Re: [Full-disclosure] WinAppDbg version 1.2 is out!

From: Mario Alejandro Vilas Jerez <mvilas@gmail.com>
To: Jared DeMott <jdemott@crucialsecurity.com>
Cc: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk <full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk>,fuzzing@whitestar.linuxbox.org <fuzzing@whitestar.linuxbox.org>,bugtraq@securityfocus.com <bugtraq@securityfocus.com>,python-win32@python.org <python-win32@python.org>
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] WinAppDbg version 1.2 is out!
Date:


Basically it's got some different features than PyDbg and a more
complete documentation. If you have an *existing* project built upon
PyDbg it's probably not worth switching (unless you've hit some very
bad problem with it) but I believe it's better for newer projects, as
this new library is more flexible and scalable.

It doesn't have a fuzzing platform like Sulley. It does however have
some tools that can be useful when fuzzing, particularly one that
attaches to a program as a debugger and logs the crashes it finds,
using some simple heuristics to avoid logging the same crash twice.

Let me know if you decide to give it a try, I'll help in anything I can :)

Cheers,
-Mario

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Jared
DeMott<jdemott@crucialsecurity.com> wrote:
> Can you compare/contrast with pydbg so I can understand why I might want
> to give it a try?  Do you have a fuzzing platform like Sulley for it as
> well?  Thx!
> Jared

-- 
HONEY: I want to put some powder on my nose.
GEORGE: Martha, wont you show her where we keep the euphemism?





Copyright © 1995-2018 LinuxRocket.net. All rights reserved.