Why can’t native machine code be easily decompiled?
With bytecode-based virtual machine languages like Java, VB.NET, C#, ActionScript 3.0, etc., you hear sometimes about how easy it is to just go download some decompiler off the Internet, run the bytecode through it one good time, and oftentimes, come up with something not too far from the original source code in a matter of seconds. Supposedly this sort of language is particularly vulnerable to that.
Why can’t native machine code be easily decompiled?
With bytecode-based virtual machine languages like Java, VB.NET, C#, ActionScript 3.0, etc., you hear sometimes about how easy it is to just go download some decompiler off the Internet, run the bytecode through it one good time, and oftentimes, come up with something not too far from the original source code in a matter of seconds. Supposedly this sort of language is particularly vulnerable to that.
Why can’t native machine code be easily decompiled?
With bytecode-based virtual machine languages like Java, VB.NET, C#, ActionScript 3.0, etc., you hear sometimes about how easy it is to just go download some decompiler off the Internet, run the bytecode through it one good time, and oftentimes, come up with something not too far from the original source code in a matter of seconds. Supposedly this sort of language is particularly vulnerable to that.
Why can’t native machine code be easily decompiled?
With bytecode-based virtual machine languages like Java, VB.NET, C#, ActionScript 3.0, etc., you hear sometimes about how easy it is to just go download some decompiler off the Internet, run the bytecode through it one good time, and oftentimes, come up with something not too far from the original source code in a matter of seconds. Supposedly this sort of language is particularly vulnerable to that.
Why can’t native machine code be easily decompiled?
With bytecode-based virtual machine languages like Java, VB.NET, C#, ActionScript 3.0, etc., you hear sometimes about how easy it is to just go download some decompiler off the Internet, run the bytecode through it one good time, and oftentimes, come up with something not too far from the original source code in a matter of seconds. Supposedly this sort of language is particularly vulnerable to that.
Is byte stuffing required when using a packet field length
I’m involved in a project which involves implementing a binary protocol that will be transmitted over TCP. During our early discussions we have hit a brief snag on deciding whether byte stuffing is required if we decide to include the packet length in the field header.
Is byte stuffing required when using a packet field length
I’m involved in a project which involves implementing a binary protocol that will be transmitted over TCP. During our early discussions we have hit a brief snag on deciding whether byte stuffing is required if we decide to include the packet length in the field header.
Is byte stuffing required when using a packet field length
I’m involved in a project which involves implementing a binary protocol that will be transmitted over TCP. During our early discussions we have hit a brief snag on deciding whether byte stuffing is required if we decide to include the packet length in the field header.
Is machine language always binary? [duplicate]
This question already has answers here: Is there an alternative to bits? (12 answers) Closed 10 years ago. I know absolutely nothing in low-level stuff, so this will be a very newbie question. Please excuse my ignorance. Is machine language – the series of numbers to that tell the physical computer exactly what to do […]
Is machine language always binary? [duplicate]
This question already has answers here: Is there an alternative to bits? (12 answers) Closed 10 years ago. I know absolutely nothing in low-level stuff, so this will be a very newbie question. Please excuse my ignorance. Is machine language – the series of numbers to that tell the physical computer exactly what to do […]