Following "The 7 Essential Questions of Every Beta", what should our faq contain?
This meta kind of starts the discussion, but perhaps we should have one place to sum it all up with a list of "good" and "bad" topics to put in the faq.
2 Answers
To start things off, the faq should contain :
If you have a question about ...
- software analysis (static or dynamic)
- disassembly or decompilation
- hardware analysis and testing
- tools commonly used for reverse engineering hardware or software
- hindering reverse engineering efforts
and it is not about ...
- performance evaluation
- performance testing software
- forward engineering (hardware construction, software creation)
- bug hunting (debugging) during software development
Still Under Discussion:
- Types of tool questions
- Finding and Exploiting Software (Note: see caveats about too localized)
- Biological Systems
- Social Phenomena
- vulnerability/security research
-
1What do you mean by "understanding software tools"? Would that include questions like "How does IDA Pro detect calling conventions?" To put it in the first section, it could probably be rephrased as "How can calling conventions be detected in automated static analysis?" Another example is "How can I make IDA recognise local variables when EBP isn't used?" It's useful to know, and a bit tricky to discover – is that a bad question?– DougallMar 27, 2013 at 1:43
-
@Dougall "How should I use this to do this ?" should be off-topic. "How does A tools perform this analysis?" should be on topic. The current wording of that point needs to be changed to reflect that. Better ?– asheeshrMar 28, 2013 at 1:43
-
-
I disagree. On Electrical Engineering we accept questions like "How do I make this circuit in that software?", because they're at least related to electronics design. We should sure accept questions on how to use Reverse Engineering tools, like, for example, Firebug in Firefox. Why not?– user187Mar 28, 2013 at 7:44
-
1I am removing
Using software toolsfrom the topics listed with reference to this post -> meta.reverseengineering.stackexchange.com/a/67/189 and this one from MSO -> meta.stackexchange.com/a/88910/200868– asheeshrMar 28, 2013 at 8:06 -
@CamilStaps Feel free to make changes to this answer. Just make sure to link to the relevant discussion here in meta or if needed, to the relevant discussion on MSO.– asheeshrMar 28, 2013 at 8:08
-
Okay, never worked with CW posts before. Thanks!– user187Mar 28, 2013 at 8:18
-
1I've made some edits to this, as the site will soon be progressing to the public beta phase. Please have a look, and make any tweaks you feel are needed. We'll be working with you here on Meta regarding the items still under discussion.– Tim PostApr 2, 2013 at 6:18
-
Also, remember - your FAQ comes pre-written to address 'chatty, open ended questions', such as 'shopping' or plain 'what tool is best' questions that aren't grounded in a real world problem someone is trying to solve. Part of your public beta experience will be learning how to interpret the guidelines you've created here in conjunction with the rest of the guidelines present in the FAQ. You don't need to get too specific when it comes to what kinds of tool questions would or would not be on topic, at least not in your FAQ.– Tim PostApr 2, 2013 at 6:40
-
Could we perhaps organize some kind of chat? Because it feels awkward to write up my own answer when editing this one may make more sense. But for example I find the term "software analysis" too broad as an FAQ entry.– 0xC0000022L ModApr 2, 2013 at 15:04
-
@0xC0000022L You could start another meta post referencing this one to start the discussion. I dont think there will be as many people available on chat as there will be here.– asheeshrApr 2, 2013 at 15:06
Here's how the list would look from my perspective. I had accidentally closed the tab with my original proposal, so I had to write it up from scratch and probably left out some stuff I considered important in the original (my commentary on the existing answer was a bit more chatty for example).
If you have a question about ...
- reverse engineering software
- to understand the internals of a program whose source is not available
- by means of static analysis, i.e. disassembling/decompiling program code without running it
- by means of dynamic analysis, i.e. running program code, including under a debugger, to learn how it works
- by creating higher level representations of program logic (such as UML diagrams) from existing class hierarchies
- reverse engineering electronic hardware, e.g.
- to find out the function of micro controllers, signal processors or whole circuit boards
- reverse engineering data formats and communication protocols, e.g.
