Decompiler.NET reverse engineers your CLS compliant code

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vortex Soft
  • Start date Start date
One Handed Man ( OHM - Terry Burns ) said:
Thats right, its all about what risk is acceptable, how hostile is the
environment in which you put your valuables at risk. Given enough time most
codes can be cracked eventually, the question is at what cost in time and
resources it takes to do this. For example, securing a novel with 128 BIT
RSA encryption would be good enough for me as an Author if I was convinced I
had written a bestseller, however, If I wrote an Autbiography ( being me ),
then simply asking for a clear password would be good enough.

Ha! Clear Text huh? I would not even send the password, just *hope*
someone adds something interesting... Mine would be 3 pages, and mainly
consist of TLA's.

As far as the obfusication argument goes, I think that has been covered. As
we keep repeating the same thing over and over, it just so happens Vortex
Soft has his opinion which we will refer to as "the wrong one" and then
there is what the rest of the world's opinion which we will call "fact"

As I stated with RSA. Yeah it can be decrypted. But going back to a
familar theory "Time is relative". Now, if you feel good taking 10 years to
crack someone's credit card number. So be it. =) Same thing with taking
10 years to crack someones obfusicated code.

You could have just spent the 2 weeks rewriting it yourself. =) Terry said
it best, "acceptable risk". That's how all of its done.. The likleyhood of
it being cracked in a "reasonable" amount of time is slim to none. One day
will it? Of course. One day we will cure cancer, vacation to the moon, and
have those cool little replicators from Star Trek so I can have Gino's Pizza
Rolls whenever I want...

We should have all those *relativly* soon... =)




--

OHM ( Terry Burns )
. . . One-Handed-Man . . .
If U Need My Email ,Ask Me

Time flies when you don't know what you're doing
 
I dont care about replicators, I just want my own personal HoloDeck.

--

OHM ( Terry Burns )
. . . One-Handed-Man . . .
If U Need My Email ,Ask Me

Time flies when you don't know what you're doing

CJ Taylor said:
"One Handed Man ( OHM - Terry Burns )" <news.microsoft.com> wrote in message
Thats right, its all about what risk is acceptable, how hostile is the
environment in which you put your valuables at risk. Given enough time most
codes can be cracked eventually, the question is at what cost in time and
resources it takes to do this. For example, securing a novel with 128 BIT
RSA encryption would be good enough for me as an Author if I was
convinced
I
had written a bestseller, however, If I wrote an Autbiography ( being me ),
then simply asking for a clear password would be good enough.

Ha! Clear Text huh? I would not even send the password, just *hope*
someone adds something interesting... Mine would be 3 pages, and mainly
consist of TLA's.

As far as the obfusication argument goes, I think that has been covered. As
we keep repeating the same thing over and over, it just so happens Vortex
Soft has his opinion which we will refer to as "the wrong one" and then
there is what the rest of the world's opinion which we will call "fact"

As I stated with RSA. Yeah it can be decrypted. But going back to a
familar theory "Time is relative". Now, if you feel good taking 10 years to
crack someone's credit card number. So be it. =) Same thing with taking
10 years to crack someones obfusicated code.

You could have just spent the 2 weeks rewriting it yourself. =) Terry said
it best, "acceptable risk". That's how all of its done.. The likleyhood of
it being cracked in a "reasonable" amount of time is slim to none. One day
will it? Of course. One day we will cure cancer, vacation to the moon, and
have those cool little replicators from Star Trek so I can have Gino's Pizza
Rolls whenever I want...

We should have all those *relativly* soon... =)
 
CJ said:
No.. it has nothing to do with being more careful. But you think you've
come across this amazing revalation that none of us knew about.

Microsoft told us of the "security concerns" of reverse engineering with
.NET all the way back in Beta 2 days...
Us means who? You and who else? Microsoft did not told me about that...

And I have to insist, why doesn't the CLS compiler work the same way as
the old C or ASM (machine language using mnemonics) compiler: Exported
Symbols are visible, non Exported Symbols are not accessible???
Why does an .exe file contain ALL original Symbols?????
Sun did the same thing with Java.

And many many more companies that developed compilers.

Don't make such a big deal about it. If you continue to read about .NET
you'll learn there are many tools. Don't forget, nothing will every protect
everything 100%, that's just how life is.
How much should I spend in addons to be able to produce a comercial
software?
And the enums can't be changed!!!



