By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
459,403 Members | 1,155 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 459,403 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Decompiler.NET reverse engineers your CLS compliant code

P: n/a
http://www.junglecreatures.com/

Try it and tell me what's happenning in the Microsoft Corporation.


Notes:

VB, C# are CLS compliant
You can also use managed code with C++
Using what they call obfuscator, will not help you for a long time.
For each new obfuscator there will allways exist a new deobfuscator.
Your source's Symbols are written unchanged in the exe or dll file.
Looking to your Symbols, it's easy to understand your Source Code.
A honest compiler does not expose any Symbols, unless you Export them.
I like VB, it is an easy yet powerfull language, but it's good for
nothing else but studying or playing.

Nov 16 '05
Share this Question
Share on Google+
192 Replies


P: n/a
Jay,

* "Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]" <Ja************@msn.com> scripsit:
comments. Code without comments is rather worthless.


In my experience well written code shouldn't need comments! At least not a
lot of comments.


I agree. Decompiling to "steal" something developed by someone else IMO
is only useful if the code that is stolen is valuable. Most simple code
is not valuable and can be easily implemented without stealing and
reconstructing. Complex algorithms are worth stealing, and these
algorithms are often heavily commented or documented. If comments,
documentation, and local variable names are missing, the reconstructed
code will compile, but it will take hours to understand it.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>
Nov 16 '05 #51

P: n/a
another example of great programming *rolls eyes*... trying to exit this
piece of junk I get

See the end of this message for details on invoking
just-in-time (JIT) debugging instead of this dialog box.

************** Exception Text **************
System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an
object.
at aa6f.aa6g.abat(Object __0, EventArgs __1)
at System.Windows.Forms.Control.OnValidated(EventArgs e)
at System.Windows.Forms.Control.NotifyValidated()
at System.Windows.Forms.ContainerControl.ValidateThro ughAncestor(Control
ancestorControl)

Nov 16 '05 #52

P: n/a
Herfried,

You wrote that "steal" very right in quotes, when I see this thread (when I
missed one excuse me) than I get the idea that decompiling is always for
stealing and that has not to be so.

You are the first one who showed that.

Cor
Nov 16 '05 #53

P: n/a
* "Cor Ligthert" <no**********@planet.nl> scripsit:
You wrote that "steal" very right in quotes, when I see this thread (when I
missed one excuse me) than I get the idea that decompiling is always for
stealing and that has not to be so.


I remember many EULAs which prohibit decompilation to protect their
property. The decompiler mentioned before can be used for stealing code
or innovation made by another party.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>
Nov 16 '05 #54

P: n/a
"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi***************@gmx.at>
I remember many EULAs which prohibit decompilation to protect their
property. The decompiler mentioned before can be used for stealing code
or innovation made by another party.

Right however can be used as well for legal decompilation. To say it in
another way, you can use a hammer to kill somebody, for that a hammer is not
an illegal tool. (I had first the gun in the US however that does not count
less for us in the EC, so maybe is the hammer better).

However for buying guns in the US (and with us as well, I legaly had them)
are regulations same as you wrote about EULA.

Cor

Nov 16 '05 #55

P: n/a
Thats right, its all about what risk is acceptable, how hostile is the
environment in which you put your valuables at risk. Given enough time most
codes can be cracked eventually, the question is at what cost in time and
resources it takes to do this. For example, securing a novel with 128 BIT
RSA encryption would be good enough for me as an Author if I was convinced I
had written a bestseller, however, If I wrote an Autbiography ( being me ),
then simply asking for a clear password would be good enough.

--

OHM ( Terry Burns )
. . . One-Handed-Man . . .
If U Need My Email ,Ask Me

Time flies when you don't know what you're doing

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MP************************@msnews.microsoft.c om...
Vortex Soft <No****@NoSpam.Net> wrote:
Try recompiling in Release mode, then decompiling.
Then try obfusticating the release mode dll and then decompiling it again.
Tell us what you see.


