dotfuscating your code

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Hi

I am wondering why MS is using an external vendor for obscuring your assemblies (i.e. Preemptive)

Is this because
A. dotfuscating isn't really necessary. If so, why not
B. There are better ways to make your code difficult to reverse engineer. If so, which ways
C. Preemptive's solution cannot be matched by MS
D. .Net solutions are basically inhouse and not meant for shippment to external clients or as COTS products

Regard
Johan Johansson
 
It only answers the first of my questions

----- Cor Ligthert wrote: ----
You are not the first one who ask this question, maybe you can have a loo
at the others firs

I made a shortlint to it for you

http://tinyurl.com/2r6z

I hope this helps

Co
 
Johan Johansson said:
Hi.

I am wondering why MS is using an external vendor for obscuring your assemblies (i.e. Preemptive)?

Is this because:
A. dotfuscating isn't really necessary. If so, why not?
B. There are better ways to make your code difficult to reverse engineer. If so, which ways?
C. Preemptive's solution cannot be matched by MS?
D. .Net solutions are basically inhouse and not meant for shippment to
Click to expand...
external clients or as COTS products.
Regards
Johan Johansson
Click to expand...

MS didn't offer an own NTFS defrag utility for a long time;
They never developed a (usable) DOS-emulator;
They include(d) things like Crystal Reports or InstallShield in their
development packages;
Does this mean noone wants do defrag NTFS drives? Does it mean MS couldn't
build a decent DOS-emulator? Or could it mean noone uses InstallShield
setups for shipments to clients?

Of course not.

Moral: The fact that MS doesn't invent the wheel again, doesn't say anything
about the wheel.

Niki
 
First: They include a free 3rd-party obfuscator - that DOES aleviate
developer fears. (And I think it qualifies as a "best-practice-hint"...)
Second: If MS told you one of the obfuscation products on the market is
better than the others they'd distort competition - bad for them and bad for
us. The best way to find out which obfuscator is better is using a
decompiler!

Niki

Johan Johansson said:
Yes of course, you are right.

But in that case:
* do they regard one or more obfuscation vendors as better than others?
* do they propose best-practices as to these problems?

I do believe it would be to their advantage; making people trust their
Click to expand...
products and aleviate developers fears.
 
Johan Johansson said:
I am wondering why MS is using an external vendor for obscuring your assemblies (i.e. Preemptive)?
Is this because:
A. dotfuscating isn't really necessary. If so, why not?
Click to expand...

Personally, I pick this one. Why not? Why?
 
Back
Top