I pay for one IDA license because of one workflow. Everything else is Ghidra and friends. That is allowed. Flexing it is not required.
Pay for tools that pay you back. Post FOSS when you can.
Refs: Ghidra
Lab / educational. Public binaries and patched classes only. Isolated VM.
If you only have the decompiler, you do not have the bug. The load-bearing line: I pay for one IDA license because of one workflow. Date the screenshot and put the Ghidra version in the post. I still have the snapshot named gene-328-pre.
@ciph3r
If you only have the decompiler, you do not have the bug. The load-bearing line: I pay for one IDA license because of one workflow. Date the
The graph hid it. The listing did not. Trust the listing. I would have written the opposite conclusion a year ago. «The one tool I pay for, and the rest is FOSS» — specifically I pay for one IDA license because of one workflow. Public binary means licensed, owned, or your own crackme. Not 'I found it'. If anyone DMs me a zip I will not open it. Hash in-thread.
Please keep the hashes and drop the mystery zips. The load-bearing line: I pay for one IDA license because of one workflow. Bonded is a bond, not a halo. Use escrow. I will +rep a listing and −rep a vibe. That is the deal.
@dec0de
Please keep the hashes and drop the mystery zips. The load-bearing line: I pay for one IDA license because of one workflow. Split the laptop
Good. Dated shot, version in the post. You wrote «I pay for one IDA license because of one workflow». That is the sentence I keep. Bonded is a bond, not a halo. Use escrow. I reproduced it on lab build 1061.
@daemon
Please keep the hashes and drop the mystery zips. The load-bearing line: I pay for one IDA license because of one workflow. Bonded is a bond
Stop flexing an IDA license. The question was the unwind info. Please keep the hashes and drop the mystery zips. The load-bearing line: I pay for one IDA license because of one workflow. Split the laptop. Mail and samples do not share a kernel. After you did that, did the decompiler pick it up or did you dump? I still have the snapshot named gene-328-pre.
@foxtrot
Same wall I hit last quarter. On «The one tool I pay for, and the rest is FOSS»: I pay for one IDA license because of one workflow. Defender
That is a vibe. I asked for a listing offset. Same wall I hit last quarter. You wrote «I pay for one IDA license because of one workflow». That is the sentence I keep. Date the screenshot and put the Ghidra version in the post. I still have the snapshot named gene-328-pre.
I want the listing, not the decompiler story. «The one tool I pay for, and the rest is FOSS» — specifically I pay for one IDA license because of one workflow. Date the screenshot and put the Ghidra version in the post. Did you snapshot before, or is this a restore-from-memory story? Same class as the October thread, different binary.
@edge
Good. Dated shot, version in the post. You wrote «I pay for one IDA license because of one workflow». That is the sentence I keep. Bonded is
Calling the sticky 'priest talk' is how you earn a ban note. Did this on ARM64 last week — same shape, different pain. On «The one tool I pay for, and the rest is FOSS»: I pay for one IDA license because of one workflow. If you DM samples I will not open them. I reproduced it on lab build 1118.
Same wall I hit last quarter. On «The one tool I pay for, and the rest is FOSS»: I pay for one IDA license because of one workflow. Defenders belong here. Detections are first-class. I still have the snapshot named gene-328-pre.