Thanks for your suggestion.


Did you follow it?
Every thing that can be encrypted can also be decrypted.


I think you've missed what obfuscators do. They map existing names to
"nonsense" names, and only give the developer the map. Stack traces etc
can then be "decrypted" - but only someone with the map.

If you think that everything encrypted can be decrypted without the
private (secret) part, I suggest you read up on one-time pads as a
simple counter example. You could also tell me what this message says:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A.

Anyone with the appropriate text file would be able to work out what
that meant, but I don't think you'll be able to, somehow.

A good obfuscator will completely remove all information that can be
removed, as far as anyone without the nonsense->original map is
concerned. You may still be able to understand the code, but it's a
*lot* harder to do so.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

Nov 16 '05 #56

P: n/a
No.. it has nothing to do with being more careful. But you think you've
come across this amazing revalation that none of us knew about.

Microsoft told us of the "security concerns" of reverse engineering with
..NET all the way back in Beta 2 days...

Sun did the same thing with Java.

And many many more companies that developed compilers.

Don't make such a big deal about it. If you continue to read about .NET
you'll learn there are many tools. Don't forget, nothing will every protect
everything 100%, that's just how life is.

"Vortex Soft" <No****@NoSpam.Net> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
CJ Taylor wrote:
Thanks for the compliments regarding our Decompiler.NET product. The
product includes a built-in obfuscation option that generates
obfuscated source code that you can recompile that still runs like the
original code. You may want to try this feature to see how readable
the obfuscated code is.
It's the .NET programmers comunity that should thank you for exposing
it's weakness and allow us to protect owselfs since Microsoft doesn't
you are a f#(*@#($* moron...

Get off your knees, I think you've satisified Jon's ego enough...


So many people became really upset because the .net programmers who read
this thread will be more careful. The dog's barking can be heard miles

away.
What kind of people is interestered in hidding critical security
information?
Nick258

Nov 16 '05 #57

P: n/a
FULL ACK.

(why is this subject discussed every 4 weeks !?)

--
Greetings
Jochen

My blog about Win32 and .NET
http://blog.kalmbachnet.de/
Nov 16 '05 #58

P: n/a

"One Handed Man ( OHM - Terry Burns )" <news.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%2***************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Thats right, its all about what risk is acceptable, how hostile is the
environment in which you put your valuables at risk. Given enough time most codes can be cracked eventually, the question is at what cost in time and
resources it takes to do this. For example, securing a novel with 128 BIT
RSA encryption would be good enough for me as an Author if I was convinced I had written a bestseller, however, If I wrote an Autbiography ( being me ), then simply asking for a clear password would be good enough.

Ha! Clear Text huh? I would not even send the password, just *hope*
someone adds something interesting... Mine would be 3 pages, and mainly
consist of TLA's.

As far as the obfusication argument goes, I think that has been covered. As
we keep repeating the same thing over and over, it just so happens Vortex
Soft has his opinion which we will refer to as "the wrong one" and then
there is what the rest of the world's opinion which we will call "fact"

As I stated with RSA. Yeah it can be decrypted. But going back to a
familar theory "Time is relative". Now, if you feel good taking 10 years to
crack someone's credit card number. So be it. =) Same thing with taking
10 years to crack someones obfusicated code.

You could have just spent the 2 weeks rewriting it yourself. =) Terry said
it best, "acceptable risk". That's how all of its done.. The likleyhood of
it being cracked in a "reasonable" amount of time is slim to none. One day
will it? Of course. One day we will cure cancer, vacation to the moon, and
have those cool little replicators from Star Trek so I can have Gino's Pizza
Rolls whenever I want...

We should have all those *relativly* soon... =)


--

OHM ( Terry Burns )
. . . One-Handed-Man . . .
If U Need My Email ,Ask Me

Time flies when you don't know what you're doing

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MP************************@msnews.microsoft.c om...
Vortex Soft <No****@NoSpam.Net> wrote:
> Try recompiling in Release mode, then decompiling.
> Then try obfusticating the release mode dll and then decompiling it again. >
> Tell us what you see.

