Hello bobef,
Walter Bright Wrote:
1. make sure you're not compiling with debug info (-g) on.
Bye bye stack traces... :(
Only for release builds.
2. you can just use a bit editor to stomp on those names in the
executable (replace them with XXXXX or whatever). The exe files are
not checksummed, so this should be straightforward.
Too much manual work. Any clues how I can automate this? At least
where I should look for info?
If you know what to look for, some kind of find/replace might work.
3. rename your sensitive classes to obscure names, then alias them to
a readable name. The alias name shouldn't appear in the executable:
class CXX97ASDFXX { }
alias CXX97ASDFXX mySensitiveName;
Nice idea. Didn't thought about it. But it won't work for external
libraries. For example if I'm using dcrypt it will be obvious I'm
using one of its supported ciphers for my encrypted data. I wouldn't
wish this to be so obvious, at least not for people without
reverse-engineering skills.
I'd assume anyone who can identify the cypher from function names and apply
it to strings in the file already has reverse-engineering skills. And if
you are considering the attacker knowing what cypher you are using to be
a security issue, don't bother I anyone able to think about cracking any
real cypher can get that from the binary no matter what you do.
--
... <IXOYE><
