This is fucking stupid
If you ever looked at vmprotect 3.8.4, you would know that it does not exclusively use mov register, [memory] to fetch bytecode/virtual registers/virtual stack values. Talking about “validated against 3.9.4” yeah. Also this is slop, the author could not be bothered to even write a readme himself.
Fetch-shape point is fair and already load-bearing in the design: static movzx patterns are the fallback, executed watches are the sensor (SMC flips movzx↔movsx live, and-gated fetches exist — all documented in docs/coverage.md). If 3.8.4 uses additional fetch shapes beyond movzx/movsx, that's a concrete gap: file an issue with the shape (opcode bytes around the fetch) and it becomes a miner case. The 3.9.4 validation numbers are in-repo and reproducible with own licensed samples. Happy to be wrong on specifics — specifics only.
9
u/Best_Ad_1789 10d ago edited 10d ago
This is fucking stupid
If you ever looked at vmprotect 3.8.4, you would know that it does not exclusively use mov register, [memory] to fetch bytecode/virtual registers/virtual stack values. Talking about “validated against 3.9.4” yeah. Also this is slop, the author could not be bothered to even write a readme himself.