Thanks for your suggestion.


Did you follow it?
Every thing that can be encrypted can also be decrypted.


I think you've missed what obfuscators do. They map existing names to
"nonsense" names, and only give the developer the map. Stack traces etc
can then be "decrypted" - but only someone with the map.

If you think that everything encrypted can be decrypted without the
private (secret) part, I suggest you read up on one-time pads as a
simple counter example. You could also tell me what this message says:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A.

Anyone with the appropriate text file would be able to work out what
that meant, but I don't think you'll be able to, somehow.

A good obfuscator will completely remove all information that can be
removed, as far as anyone without the nonsense->original map is
concerned. You may still be able to understand the code, but it's a
*lot* harder to do so.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too


Nov 16 '05 #59

P: n/a
I dont care about replicators, I just want my own personal HoloDeck.

--

OHM ( Terry Burns )
. . . One-Handed-Man . . .
If U Need My Email ,Ask Me

Time flies when you don't know what you're doing

"CJ Taylor" <[cege] at [tavayn] dit commmmm> wrote in message
news:en**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

"One Handed Man ( OHM - Terry Burns )" <news.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:%2***************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Thats right, its all about what risk is acceptable, how hostile is the
environment in which you put your valuables at risk. Given enough time most
codes can be cracked eventually, the question is at what cost in time and resources it takes to do this. For example, securing a novel with 128 BIT RSA encryption would be good enough for me as an Author if I was convinced I
had written a bestseller, however, If I wrote an Autbiography ( being me ),
then simply asking for a clear password would be good enough.


Ha! Clear Text huh? I would not even send the password, just *hope*
someone adds something interesting... Mine would be 3 pages, and mainly
consist of TLA's.

As far as the obfusication argument goes, I think that has been covered.

As we keep repeating the same thing over and over, it just so happens Vortex
Soft has his opinion which we will refer to as "the wrong one" and then
there is what the rest of the world's opinion which we will call "fact"

As I stated with RSA. Yeah it can be decrypted. But going back to a
familar theory "Time is relative". Now, if you feel good taking 10 years to crack someone's credit card number. So be it. =) Same thing with taking
10 years to crack someones obfusicated code.

You could have just spent the 2 weeks rewriting it yourself. =) Terry said it best, "acceptable risk". That's how all of its done.. The likleyhood of it being cracked in a "reasonable" amount of time is slim to none. One day will it? Of course. One day we will cure cancer, vacation to the moon, and have those cool little replicators from Star Trek so I can have Gino's Pizza Rolls whenever I want...

We should have all those *relativly* soon... =)


--

OHM ( Terry Burns )
. . . One-Handed-Man . . .
If U Need My Email ,Ask Me

Time flies when you don't know what you're doing

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MP************************@msnews.microsoft.c om...
Vortex Soft <No****@NoSpam.Net> wrote:
> > Try recompiling in Release mode, then decompiling.
> > Then try obfusticating the release mode dll and then decompiling it again.
> >
> > Tell us what you see.
>
> Thanks for your suggestion.

Did you follow it?

> Every thing that can be encrypted can also be decrypted.

I think you've missed what obfuscators do. They map existing names to
"nonsense" names, and only give the developer the map. Stack traces

etc can then be "decrypted" - but only someone with the map.

If you think that everything encrypted can be decrypted without the
private (secret) part, I suggest you read up on one-time pads as a
simple counter example. You could also tell me what this message says:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A.

Anyone with the appropriate text file would be able to work out what
that meant, but I don't think you'll be able to, somehow.

A good obfuscator will completely remove all information that can be
removed, as far as anyone without the nonsense->original map is
concerned. You may still be able to understand the code, but it's a
*lot* harder to do so.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too



Nov 16 '05 #60

P: n/a


CJ Taylor wrote:
No.. it has nothing to do with being more careful. But you think you've
come across this amazing revalation that none of us knew about.

