Need good obfuscator that won't break remoting...
-
Anyone have good experience with a particular obfuscator that still allows remoting (binary serialization)? A large part of the fields/properties can't be mangled because of this, and also because of the .NET data binding, which needs the property names to remain intact. Right now I'm considering CodeVeil (gonna try that one tomorrow), because it at leasts encrypts the assembly, so I don't have to worry as much about the field/property names not being mangled.
Wout
-
Anyone have good experience with a particular obfuscator that still allows remoting (binary serialization)? A large part of the fields/properties can't be mangled because of this, and also because of the .NET data binding, which needs the property names to remain intact. Right now I'm considering CodeVeil (gonna try that one tomorrow), because it at leasts encrypts the assembly, so I don't have to worry as much about the field/property names not being mangled.
Wout
-
Anyone have good experience with a particular obfuscator that still allows remoting (binary serialization)? A large part of the fields/properties can't be mangled because of this, and also because of the .NET data binding, which needs the property names to remain intact. Right now I'm considering CodeVeil (gonna try that one tomorrow), because it at leasts encrypts the assembly, so I don't have to worry as much about the field/property names not being mangled.
Wout
strange... i never felt like i had to obfuscate any of my C++ code. (though it is fun) i guess that's because C# is better.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
strange... i never felt like i had to obfuscate any of my C++ code. (though it is fun) i guess that's because C# is better.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
They should have designed protection and licensing into the .NET framework... I guess MS doesn't worry about it since they don't write .NET apps themselves that they ask money for.
Wout
-
strange... i never felt like i had to obfuscate any of my C++ code. (though it is fun) i guess that's because C# is better.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
Anyone have good experience with a particular obfuscator that still allows remoting (binary serialization)? A large part of the fields/properties can't be mangled because of this, and also because of the .NET data binding, which needs the property names to remain intact. Right now I'm considering CodeVeil (gonna try that one tomorrow), because it at leasts encrypts the assembly, so I don't have to worry as much about the field/property names not being mangled.
Wout
wout de zeeuw wrote:
Anyone have good experience with a particular obfuscator that still allows remoting (binary serialization)?
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Good one! Marc
-
wout de zeeuw wrote:
Anyone have good experience with a particular obfuscator that still allows remoting (binary serialization)?
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Good one! Marc
Bastard.
Wout
-
Bastard.
Wout
wout de zeeuw wrote:
Bastard.
I resemble that remark! :laugh: Marc
-
The television is one option - but you want a PC solution, yes?
I want my briefcase back damn it...
Emanuelle Goldsteen wrote:
I want my briefcase back damn it...
Pardon a nosy/silly question, but just what does your sig mean?
Software Zen:
delete this; -
strange... i never felt like i had to obfuscate any of my C++ code. (though it is fun) i guess that's because C# is better.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
Chris Losinger wrote:
strange... i never felt like i had to obfuscate any of my C++ code.
I also have never found good obfuscation tool. I have several products that I have kept off the market until I find such a tool. Windows Light Speed Reducer Windows Gravity Eliminator Windows Sun Rotation Stopper .... and my favorite Windows Reanimator
-
Emanuelle Goldsteen wrote:
I want my briefcase back damn it...
Pardon a nosy/silly question, but just what does your sig mean?
Software Zen:
delete this;I used to work at CP and my little profile guy had a briefcase. Chris and I invented it because I was the marketing jerk who started all the ads on here. But you know what, this site could have pop-ups, rollovers, blackouts, whiteouts, etc. and I'd still keep running back for more. Genius resides here, I saw it myself. AKA SHOG.
I want my briefcase back damn it...Bob took it
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
strange... i never felt like i had to obfuscate any of my C++ code.
I also have never found good obfuscation tool. I have several products that I have kept off the market until I find such a tool. Windows Light Speed Reducer Windows Gravity Eliminator Windows Sun Rotation Stopper .... and my favorite Windows Reanimator
I'll gladly beta test the Windows Gravity Eliminator for you. Mark
Mark Salsbery Microsoft MVP - Visual C++ :java:
-
Anyone have good experience with a particular obfuscator that still allows remoting (binary serialization)? A large part of the fields/properties can't be mangled because of this, and also because of the .NET data binding, which needs the property names to remain intact. Right now I'm considering CodeVeil (gonna try that one tomorrow), because it at leasts encrypts the assembly, so I don't have to worry as much about the field/property names not being mangled.
Wout
I've tried a lot of different ones. XenoCode and SmartAssembly seem to be up there, but I still run into problems with those, just not as many as some other obfuscators. Perhaps you will have better results. After a few years of this stuff, I'm convinced obfuscation generally is a big hack designed at the wrong level.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Minnesota Bridge Collapses The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
I'll gladly beta test the Windows Gravity Eliminator for you. Mark
Mark Salsbery Microsoft MVP - Visual C++ :java:
-
Mark Salsbery wrote:
After a few years of this stuff, I'm convinced obfuscation generally is a big hack designed at the wrong level.
NO! You seem ok... there are a couple guys in the SB though.... ;)
I bet that would have made way more sense to Judah! I just want to be a beta tester, sheesh!
Mark Salsbery Microsoft MVP - Visual C++ :java:
-
Anyone have good experience with a particular obfuscator that still allows remoting (binary serialization)? A large part of the fields/properties can't be mangled because of this, and also because of the .NET data binding, which needs the property names to remain intact. Right now I'm considering CodeVeil (gonna try that one tomorrow), because it at leasts encrypts the assembly, so I don't have to worry as much about the field/property names not being mangled.
