Re: A Disassembly Problem for Rene to Consider

From: Betov (betov_at_free.fr)
Date: 09/11/04 

Date: 11 Sep 2004 18:27:49 GMT

"Randall Hyde" <randyhyde@earthlink.net> écrivait
news:vcG0d.392$_G4.189@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:

>
> "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@nevernet.at> wrote in message
> news:chul62$npd$1@newsreader1.utanet.at...
>
>> [ BlaBla...]
>
> "Above" did not explain how to determine the size of the table.
> It was a quick and dirty explaination without a lot of thought
> (that is, a typical A.L.A. post). Sit down and write a *working*
> version of the algorithm. See how far you get. As much as
> I poke fun at Rene for making stupid proclamations that defy
> computer science, I do have some respect for the fact that
> he *has* attempted to solve this problem and has come to the
> conclusion that it is not possible to solve automatically.
> If you're not going to believe it cannot be done because
> theoretical computer science tells us so, perhaps you should
> try and *write* the code to do this yourself so you can
> prove it to yourself that way.

Hey, swindler, this is not because i have let that
thread go, that i do no more read it !!!...

I already asked you: "Where did i wrote this"??? You
answered by saying to me that _I_ could do the search
by myself. Well, mind you, i am not yet senile enough,
for searching all over the Web, for something that i
never wrote anywhere !!!...

> [...]
>>
> You're ignorance of computer science does not change
> the facts, I'm afraid. As I've said earlier, you have the
> typical hacker mentality - "I can solve any problem,
> regardless of what the theory says and academians don't
> have a clue." Remember when Rene was claiming there
> was no way a collision could occur in his hashing function?
> You've fallen into the same trap. You've not bothered to
> study theoretical computer science, you don't want to
> take the effort to figure this out for yourself, so you just
> continue to stick your foot in your mouth with your
> proclaimations about what's possible and what's not.

No limit to insanities, is it? If there is any "Collision
Problem" in RosAsm "hashing function", prove it.

>> [...]
>
> Oh, I *do* see the difference.
> The difference is that the scheme you're proposing is
> either not automatic or it doesn't produce perfect code.
> As I've said many times, relax either (or both) of those
> requirements and it is perfectly possible to write a dissasembler.
> A pretty damn good one, in fact (see IDAPro).

I have already proposed to you an experiment to
give you the opportunity of demonstrating in what
terms IDA would be better than RosAsm Disassembler.

Still waiting for any sensible answer.

For your other bullshits about Disassemblers, you
are, in no way, an individual i could talk with,
about these serious technical problems.

In some way, it is a pity that you are spamming
this NG with your bullshits, because there are
some points that could have been interresting to
discuss about with a real Asmer, like Wolfgang...
Well... Another time... Somewhere else, maybe...

It is now close to one year that i work on RosAsm
Disassembler. So, i think, i can say that i have
acquired some expertise level in matter of PE
Code vs Data recognitions, in Code Flows analyses,
and so on. Discussing of these complicated and
difficult problems with an definitive idiot, like
you, would not be very helpfull.

This does not mean that you can go on playing your
chest bombing game, at no cost, but my own expense:

As opposed to you i know what i am talking about,
in matter of Assembler, of Disassembler, and so on,
because i did something real. Your big words and your
smoking theories' bullshits will never change a thing
at the fact that you are a nobody, whatever success
you might get around there when missleading beginners.

Betov.

< http://betov.free.fr/RosAsm.html >

Quantcast