Microsoft told us of the "security concerns" of reverse engineering with
.NET all the way back in Beta 2 days...
Us means who? You and who else? Microsoft did not told me about that...

And I have to insist, why doesn't the CLS compiler work the same way as
the old C or ASM (machine language using mnemonics) compiler: Exported
Symbols are visible, non Exported Symbols are not accessible???
Why does an .exe file contain ALL original Symbols?????
Sun did the same thing with Java.

And many many more companies that developed compilers.

Don't make such a big deal about it. If you continue to read about .NET
you'll learn there are many tools. Don't forget, nothing will every protect
everything 100%, that's just how life is.

How much should I spend in addons to be able to produce a comercial
software?
And the enums can't be changed!!!

_hjsd8889

Nov 16 '05 #61

P: n/a
That comes with a program of Dr. Crusher. Or that one time Erika Eliniak
dated Data... I would take her too in there. =)
"One Handed Man ( OHM - Terry Burns )" <news.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:eQ**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
I dont care about replicators, I just want my own personal HoloDeck.

--

OHM ( Terry Burns )
. . . One-Handed-Man . . .
If U Need My Email ,Ask Me

Time flies when you don't know what you're doing

"CJ Taylor" <[cege] at [tavayn] dit commmmm> wrote in message
news:en**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

"One Handed Man ( OHM - Terry Burns )" <news.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%2***************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Thats right, its all about what risk is acceptable, how hostile is the
environment in which you put your valuables at risk. Given enough time
most
codes can be cracked eventually, the question is at what cost in time and resources it takes to do this. For example, securing a novel with 128 BIT RSA encryption would be good enough for me as an Author if I was convinced
I
had written a bestseller, however, If I wrote an Autbiography ( being

me ),
then simply asking for a clear password would be good enough.


Ha! Clear Text huh? I would not even send the password, just *hope*
someone adds something interesting... Mine would be 3 pages, and mainly
consist of TLA's.

As far as the obfusication argument goes, I think that has been covered.

As
we keep repeating the same thing over and over, it just so happens Vortex Soft has his opinion which we will refer to as "the wrong one" and then
there is what the rest of the world's opinion which we will call "fact"

As I stated with RSA. Yeah it can be decrypted. But going back to a
familar theory "Time is relative". Now, if you feel good taking 10 years to
crack someone's credit card number. So be it. =) Same thing with
taking 10 years to crack someones obfusicated code.

You could have just spent the 2 weeks rewriting it yourself. =) Terry

said
it best, "acceptable risk". That's how all of its done.. The

likleyhood of
it being cracked in a "reasonable" amount of time is slim to none. One

day
will it? Of course. One day we will cure cancer, vacation to the moon,

and
have those cool little replicators from Star Trek so I can have Gino's

Pizza
Rolls whenever I want...

We should have all those *relativly* soon... =)


--

OHM ( Terry Burns )
. . . One-Handed-Man . . .
If U Need My Email ,Ask Me

Time flies when you don't know what you're doing

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MP************************@msnews.microsoft.c om...
> Vortex Soft <No****@NoSpam.Net> wrote:
> > > Try recompiling in Release mode, then decompiling.
> > > Then try obfusticating the release mode dll and then decompiling

it again.
> > >
> > > Tell us what you see.
> >
> > Thanks for your suggestion.
>
> Did you follow it?
>
> > Every thing that can be encrypted can also be decrypted.
>
> I think you've missed what obfuscators do. They map existing names
to > "nonsense" names, and only give the developer the map. Stack traces

etc > can then be "decrypted" - but only someone with the map.
>
> If you think that everything encrypted can be decrypted without the
> private (secret) part, I suggest you read up on one-time pads as a
> simple counter example. You could also tell me what this message says: >
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A.
>
> Anyone with the appropriate text file would be able to work out what
> that meant, but I don't think you'll be able to, somehow.
>
> A good obfuscator will completely remove all information that can be
> removed, as far as anyone without the nonsense->original map is
> concerned. You may still be able to understand the code, but it's a
> *lot* harder to do so.
>
> --
> Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
> If replying to the group, please do not mail me too