_hjsd8889
 
That comes with a program of Dr. Crusher. Or that one time Erika Eliniak
dated Data... I would take her too in there. =)
 
CJ said:
As far as the obfusication argument goes, I think that has been covered. As
we keep repeating the same thing over and over, it just so happens Vortex
Soft has his opinion which we will refer to as "the wrong one" and then
there is what the rest of the world's opinion which we will call "fact"

I see that you are an honest person with a wide knowledge.
Could you help the ignorant people like me and millions others to
protect their work in a satisfactory way?


_iiioias8883
 
Vortex Soft said:
Us means who? You and who else? Microsoft did not told me about that...

RTFM.

Yes they did.. you chose to ignore it. Obviously many other people here saw
it... Call up Balmer and tell him you want a copy of every memo so you can
make sure your "up to speed" with Microsoft product.
And I have to insist, why doesn't the CLS compiler work the same way as
the old C or ASM (machine language using mnemonics) compiler: Exported
Symbols are visible, non Exported Symbols are not accessible???
Why does an .exe file contain ALL original Symbols?????

It's a Consipiracy against just you...

Or it could be the fact that .NET != C AND .NET != ASM.

By making that statement you FURTHER prove you have not gone beyond the
first paragraph of Understanding .NET. Again, and for the last time .NET is
an IL based language, which means it is not compiled to run on a particular
platform. It uses a CLR to interpret IL code and run that on the host
processor.

So, you have the same paradigm you did with Java. Same code, different
interpreters. Not interpretted like VBS or JScript or another JITted
language like that, but compiled code "simliar" to machine level code (or
asm).

Again... RTFM.
How much should I spend in addons to be able to produce a comercial
software?
And the enums can't be changed!!!

Exactly $4.32
 
why are you trying to write a program to do something when you don't even
understand the basic concepts of .NET and assembled programs alone?! seems a
little bit idiotic. btw MS has stated and you can even look it up on MSDN
all the info about how it works and the warrnings around it.
 
Jon said:
Did you follow it?
I am not sure if you are talking about the Obfuscator Comunity Edition
version 1.1.... that comes with the .NET Visual Studio. I am not able to
use that. (Am I missing something?)

I think you've missed what obfuscators do. They map existing names to
"nonsense" names, and only give the developer the map. Stack traces etc
can then be "decrypted" - but only someone with the map.

If you think that everything encrypted can be decrypted without the
private (secret) part, I suggest you read up on one-time pads as a
simple counter example. You could also tell me what this message says:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A.

Anyone with the appropriate text file would be able to work out what
that meant, but I don't think you'll be able to, somehow.

A good obfuscator will completely remove all information that can be
removed, as far as anyone without the nonsense->original map is
concerned. You may still be able to understand the code, but it's a
*lot* harder to do so.
That's fair enough for me.

I discovered that most Symbols can be obfuscated, but I need to insist
on the enums:
[Enum].GetName(...)
returns the Symbol used in the enum as a string
so, the original Symbol is stored in the exe or dll, it can be decrypted.

Everyone that is not Obfuscating the evidence knows that it can be
decrypted or deobfuscated (whatever you name it).



I noticed that you are an MPV, I don't know you, it is the first time I
see your nick name, so you should not understand the following question
as any sort of attack to you.
Can you explain as clear as the post I read from you, what checks does
Microsoft do when nomeating MVPs? Being more clear: is Microsoft ready
to put its hand on Bible to say that each of MVPs are not hackers or
malware people?

(I am not talking about you, I repeat to avoid misunderstandings)



_obs7366
 
CJ said:
It's a Consipiracy against just you...

Or it could be the fact that .NET != C AND .NET != ASM.

By making that statement you FURTHER prove you have not gone beyond the
first paragraph of Understanding .NET. Again, and for the last time .NET is
an IL based language, which means it is not compiled to run on a particular
platform. It uses a CLR to interpret IL code and run that on the host
processor.

Well, I found that you are one of the many Obfuscators used to hide
evidence.

No more chit chat
 
CJ said:
Well, I found that you are one of the many Obfuscators used to hide
evidence.

I'm an obfusicator? What on earth does this mean and what does it have to
do with obfusication of code or the fact you have no clue how the framework
operates?
No more chit chat

Because your wrong?
 
