Curious if anyone has given it a shot an can speak to the experience.
I also tried to have it automatically build some structs from code showing the access patterns, and it failed miserably on that task. Likely a larger model (o3 or opus) would do better here.
I personally don't think letting an LLM do large parts of the reversing would be useful to me as I build up a lot of my mental model of the system during the process, so I'd be missing out on that. But for handling annoying bits of code I'd likely just forego otherwise? Go ham!
If you're just getting back in the saddle, you might want to give both a try. In particular, GhidrAssist's "Explain Function" tool is really helpful at quickly summarizing code and reducing the mental overhead of making sense of large binaries.
I'm interested to see how MCP and the development in AI will impact the CTF scene in the future.
I was about to start doing this, then realized I shouldn't nerd-snipe myself... The original extension definitely felt user unfriendly, so I was using Claude Code manually, feeding it an exported listing file. The listing files lack full addresses, so it wasn't optimal source material.
- several additional tools (like get_class_info, search_classes, etc),
- it has GUI config and logging,
- and it does not rely on an external Python bridge to host the MCP Server - it's monolithic (using the official MCP Java SDK).
Embeddings could be derived from reconstituted hash.
Otoh I can see this being disproportionately helpful with reverse Engineering Rust and Go binaries, which usually include many opensource dependencies