Nov 16 '05 #62

P: n/a
CJ Taylor wrote:
As far as the obfusication argument goes, I think that has been covered. As
we keep repeating the same thing over and over, it just so happens Vortex
Soft has his opinion which we will refer to as "the wrong one" and then
there is what the rest of the world's opinion which we will call "fact"


I see that you are an honest person with a wide knowledge.
Could you help the ignorant people like me and millions others to
protect their work in a satisfactory way?
_iiioias8883

Nov 16 '05 #63

P: n/a

"Vortex Soft" <No****@NoSpam.Net> wrote in message
news:eU**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...


CJ Taylor wrote:
No.. it has nothing to do with being more careful. But you think you've
come across this amazing revalation that none of us knew about.

Microsoft told us of the "security concerns" of reverse engineering with
.NET all the way back in Beta 2 days...
Us means who? You and who else? Microsoft did not told me about that...


RTFM.

Yes they did.. you chose to ignore it. Obviously many other people here saw
it... Call up Balmer and tell him you want a copy of every memo so you can
make sure your "up to speed" with Microsoft product.
And I have to insist, why doesn't the CLS compiler work the same way as
the old C or ASM (machine language using mnemonics) compiler: Exported
Symbols are visible, non Exported Symbols are not accessible???
Why does an .exe file contain ALL original Symbols?????

It's a Consipiracy against just you...

Or it could be the fact that .NET != C AND .NET != ASM.

By making that statement you FURTHER prove you have not gone beyond the
first paragraph of Understanding .NET. Again, and for the last time .NET is
an IL based language, which means it is not compiled to run on a particular
platform. It uses a CLR to interpret IL code and run that on the host
processor.

So, you have the same paradigm you did with Java. Same code, different
interpreters. Not interpretted like VBS or JScript or another JITted
language like that, but compiled code "simliar" to machine level code (or
asm).

Again... RTFM.
Sun did the same thing with Java.

And many many more companies that developed compilers.

Don't make such a big deal about it. If you continue to read about .NET
you'll learn there are many tools. Don't forget, nothing will every protect everything 100%, that's just how life is.

How much should I spend in addons to be able to produce a comercial
software?
And the enums can't be changed!!!


Exactly $4.32


_hjsd8889

Nov 16 '05 #64

P: n/a
why are you trying to write a program to do something when you don't even
understand the basic concepts of .NET and assembled programs alone?! seems a
little bit idiotic. btw MS has stated and you can even look it up on MSDN
all the info about how it works and the warrnings around it.
"Vortex Soft" <No****@NoSpam.Net> wrote in message
news:eU**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...


CJ Taylor wrote:
No.. it has nothing to do with being more careful. But you think you've
come across this amazing revalation that none of us knew about.

Microsoft told us of the "security concerns" of reverse engineering with
.NET all the way back in Beta 2 days...

Us means who? You and who else? Microsoft did not told me about that...

And I have to insist, why doesn't the CLS compiler work the same way as
the old C or ASM (machine language using mnemonics) compiler: Exported
Symbols are visible, non Exported Symbols are not accessible???
Why does an .exe file contain ALL original Symbols?????
Sun did the same thing with Java.

And many many more companies that developed compilers.

Don't make such a big deal about it. If you continue to read about .NET
you'll learn there are many tools. Don't forget, nothing will every
protect
everything 100%, that's just how life is.

How much should I spend in addons to be able to produce a comercial
software?
And the enums can't be changed!!!

