X86_Disassembly

lol always late to the party eh why? I think I posted a link to that a while ago (if not quoted several times) lol

edit: here's one

and invoke really has nothing much to do with other uncommon instructions and is just an easier way to call a method?

Invoke A,B,C,D == Push D;Push C;Push B;Call A;

Well, I saw the link a while ago, I just didn't know you could save it as a .pdf, from wikipidea. Thought it was cool, but I guess everyone already knew that xD.
And I prefer to call it "fashionably late" thankyou very much. :P

And I suppose when you put it that way, perhaps Im exaggerating, but the point is Im am more interested in disassembly then assembly programming. and the masm Izcelion's Masm tutorials, seem to spend more time teaching windows, and less assembly. And the tuts that too teach asm are either 16bit DOS or Technically Reference guides, with no intention of teaching the commands fully.

Looks to me like you've stumbled upon an eureka moment which almost seems like a paradox:

To know assembly does not imply one is skilled at disassembly and understands the reversing process and yet to be skilled at disassembly does not guarantee one can even write 'hello' world from scratch.

Just go with which one has your interest more If it's disassembly you're after, nothing beats loading up your favorite debugger and just seeing what's going - or if you a glutton for punishment do some deadlisting (I actually enjoy this...) and figure out and comment every line or block of code.

Well in that case I would say Im more interested in disassembly. Right now, Im not so great at it, but In my reversing book, the author said he can look through code quickly and find what he needs. I think that would be a good skill to learn. I think I have the knowledge now to start practicing hacking different programs and such. I just have to master my technique is all.

Hmmm. I like doing both. Rather it is a lot easier to understand what's going on while disassembling when you actually know assembly, but i have managed without this knowledge before. . . I was disassembling combat arms, I ended up just looking through it in IDA many times until I basically understood how it worked. I was mostly relying on obvious things like function calls and strings though.

There was a point that it seemed there was a dead end, but there was one small branch that lead you out of dangerous path of errors, and thus ended up bypassing all the checks in combat arms. xD Then i ran into another error i Didn't even notice. The program checked the size/hash (can't remember which one) of engine.exe . But at that point i was starting to become busy again anyway so I deleted everything regarding the disassembly. That was fun indeed.

The main reason i'm learning assembly is to better understand how everything works on a lower level, and to aid with understanding in disassembling stuff.

By the way, On topic. Yeah i've been to the wikibook before, that is basically where I learned about what the necessity of
kind of stuff was. I think it's called the function prologue or something. it was quite helpful, that was one of the main things I didn't understand

its called a STANDARD STACK FRAME, where you create a reference in EBP to the function variables being passed to the procedure. I must admit when i first started learning asm it looked a bit confusing to me aswell, but as you will find, usually the more confusing the subject .. the more use and certainly interest you will glean from it.

Yes, I think I've pretty much gotten the hang of the stack frame. Now if only I could find the time to actually start learning Assembly. =p