>>4606387 Doesn't that mean that EVERY software is gonna become open source?

Not really. Reverse engineering assists skilled programmers in understanding executable code, but even with excellent tools it remains a tedious manual process. Reverse engineering any significant piece of software takes as much, if not more, effort than re-engineering functionnally equivalent software.

As an analogy, imagine a mechanical scanner that can scan every part of a complex machine (for instance, a gun or a car) and produce technical diagrams. Does it give you the information you need to manufacture derived cars? Not really, you'd lack useful datums, tolerances, and a lot of the technical analysis detailling why each features has to be a certain way, how the parts interact together, and how to manufacture the parts efficiently. This information can be re-invented, but it is a tedious manual process.

Reverse engineering is an extremely useful investigation technique, most applicable to malware and code that interacts directly with undocumented hardware, and also hacking and cracking software protections. It is still unpractical for general software.

>>4606731

I predict it won't affect crypto backdoors because any that exist are either in the math (unlikely) or in implementation details (most likely), meaning reverse engineering would reveal nothing that can't already be found more easily by looking at existing open source implementations (widely used).

That said, quantum computers will probably be a game changer for crypto (and much more).