_hjsd8889

Nov 16 '05 #65

P: n/a
Jon Skeet [C# MVP] wrote:
Vortex Soft <No****@NoSpam.Net> wrote:
Try recompiling in Release mode, then decompiling.
Then try obfusticating the release mode dll and then decompiling it again.

Tell us what you see.
Thanks for your suggestion.

Did you follow it?

I am not sure if you are talking about the Obfuscator Comunity Edition
version 1.1.... that comes with the .NET Visual Studio. I am not able to
use that. (Am I missing something?)

Every thing that can be encrypted can also be decrypted.

I think you've missed what obfuscators do. They map existing names to
"nonsense" names, and only give the developer the map. Stack traces etc
can then be "decrypted" - but only someone with the map.

If you think that everything encrypted can be decrypted without the
private (secret) part, I suggest you read up on one-time pads as a
simple counter example. You could also tell me what this message says:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A.

Anyone with the appropriate text file would be able to work out what
that meant, but I don't think you'll be able to, somehow.

A good obfuscator will completely remove all information that can be
removed, as far as anyone without the nonsense->original map is
concerned. You may still be able to understand the code, but it's a
*lot* harder to do so.

That's fair enough for me.

I discovered that most Symbols can be obfuscated, but I need to insist
on the enums:
[Enum].GetName(...)
returns the Symbol used in the enum as a string
so, the original Symbol is stored in the exe or dll, it can be decrypted.

Everyone that is not Obfuscating the evidence knows that it can be
decrypted or deobfuscated (whatever you name it).

I noticed that you are an MPV, I don't know you, it is the first time I
see your nick name, so you should not understand the following question
as any sort of attack to you.
Can you explain as clear as the post I read from you, what checks does
Microsoft do when nomeating MVPs? Being more clear: is Microsoft ready
to put its hand on Bible to say that each of MVPs are not hackers or
malware people?

(I am not talking about you, I repeat to avoid misunderstandings)

_obs7366

Nov 16 '05 #66

P: n/a
CJ Taylor wrote:
It's a Consipiracy against just you...

Or it could be the fact that .NET != C AND .NET != ASM.

By making that statement you FURTHER prove you have not gone beyond the
first paragraph of Understanding .NET. Again, and for the last time .NET is
an IL based language, which means it is not compiled to run on a particular
platform. It uses a CLR to interpret IL code and run that on the host
processor.


Well, I found that you are one of the many Obfuscators used to hide
evidence.

No more chit chat
Nov 16 '05 #67

P: n/a
> CJ Taylor wrote:
It's a Consipiracy against just you...

Or it could be the fact that .NET != C AND .NET != ASM.

By making that statement you FURTHER prove you have not gone beyond the
first paragraph of Understanding .NET. Again, and for the last time ..NET is an IL based language, which means it is not compiled to run on a particular platform. It uses a CLR to interpret IL code and run that on the host
processor.

Well, I found that you are one of the many Obfuscators used to hide
evidence.


I'm an obfusicator? What on earth does this mean and what does it have to
do with obfusication of code or the fact you have no clue how the framework
operates?

No more chit chat


Because your wrong?
Nov 16 '05 #68

P: n/a
"Brian Henry" <br**********@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message news:<Om**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>...
the really funny thing is the fact you are selling classes you stole from
code project and assembled them together to make this


I don't have any idea what you are referring to here. I spent over 2
years writing Decompiler.NET entirely from scratch aside from the 3rd
party libraries that I credit in the about box including ILReader,
CommandBar, and Aqua Buttons. Our Whidbey implementation no longer
uses ILReader. I am also constantly adding new features and
enhancements. I have many very happy customers who appreciate the
higher level code and more accurate code that it generates over the
competitors offerings.

I posted the pdf article link directly for readers who don't subscribe
to the online edition of DNDJ. The feedback discussion thread was
published in the September issue and is also available on our web
site.

Jonathan
Nov 16 '05 #69

P: n/a
LOL,

I like a good fight !