- to establish interoperability
- methods as well as tools (and their inner workings) used for the above mentioned tasks, such as:
- disassemblers, decompilers and debuggers
- protocol sniffers/analyzers
- boundary scan and other hardware debugging equipment (e.g. JTAG probes)
and it is not about ...
- performance testing software
- bug hunting (debugging) during software development
- software and hardware development (forward engineering)
- how to solder
- vulnerability/security research
Commentary
In my opinion most of the original (or edited) proposals need further qualification not to blur the scope of the site unnecessarily.
For example I think that the original software analysis is a bit too broad. Of course it is a proper superset of what I am describing, but an FAQ should be more to the point than that in my opinion.
As you can see I also took the liberty - after all this is a discussion - to qualify "hardware" further, and thereby limiting the scope.
Edit 1:
Concerning vulnerability research I think it is a fine line. Agreed, most reverse engineers (as in RCE) will have experience with it, but this doesn't mean it strictly falls inside the scope of this site. But this is just one opinion inside a discussion. I'll bow to the majority vote anyway, so if people feel this ought to be the place for vulnerability research questions as well, so be it. I just think it might contradict the idea of splitting topics and creating new SE sites.
Now edit away or comment on this answer :)
-
I like your answer, except I'm not sure why using debuggers and vulnerability/security research should also be excluded. These things are well-known to many reverse engineers and hence I think this website could produce some great answers on those topics. Apr 2, 2013 at 21:17
-
@Syzygy: 1.) feel free to edit (this is a discussion ;)) and 2.) I was trying to qualify the exclusion debuggers further, not using debuggers per-se. For example during reverse engineering you will rarely use the VS integrated debugger, but instead
cdb,gdb, WinDbg, IDA or whatever. These are also debuggers and can aid in dynamic analysis, but they aren't there solely for bug hunting during development. Let me edit it and feel free to edit further.– 0xC0000022L ModApr 2, 2013 at 21:23 -
The topics that have to be listed dont have to be as verbose. If you look at other site's FAQs its simply a list of 4 or 5 topics without any description of each of them. People are more likely to read a shorter compact list than a long and verbose one.– asheeshrApr 2, 2013 at 23:57
-
@0xC0000022L I suggest making changes in the first answer itself. As that has more votes and matches up better with the general SE style FAQs, that will be the one that will go up.– asheeshrApr 16, 2013 at 15:22
-
@AshRj: it's exactly the reason I am hesitant to edit my stuff into the first answer. Since the other one has more votes, probably my suggestions aren't in line with what the majority wants. At least the number of votes would suggest that, don't you think?– 0xC0000022L ModApr 16, 2013 at 15:25
-
@0xC0000022L You could add some of your suggestions to the "Not good topics". Is there any reason you explicitly mentioned "how to solder" ? I dont recall seeing any questions asking about it.– asheeshrApr 16, 2013 at 15:28
-
@AshRj: since this is "reverse engineering" and not RCE as the site scope, yes the reason is that soldering would probably go on electronics.SE.– 0xC0000022L ModApr 16, 2013 at 15:32
-
@0xC0000022L I dont think we need to mention that. If we had users asking about it, then there would have been an argument for explicitly mentioning it. At the moment, I dont think we need to. Also, why dont you start a discussion about excluding "vulnerability/security research" ? Whatever comes out from that, I will edit that in, if needed.– asheeshrApr 16, 2013 at 15:36
-
@AshRj: we have that discussion already, AFAIK. First question ever on meta.RE.SE.– 0xC0000022L ModApr 16, 2013 at 23:03
-
@AshRj: the soldering example was also there to make sure people don't mistake the hardware RE part. A soldering iron is clearly one of the tools one would use in reversing hardware, but soldering is still off topic.– 0xC0000022L ModApr 17, 2013 at 14:22
-
-
@AshRj: ... which I take it is the reason your suggestions have way more upvotes than mine ...– 0xC0000022L ModApr 17, 2013 at 14:26
What should our FAQ contain ?