binaryninja-api VS decompiler-explorer

If you really want to poke around in the binary, you can use a decompiler like IDA, Ghidra, or Binary Ninja's free version.

Still $$$ for crippled functionality.

As an alternative, https://binary.ninja is gaining traction at work.

Possibly binary ninja

As I said, a regular text editor won’t do for reading a binary file, so I needed to choose a disassembler to break the challenge binaries out into their basic blocks. I chose to use Binary Ninja because it has a very easy-to-use Python API, and it’s hobbyist-level cheap (for comparison, the industry-standard disassembler is IDA Pro, which they will sell to you for roughly an arm, and continue to pick off your fingers and toes with renewal fees). I began by writing a quick script to go through a single binary and print out the opcodes it encountered in each block, just to validate that I was able to acquire the data I wanted.

It’s an awesome reverse engineering tool (https://binary.ninja). Has really nice api support so you can basically automate anything and make plugins for custom architectures and stuff like that.

If you agree, there is a GitHub issue tracking something like this for Binary Ninja specifically. Hitting that with a thumbs-up would be useful to let the developers know it's something the community wants and should be prioritized.

Can I just say, thanks to the person who posted this for waiting until this week to do so. (Side note: I suspect it was due to the recent coverage from C++ Weekly which is a great resource: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3F0Fw0R7ME)

As recently as last week we had some horrible performance problems but it looks like the queue (https://dogbolt.org/queue) is mostly still fine! Other than the long pole of a few of the decompilers being backed up, things are humming along quite smoothly! Josh + Glenn have done some great work on it! (https://github.com/decompiler-explorer/decompiler-explorer/c...)

(dogbolt.org, not .com by the way.)

Also check out this comparison tool https://dogbolt.org/ (https://github.com/decompiler-explorer/decompiler-explorer) - it's a clear illustration that tool effectiveness is highly dependent on the specific binary input and task complexity

The c++-looking code you see is rebuild from the disasm, e.g for clarity, it's supposed to make the low level code more readable, so it does not mean anything about the language. (aside: several other product do that, see https://dogbolt.org/)