Just to clarify, Andrew is in fact talking about encryption, not
obfuscation. The NitroLM product (which I have not used) actually does raw
byte encryption on your swf, which then gets loaded by a wrapper swf and
decrypted at runtime based on a secret key that gets sent over a secure
connection after valid credentials are passed to the server. You would have
to be able to crack the swf encryption before a decompiler would even be
able to give you any decompiled code.

Doug

On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Joseph Balderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>   I meant to say "...and the code is completely _un_intelligible..."
>
> __________________________________________________________
>
> Joseph Balderson | http://joeflash.ca
> Flex & Flash Platform Developer | Abobe Certified Developer & Trainer
> Author, Professional Flex 3 (coming Winter 2008)
> Staff Writer, Community MX | http://communitymx.com/author.cfm?cid=4674
>
> Joseph Balderson wrote:
> > What you both just described is obfuscation, not encryption. And there
> > are varying levels of obfuscation. The barest level is replacing all
> > props with _loc_1, whcih is child's play. I think what Andrew is
> > referring to is "strong" obfuscation, that will replace vars with a
> > meaningless string of characters which include illegal characters. The
> > SWF will still play fine, but the moment you try and decompile into
> > classes and recompile, you get a zillion compiler errors from all the
> > illegal characters, and the code is completely intelligible, cause all
> > custom class members have been replaced by goobledygook. That is what I
> > call "strong obfuscation".
> >
> > True SWF encryption is only possible with code injection decrypted at
> > runtime, using either encrypted data or preferably over a secure
> > streaming connection (RTMPE or the like) as far as I know, though I've
> > never actually seen anyone go to the trouble.
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________________
> >
> > Joseph Balderson | http://joeflash.ca
> > Flex & Flash Platform Developer | Abobe Certified Developer & Trainer
> > Author, Professional Flex 3 (coming Winter 2008)
> > Staff Writer, Community MX | http://communitymx.com/author.cfm?cid=4674
> >
> >
> >
> > Sherif Abdou wrote:
> >> The local variable get changed to _loc_1, so your best best is to write
> >> some sort of script that changes the public/private variables to
> >> something like
> >> __var_1, and make sure u increment by 1. you can do the same for
> >> functions function __test__1();. I dont think encryption will matter
> >> unless some crazy person wants to decipher what all they mean.
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----
> >> From: andrewwestberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<andrewwestberg%40gmail.com>
> >
> >> To: [email protected] <flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2008 4:54:14 PM
> >> Subject: [flexcoders] Re: SWC Encrypt 2.0 - Does it work?
> >>
> >> > - We ran SWCEncrypt on a Flex SWC and then tried decompiling a
> >> Flex app
> >> > created with the encrypted SWC versus the unencrypted SWC. I
> >> could not tell
> >> > any difference whatsoever. Both decompiled just fine, it appeared
> >> as if
> >> > SWCEncrypt did absolutely nothing to the SWC file. I don't know
> >> if we were
> >> > doing soemthing wrong (although really how can you? you just run
> >> it on a
> >> > SWC), or if the encryptor doesn't support Flex SWCs specifically.
> >>
> >> I tested SWC encrypt on my flex swc today and I can also verify that
> >> it didn't do a darn thing to the code as viewed through Sothink's
> >> decompiler. (disclaimer: I consult for a company that does SWF and
> >> Flex/AIR module encryption that could be considered a competitor of
> >> these guys. Just checkin out the competition ;) )
> >>
> >> -Andrew
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > --
> > Flexcoders Mailing List
> > FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt
> > Search Archives:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups
> Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>  
>

Reply via email to