Brian Henry said:
the really funny thing is the fact you are selling classes you stole from
code project and assembled them together to make this

I don't have any idea what you are referring to here. I spent over 2
years writing Decompiler.NET entirely from scratch aside from the 3rd
party libraries that I credit in the about box including ILReader,
CommandBar, and Aqua Buttons. Our Whidbey implementation no longer
uses ILReader. I am also constantly adding new features and
enhancements. I have many very happy customers who appreciate the
higher level code and more accurate code that it generates over the
competitors offerings.

I posted the pdf article link directly for readers who don't subscribe
to the online edition of DNDJ. The feedback discussion thread was
published in the September issue and is also available on our web
site.

Jonathan
 
LOL,

I like a good fight !

--

OHM ( Terry Burns )
. . . One-Handed-Man . . .
If U Need My Email ,Ask Me

Time flies when you don't know what you're doing
 

Yes it does. You should try it before you make assumptions about it.
Our obfuscator generates equivalent obfuscated source code with
refactored public members and encrypted literals that you recompile.
Each version of Decompiler.NET that we release is decompiled and
obfuscated with itself, and then recompiled to produce the version
that ships. Most bugs introduced by decompilation or obfuscation would
cause the recompiled version of our product to not work correctly, so
we would detect them before even releasing the build.

Go ahead and try it out and feel free to identify any specific code
generation issues that you feel are bugs. Unless you can provide
examples of incorrect behavior, there is no reason to assume that our
product has issues just because you have had bad experiences with
other tools or your own attempts to implement an obfuscation tool.

Jonathan Pierce
President
Jungle Creatures, Inc.
http://www.junglecreatures.com/
 
Brian Henry said:
did you ever study intermediate languages ever? you obviosly have no clue
what you are talknig about. It's not just MS, it is ANY language that is
writen in any type of IL, java included

I want to make it clear that the statement you were commenting about
was written by Vortex Soft and not by me. My name appears because he
was replying to my reply to his original message.

Jonatban Pierce
President
Jungle Creatures, Inc.
http://www.junglecreatures.com/
 
Nak said:
Just to add a touch of irony, I should use a different decompiler to
decompile your little aplette and then post the project file on here, naaah,
I would *never* do that! nope nope nope.

By the way, the codes a bit dirty!

Nick.

Nick,

Please clarify what you are trying to say here. Our Decompiler.NET
product is an application, not an "aplette". The version we ship is
protected both with encryption and obfuscation. Attempts to decompile
it or bypass our license enforcement strategy are also a violation of
our license agreement and we utilize the legal system to protect our
proprietary intellectual property. The product was written entirely at
Jungle Creatures, Inc. aside from the 3rd party libraries licensed and
fully credited in the application About Box.

Please try to avoid making inaccurate negative statements about our
products in public forums. Our product mentioned in this thread was
mentioned by the original post, and there is no attempt here to
advertise our products, only to respond to technical concerns
mentioned by the original post, and to refute inaccurate assumptions
or accusations made about our products or company in public forums. If
you don't want to see our products mentioned, than you should refrain
from making statements about them in public forums that require us to
respond.

Feel free to email me directly if you want to continue this discussion
offline at (e-mail address removed)


Jonathan Pierce
President
Jungle Creatures, Inc.
http://www.junglecreatures.com/
 
Herfried K. Wagner said:
ACK.

Imagine there are '' HACK ...' or '' TODO ...' comments in the code, and
the person who reconstructs the code doesn't have these comments...

Wouldn't HACK or TODO qualify as an inadequacy or quirk?

I think he's saying only comment what needs commenting, not every single
line because someone once told you good programmers comment on every line.
 
* "Daniel O'Connell said:
Wouldn't HACK or TODO qualify as an inadequacy or quirk?

I'd be interested in the percentage of software release versions
containing several hacks and todos...

\\\

' TODO: Optimize algorithm for large 'n' in future versions
' to increase performance when... bla bla...
///
 
* "Cor Ligthert said:
Right however can be used as well for legal decompilation.

It can be used to do that, but I don't see many useful cases where this
a reason to spend hundreds of USD for such a tool.
However for buying guns in the US (and with us as well, I legaly had them)
are regulations same as you wrote about EULA.

:-)
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads


Back
Top