Hi,
> "None of us are resistant to new ideas or ways of looking at
things"
Happy LEARNING
https://www.robotshop.com/uk/37-modules-sensor-kit-arduino.html
https://www.raspberrypi.org/
https://beagleboard.org/bone
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 14:11, Dave Newton wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at
On one occasion I had to make use of external procedure (dynamic link
library (DLL)) on a database.
The Oracle documents showed,Oracle database provides two ways of
interacting with host operating system.
PL/SQL which can create and write files to disk or a developer can create
dll (in C or
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 07:56 Zahid Rahman wrote:
> The space and defence don't share what they are doing. So I don't think
> yours is reasonable statement that you know what is happening in the
> aerospace and defence industry.
Hm. I don't think your assumption that I haven't done defense
The space and defence don't share what they are doing. So I don't think
yours is reasonable statement that you know what is happening in the
aerospace and defence industry.
Anyway you jumped to a conclusion of reverse engineering when I was
referring to the benefit of traceability when using
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 07:37 Zahid Rahman wrote:
> I'm not talking of reverse engineering, my point is traceability.
Sure you are--you specifically brought up decompiling, which is the first
step of reverse-engineering. And in a jar with no debug info, or
obfuscation, it's not the last step.
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 06:36 Zahid Rahman wrote:
> You're right except in a bespoke hardware , software environment they tend
> to use 68k Motorola chip to eliminate internal unknown risks.
I haven't worked on a 68k product for twenty years--I'd be *very* surprised
if anyone had designed one
I'm not talking of reverse engineering, my point is traceability.
If you can decompile code then if there is a problem then there is a chance
that you can trace it. With .exe or dll you cannot trace the problem.
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, 11:06 Dave Newton, wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 01:16
You're right except in a bespoke hardware , software environment they tend
to use 68k Motorola chip to eliminate internal unknown risks.
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, 11:06 Dave Newton, wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 01:16 Zahid Rahman wrote:
>
> > .exe and DLLs (C,C++) have unknown internals
Thanks for a most respectful reply.
I will give details of an incident later.
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, 11:06 Dave Newton, wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 01:16 Zahid Rahman wrote:
>
> > .exe and DLLs (C,C++) have unknown internals (AFAIK DLLs can't be
> > decompiled).
>
>
> They're just code
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 01:16 Zahid Rahman wrote:
> .exe and DLLs (C,C++) have unknown internals (AFAIK DLLs can't be
> decompiled).
They're just code like anything else. And I don’t quite understand why
there’s a distinction made here between reverse engineering an exe and a
jar.
I also
10 matches
Mail list logo
