Wow, so that's how to hack-proof your code. I'm interested now in more info...
On Jan 28, 2008 7:23 PM, Jonathan Carse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hmm... Interesting. > There is actually a lot to obfuscation, not just renaming functions. > For a simple example, you can take the line: > > x++; > > and turn it into > > x = x + ( x == 0 ? 1 + 9*x : x / x ) > > (and of course make sure it isn't optimized). > > I've read about automatic tools that can take make a Win32 program almost > resistant to reverse-engineering using these kinds of techniques (obviously > much more complex ones), and keep the program flow the same. > > Just wondered if there were same concepts in Palm programming ... :) > > 2008/1/29, Ben Combee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Turning off debug symbols is good, but not really effective against > > > experienced reverse-engineers. > > > > > > In essence everything can be reverse-engineered, but obfuscation makes > > the > > > task much harder and, hopefully, not worth the cost. > > > > Well, the code is 68K code, so you're working from assembly. I've > > never seen any tools that rearrange compiled 68K code; the tools that > > obfuscate Javascript or Java work on the idea of renaming variables > > and functions to obscure the flow. 68K code doesn't have those > > anyway. If you turn on automatic function inlining and structure > > things well, you should remove a lot of the function level flow. > > > > -- > > For information on using the ACCESS Developer Forums, or to unsubscribe, > > please see http://www.access-company.com/developers/forums/ > > > > -- > For information on using the ACCESS Developer Forums, or to unsubscribe, > please see http://www.access-company.com/developers/forums/ > > -- Christopher Stamper [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tinyurl.com/2ooncg -- For information on using the ACCESS Developer Forums, or to unsubscribe, please see http://www.access-company.com/developers/forums/
