Eazfuscator is OK....according to the reverse-engineering forums pretty much all the .NET obfuscators can be broken, but they seemed to rate SmartAssembly (not free) the highest.
Joseph On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 12:53 AM, .net noobie <dotnetnoo...@gmail.com> wrote: > http://www.babelfor.net > > *Protect software components realized with Microsoft .NET Framework in > order to protect intellectual property and makes reverse engineering > difficult.* > * * > *Supports .NET Framework 4.0 and Visual Studio 2010* > > > I have never used it, just saved the link for a rainy day :) > > > from this blog post > > http://www.andybeaulieu.com/Home/tabid/67/EntryID/198/Default.aspx > Obfuscating Silverlight (for free) > > > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Anthony <asale...@tpg.com.au> wrote: > > > > I assume that if the client doesn’t ask for the code then i don’t give it > out. I would increase my fee if they want the code anyway > > > > > > > > From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto: > ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Michael Minutillo > > Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 3:07 PM > > To: ozDotNet > > > > Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! > > > > > > > > Well most clients I have dealt with in the past end up with the source > code. > > > > > > > > > After all, "clients" have been accepting obfuscated code since time > immemorial already! (Well, at least since the 1980s.) That's what compiled > code is! Unless you wanted to reverse engineer to assembly language, pretty > much everything was obfuscated. > > > > > > > > In the form of a product that is true. But if that were the case I would > expect the OP would have wanted to obfuscate the entire solution. As there > is a single binary to be obfuscated (and it gets used a lot) it sounds more > likely that it is being used in custom software that is developed for a > single client. For the client: > > > > > > > > If they purchase a library then they get a support contract so if things > go wrong they get fixed > > > > If they use an open source library then they get the code so they can fix > issues or pass them on to someone to fix. > > > > If the developer hands them a library which is neither they could be in > trouble. > > > > > > > > If you are selling a product with support then this is OK because you > have an agreement with the client that you'll fix anything that goes wrong. > If you were to have a falling out with the client over an invoice or > something (it happens) then they effectively have a piece of software that > only you (someone they no longer wish to do business with) can maintain. > > > > > > > > As a client I would consider that an unacceptable risk. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Dylan Tusler < > dylan.tus...@sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au> wrote: > > > > > That is potentially a pretty dangerous risk for a client to accept > isn't it? Unless it contains some kind of proprietary algorithm or something > I'm not sure it's a great idea. > > > > > > > > That's a pretty weird point of view. > > > > > > > > After all, "clients" have been accepting obfuscated code since time > immemorial already! (Well, at least since the 1980s.) That's what compiled > code is! Unless you wanted to reverse engineer to assembly language, pretty > much everything was obfuscated. > > > > > > > > Dylan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To find out more about the Sunshine Coast Council, visit your local > council office at Caloundra, Maroochydore, Nambour or Tewantin. Or, if you > prefer, visit us on line at www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au > > > > This email, together with any attachments, is intended for the named > recipient(s) only. Any form of review, disclosure, modification, > distribution and or publication of this email message is prohibited without > the express permission of the author. Please notify the sender immediately > if you have received this email by mistake and delete it from your system. > Unless otherwise stated, this email represents only the views of the sender > and not the views of the Sunshine Coast Regional Council. > > maile 3_1_0 > > > > > > -- > > Michael M. Minutillo > > Indiscriminate Information Sponge > > Blog: http://wolfbyte-net.blogspot.com > > -- Joseph Cooney http://jcooney.net
