Though, one could just use Haxe instead...
Yeah, I prefer it anyway. But I wonder, did anybody compare haXe vs AS3 bytecode yet? A decompiler is likely to assume AS3 has been used, and maybe haXe creates sufficiently different bytecode to confuse it. Mark On 7/19/07, Jon Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's basically a macro process for compiling AS classes. One of the side effects is that it can be to obfuscate SWF files by using your own re-write rules. Hit up the second page of the thread to see a bit more information. Macros are pretty cool stuff. Though the author of the toolset isn't quite accurate in the decompiling aspect of things - basically saying you can munge the intrinsic classes, which isn't possible. Those classes still make calls to Player internals and can be followed backward through the classes to 'fix' any obfuscation. So, maybe half your code in the end will be pretty funked up. That's still probably more than enough to make use of the decompiled code. Bit tricky to setup and use, but it's pretty powerful if you need to do conditional compiling and get some serious speed boosts (similar to flasm hacking). Though, one could just use Haxe instead... cheers, jon On Jul 18, 2007, at 7:32 PM, Latcho wrote: > whats this? > > Jon Bradley wrote: >> Or, if you're a masochist: >> >> http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=256400 _______________________________________________ [email protected] To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
_______________________________________________ [email protected] To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
