fully offline application. In comparison, Hopper costs 100 USD with one year of up…
Binja is $300 (or $1500 for commercial, both cheaper for students).
Re: The rev.ng decompiler goes open source
#5And looking at the code contributions: https://github.com/revng/revng/graphs/contributors
Isn't it a bit weird that the CEO (aleclearmind) has most commits, even much more than the CTO (pfez)? I often hear the complaints from other CEOs that they don't really find any time anymore to code... Even the CTO usually is more on the managing side and less active in actual coding.
Anyway, if this works, then I guess it's a lot of fun for them.
Edit Ah right, I didn't check the timeline.
Re: The rev.ng decompiler goes open source
#6Price model: > Very briefly: > The rev.ng framework is fully open source. You can decompile anything you want from the CLI. > The UI will be available in the following forms: > free to use in the cloud for public projects; > available through a subscription in the cloud for private projects; > available at a cost as a fully standalone, fully offline application. In comparison, Hopper costs 100 USD with one year of up…
Re: The rev.ng decompiler goes open source
#7Checking the team about: https://rev.ng/about And looking at the code contributions: https://github.com/revng/revng/graphs/contributors Isn't it a bit weird that the CEO (aleclearmind) has most commits, even much more than the CTO (pfez)? I often hear the complaints from other CEOs that they don't really find any time anymore to code... Even the CTO usually is more on the managing side and less active in actual codin…
Re: The rev.ng decompiler goes open source
#8Price model: > Very briefly: > The rev.ng framework is fully open source. You can decompile anything you want from the CLI. > The UI will be available in the following forms: > free to use in the cloud for public projects; > available through a subscription in the cloud for private projects; > available at a cost as a fully standalone, fully offline application. In comparison, Hopper costs 100 USD with one year of up…
Re: The rev.ng decompiler goes open source
#9Price model: > Very briefly: > The rev.ng framework is fully open source. You can decompile anything you want from the CLI. > The UI will be available in the following forms: > free to use in the cloud for public projects; > available through a subscription in the cloud for private projects; > available at a cost as a fully standalone, fully offline application. In comparison, Hopper costs 100 USD with one year of up…
Decompilation is often the least important (and least reliable) part of IDA/Ghidra, so comparing the two is unfair. That said, the scene is perpetually starved for good C decompilers, so more attempts are always exciting.
Re: The rev.ng decompiler goes open source
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Decompilation is often the least important (and least reliable) part of IDA/Ghidra, so comparing the two is unfair. That said, the scene is perpetually starved for good C decompilers, so more attempts are always exciting.
I hear this a lot and in my experience people who Ghidra or IDA and don’t use the decompiler are exceptionally rare. Why would you suffer that when you can use something else for what you actually want?
In my experience decompilers will totally ignore or fail on certain types of malicious code, so they mainly exist to assist disassembly analysis. And for that purpose, they save us an incredible amount of human hours.