Live data from Hacker News

The rev.ng decompiler goes open source

rev.ng

1–10 of 63 posts

Re: The rev.ng decompiler goes open source

#2
Price 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 updates [1]. Ghidra and Radare2 are FOSS and completely free to use, IDA Pro costs a fortune

[1] https://www.hopperapp.com/index.html

Re: The rev.ng decompiler goes open source

#3
A cool company fueled by one of the best PLT books out there: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-662-03811-6

"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."

https://rev.ng/about

Congrats on the launch.

Re: The rev.ng decompiler goes open source

#4
post #2

Price 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…

Binary ninja is another good option. In my experience it's pretty similar to ida but I find it more user friendly. It just has a lot of well thought out features that make me more productive. I haven't tried hopper but ghidra and radare2 both had a bad dev experience and produced c that didn't "read well". Granted it's been a couple of years since I tried either.

Binja is $300 (or $1500 for commercial, both cheaper for students).

https://binary.ninja/features

Re: The rev.ng decompiler goes open source

#5
Checking 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 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

#6
post #2

Price 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…

I really like licensing models of one-time payments with a pre-defined duration of updates. But I wonder how they enforce it while not making internet access a requirement for the app.

Re: The rev.ng decompiler goes open source

#7

Checking 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…

The CTO has more recent commits, aleclearmind's commits drop to 0 after 2020 so maybe they also have a hard time getting to code.

Re: The rev.ng decompiler goes open source

#8
post #2

Price 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

#9
post #8
post #2

Price 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.

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?

Re: The rev.ng decompiler goes open source

#10
post #8

Earlier 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?

I didn't say I never use it, just that it's not always the core feature. This will depend heavily on your field, but in my past work, the features that were way more essential are: scripting (+ IR lifting), xrefs, CFGs, labels/notes (in a persistent DB).

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.

Post reply on HN