Two Click disassembly/reassembly
in [ASM]
|
Prev: Check out POASM
Next: Bad habits
From: Betov on 27 Jan 2006 05:57 "Alex McDonald" <alex_mcd(a)btopenworld.com> ?crivait news:1138355729.219465.210770(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: > 1. You would need to analyse the entire code, not just this fragment, > to guarantee that someCodePtr is never modified. Ah!... A MASM victim, here. :) Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Alex McDonald on 27 Jan 2006 06:02 Betov wrote: > "Alex McDonald" <alex_mcd(a)btopenworld.com> écrivait > news:1138355729.219465.210770(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: > > > 1. You would need to analyse the entire code, not just this fragment, > > to guarantee that someCodePtr is never modified. > > > Ah!... A MASM victim, here. > > :) > Sorry, I'm not quite with you. How does the type of assembler change the problem? -- Regards Alex McDonald
From: ararghmail601NOSPAM on 27 Jan 2006 06:51 On 27 Jan 2006 03:02:01 -0800, "Alex McDonald" <alex_mcd(a)btopenworld.com> wrote: > >Betov wrote: >> "Alex McDonald" <alex_mcd(a)btopenworld.com> ?crivait >> news:1138355729.219465.210770(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: >> >> > 1. You would need to analyse the entire code, not just this fragment, >> > to guarantee that someCodePtr is never modified. >> >> >> Ah!... A MASM victim, here. >> >> :) >> > >Sorry, I'm not quite with you. How does the type of assembler change >the problem? And think about things like the COBOL ALTER verb which could change a pointer to code. -- ArarghMail601 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html To reply by email, remove the garbage from the reply address.
From: Betov on 27 Jan 2006 07:15 "Alex McDonald" <alex_mcd(a)btopenworld.com> ?crivait news:1138359721.067265.295290(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > > Betov wrote: >> "Alex McDonald" <alex_mcd(a)btopenworld.com> ?crivait >> news:1138355729.219465.210770(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: >> >> > 1. You would need to analyse the entire code, not just this fragment, >> > to guarantee that someCodePtr is never modified. >> >> >> Ah!... A MASM victim, here. >> >> :) >> > > Sorry, I'm not quite with you. Ah!... you mean that you are not a MASM victim? :))))) > How does the type of assembler change > the problem? If you had read the critics against MASM with a bit more open mind, you would know: "Alex" should stop eating at "McDonald". :) Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Alex McDonald on 27 Jan 2006 09:27
Betov wrote: > "Alex McDonald" <alex_mcd(a)btopenworld.com> écrivait > news:1138359721.067265.295290(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > > > > > Betov wrote: > >> "Alex McDonald" <alex_mcd(a)btopenworld.com> écrivait > >> news:1138355729.219465.210770(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: > >> > >> > 1. You would need to analyse the entire code, not just this > fragment, > >> > to guarantee that someCodePtr is never modified. > >> > >> > >> Ah!... A MASM victim, here. > >> > >> :) > >> > > > > Sorry, I'm not quite with you. > > Ah!... you mean that you are not a MASM victim? > > :))))) > > > How does the type of assembler change > > the problem? > > If you had read the critics against MASM with a bit > more open mind, you would know: "Alex" should stop > eating at "McDonald". > > :) > > Betov. > > < http://rosasm.org > You really have lost me here. What on earth does this have to do with this part of the thread? What does MASM bashing, along with some remarks about my surname that I normally get from three year old children, have to do with the code posted? -- Regards Alex McDonald |