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, <davelnew...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 01:16 Zahid Rahman <zahidr1...@gmail.com> 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 chose Java because one can decompile classes , so any unknown > > behaviour can be identified , > > > Decompiling a jar is a small part of understanding its behavior in a > system. A variety of mechanisms can alter library behavior during load and > run time, plus the additional layer of abstraction from the JVM, plus some > indeterminism depending on what GC and JRE decisions were made. > > In any case, unless you’re running on bare metal and assuming we’re > ignoring cpu unknowns, we’re working in black box environments most of the > time anyway—it’s just that most of the time we have the luxury of being > able to ignore this. > > -- > em: davelnew...@gmail.com > mo: 908-380-8699 > tw: @dave_newton <https://twitter.com/dave_newton> > li: dave-newton <https://www.linkedin.com/in/dave-newton/> > gh: davelnewton <https://github.com/davelnewton> > so: Dave Newton <http://stackoverflow.com/users/438992/dave-newton> > bl[0]: Bucky Bits <http://buckybits.blogspot.com/> > bl[1]: Maker's End Blog <https://blog.makersend.com> > sk: davelnewton_skype >