Wout
We've tried and seemingly bought all of them at one time or another also the encrypting kinds and we've settled on use Spices.Net[^]and it works fine with remoting I can absolutely attest to since our app uses remoting heavily, it's a very large app with multiple assemblies, also an asp.net interface and a winform interface that supports local database access or remoting access via the internet from the winform app. Technically they all support remoting because you simply can't obfuscate some stuff. When you first use an obfuscator you need to play with it a *lot* and configure it carefully. Start with the least obfuscated settings, incrementally turn on more until your app dies, then find out what you can get away with after that. Spices allows you to set configuration method by method etc. There is no product that will work automatically and figure things out for you, none at all, I gurantee you that. You absolutely 100% need to be very patient and test your app thoroughly until you find the right balance of settings and which methods can be obfuscated and which can't. It's a hassle and time consuming but once you get it you're set and from then on it's simply running it after your build. Um..I can tell you all about CodeVeil because we used it for over a year and had to give it up because they didn't have Vista support at the time last fall and we were having other problems and their support literally gave up on us! They were really good at first then their support started to get worse and worse to the point that they simply told us at one point that they would get to us "when they can in the next month or so" because they were busy with some other product they put out. We had a wierd problem that didn't happen in a non encrypted assembly but did in an encrypted one, clearly there was something up and they took a couple of stabs at recommending things then gave us the 'when we get to it' reply. I say "they" but I'm pretty sure it's one guy who runs that project. That was the deal breaking point for us we simply can't afford any down time with our commercial products. My impression is that they were very helpful when they first released CodeVeil and as time went by they either didn't sell enough to put much resources behind it, or they simply give good service when you're new but as time goes by and anything tricky comes up they just start
-
They should have designed protection and licensing into the .NET framework... I guess MS doesn't worry about it since they don't write .NET apps themselves that they ask money for.
Wout
They should have but they didn't. I agree entirely and that was my number one fear of .net which in the end proved to be groundless with a little planning, but I don't know why anyone voted you a 1 for that, you spoke the truth.
"I don't want more choice. I just want better things!" - Edina Monsoon
-
They should have but they didn't. I agree entirely and that was my number one fear of .net which in the end proved to be groundless with a little planning, but I don't know why anyone voted you a 1 for that, you spoke the truth.
"I don't want more choice. I just want better things!" - Edina Monsoon
Maybe a .NET team member took offence. Overall I like .NET, especially the productivity. But I'm not impressed with the business aspect of it: protection, licensing, deployment (ClickOnce, ugh).
Wout
-
We've tried and seemingly bought all of them at one time or another also the encrypting kinds and we've settled on use Spices.Net[^]and it works fine with remoting I can absolutely attest to since our app uses remoting heavily, it's a very large app with multiple assemblies, also an asp.net interface and a winform interface that supports local database access or remoting access via the internet from the winform app. Technically they all support remoting because you simply can't obfuscate some stuff. When you first use an obfuscator you need to play with it a *lot* and configure it carefully. Start with the least obfuscated settings, incrementally turn on more until your app dies, then find out what you can get away with after that. Spices allows you to set configuration method by method etc. There is no product that will work automatically and figure things out for you, none at all, I gurantee you that. You absolutely 100% need to be very patient and test your app thoroughly until you find the right balance of settings and which methods can be obfuscated and which can't. It's a hassle and time consuming but once you get it you're set and from then on it's simply running it after your build. Um..I can tell you all about CodeVeil because we used it for over a year and had to give it up because they didn't have Vista support at the time last fall and we were having other problems and their support literally gave up on us! They were really good at first then their support started to get worse and worse to the point that they simply told us at one point that they would get to us "when they can in the next month or so" because they were busy with some other product they put out. We had a wierd problem that didn't happen in a non encrypted assembly but did in an encrypted one, clearly there was something up and they took a couple of stabs at recommending things then gave us the 'when we get to it' reply. I say "they" but I'm pretty sure it's one guy who runs that project. That was the deal breaking point for us we simply can't afford any down time with our commercial products. My impression is that they were very helpful when they first released CodeVeil and as time went by they either didn't sell enough to put much resources behind it, or they simply give good service when you're new but as time goes by and anything tricky comes up they just start
Hi John, Thanks, that was really helpful. I'm familiar with the Spices.net obfuscator, having used it 2 years ago for my own products. They were always quick to fix bugs that I found, so I was very pleased with that. Early this year I switched to {smartassembly} because it seemed to break disassembly by .NET reflector, which was my major gripe with Spices.net obfuscator at the time, because Spices.net didn't break disassembly. But then 2 weeks later .NET reflector was updated, and it could disassemble the assemblies obfuscated with {smartassembly}, ghaaaaaa! It drove me nuts (and still does). So did Spices.net improve and actually break disassembly? I might go back to their stuff. The encryption thing by CodeVeil has some appeal to me, I just don't like their restrictive licensing.
Wout
-
I've tried a lot of different ones. XenoCode and SmartAssembly seem to be up there, but I still run into problems with those, just not as many as some other obfuscators. Perhaps you will have better results. After a few years of this stuff, I'm convinced obfuscation generally is a big hack designed at the wrong level.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Minnesota Bridge Collapses The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
I do have a smartassembly license already, whoo! I had some problems with it a few months ago, and got tired of it, reporting problems and waiting for fixes. Also .NET reflector broke their obfuscation then. But I just downloaded their latest release, and now it seems to defeat .NET reflector's disassembly! Me happy! Unfortunately I also found a bug (again...) Must be nr 7 or 8 by now in all the obfuscators I've been using.
Wout