This is the official discussion thread for the Collaborative RCE Knowledge Library (http://www.woodmann.com/collaborative/knowledge).

Here you can submit any feedback about it, report any bugs you may have found in it (please don't report individual moderation issues here though, they should be reported by using the built in moderator reporting feature that can be found at the bottom of each tool page) or discuss anything concerning it with other members or admins.

Enjoy!

I'd really like a button to expand the whole navigation tree at once, or a user account option to load it like that by default. Having to click several times (and wait for it to load at each stage) to get to the right category makes it really slow when I want to add something.

Maybe I'm just massively impatient

Thanks for setting it up

I'm glad you like it wtbw.

Given the "multi-dimensional" category structure of the CRCEKL, the category tree gets messy (to the degree of you likely changing your mind about this being helpful) if you expand it all though, believe me (try it manually once to see what I mean)...

I see what you mean, but do I think there needs to be *some* way to make it faster to get to the category you want, otherwise people will be discouraged from entering things "on a whim."

wtbw, it is indeed always a very good idea to make it as easy as possible for people to do something that you want them to do. If you have any more practical suggestions for how to accomplish this in a good way, I'll be glad to hear them. I will also try to think about it some.

great idea Woodmann crew.
a few suggestions:

1 - explicitly disallow flash tutorials (big to download, bad to read, anything to learn). they just attract idiots who changes a couple of jumps and nops something else. Those kind of tutorials are here only to say "Watch me!". No, seriously: i have never seen a decent flash tutorial.
2 - you should add spaces where to insert tutorial difficulty and tutorial format.

nice work

I'm glad you like it.

Even though you might absolutely be right about the average quality of Flash tutorials, we'd rather not disallow any tutorials in advance, based only on the way in which they convey their information. Rather, if a tutorial (or any other type of item) has a too low quality, we will remove it no matter the type. Sounds fair?

It might indeed be a good idea to have certain "special fields" for some of the item types (especially tutorials and crackmes I guess).

"Difficulty" and "format" might be a good start for tutorials. What other fields may be of use, or are commonly used at other sites that collect tutorials and/or crackmes? (this question is not only for AttonRand, so please answer anyone who can)

Agreed for "format", however it will be kinda hard to define the difficulty. Someone can find difficult a tutorial about manual unpacking and some unpacking gods find them incredibly clear and easy. Rather the complexity of the material: how deep the author goes on the subject, how complete it is... "beginner" for simple overview to light coverage, "average" when you put hands on it and details are revealed, "advanced" when it covers pretty much everything and goes way beyond the functionalities of things.

..no ?

i agree with wtbw comments

http://securityxploded.com/malware-analysis-training-reference.php

Has a link to http://ivanlef0u.fr/repo/windoz/pe/CBM_1_2_2006_Goppit_PE_Format_Reverse_Engineer_View.pdf, which I'm learning a lot from. "Portable Executable File Format – A Reverse Engineer View" written by Goppit is only mentioned in the library as far as I can tell...

How about adding books to the library and singling out chapters like the references in the securityexploded site?

Actually, that's exactly what the Collaborative RCE Knowledge Library ("http://www.woodmann.com/collaborative/knowledge") is for (contrary to the tool library). (you will find links to both in our header menu above)

I have now added it to the "Windows Internals Articles" category of it for you:

http://www.woodmann.com/collaborative/knowledge/Portable_Executable_File_Format_%E2%80%93_A_Reverse_Engineer_View

lol I guess I missed the whole "collaborative" part of it. Thanks!