--

OHM ( Terry Burns )
. . . One-Handed-Man . . .
If U Need My Email ,Ask Me

Time flies when you don't know what you're doing

"CJ Taylor" <[cege] at [tavayn] dit commmmm> wrote in message
news:%2******************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
CJ Taylor wrote:
It's a Consipiracy against just you...

Or it could be the fact that .NET != C AND .NET != ASM.

By making that statement you FURTHER prove you have not gone beyond the first paragraph of Understanding .NET. Again, and for the last time .NET is an IL based language, which means it is not compiled to run on a particular platform. It uses a CLR to interpret IL code and run that on the host
processor.

Well, I found that you are one of the many Obfuscators used to hide
evidence.


I'm an obfusicator? What on earth does this mean and what does it have to
do with obfusication of code or the fact you have no clue how the

framework operates?

No more chit chat


Because your wrong?

Nov 16 '05 #70

P: n/a
"Frans Bouma [C# MVP]" <pe******************@xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:<xn***************@msnews.microsoft.com>...
Oh, your obfuscator obviously produces 100% reliable code,
I'm sure, but I don't live in dreamland.


Yes it does. You should try it before you make assumptions about it.
Our obfuscator generates equivalent obfuscated source code with
refactored public members and encrypted literals that you recompile.
Each version of Decompiler.NET that we release is decompiled and
obfuscated with itself, and then recompiled to produce the version
that ships. Most bugs introduced by decompilation or obfuscation would
cause the recompiled version of our product to not work correctly, so
we would detect them before even releasing the build.

Go ahead and try it out and feel free to identify any specific code
generation issues that you feel are bugs. Unless you can provide
examples of incorrect behavior, there is no reason to assume that our
product has issues just because you have had bad experiences with
other tools or your own attempts to implement an obfuscation tool.

Jonathan Pierce
President
Jungle Creatures, Inc.
http://www.junglecreatures.com/
Nov 16 '05 #71

P: n/a
"Brian Henry" <br**********@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message news:<On**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>...
did you ever study intermediate languages ever? you obviosly have no clue
what you are talknig about. It's not just MS, it is ANY language that is
writen in any type of IL, java included

"Vortex Soft" <No****@NoSpam.Net> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Jonathan Pierce wrote:
Using what they call obfuscator, will not help you for a long time.
For each new obfuscator there will allways exist a new deobfuscator.
Your source's Symbols are written unchanged in the exe or dll file.
Looking to your Symbols, it's easy to understand your Source Code.


I want to make it clear that the statement you were commenting about
was written by Vortex Soft and not by me. My name appears because he
was replying to my reply to his original message.

Jonatban Pierce
President
Jungle Creatures, Inc.
http://www.junglecreatures.com/
Nov 16 '05 #72

P: n/a
"Nak" <a@a.com> wrote in message news:<eY**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>...
Just to add a touch of irony, I should use a different decompiler to
decompile your little aplette and then post the project file on here, naaah,
I would *never* do that! nope nope nope.

By the way, the codes a bit dirty!

Nick.


Nick,

Please clarify what you are trying to say here. Our Decompiler.NET
product is an application, not an "aplette". The version we ship is
protected both with encryption and obfuscation. Attempts to decompile
it or bypass our license enforcement strategy are also a violation of
our license agreement and we utilize the legal system to protect our
proprietary intellectual property. The product was written entirely at
Jungle Creatures, Inc. aside from the 3rd party libraries licensed and
fully credited in the application About Box.

Please try to avoid making inaccurate negative statements about our
products in public forums. Our product mentioned in this thread was
mentioned by the original post, and there is no attempt here to
advertise our products, only to respond to technical concerns
mentioned by the original post, and to refute inaccurate assumptions
or accusations made about our products or company in public forums. If
you don't want to see our products mentioned, than you should refrain
from making statements about them in public forums that require us to
respond.

Feel free to email me directly if you want to continue this discussion
offline at su*****@junglecreatures.com
Jonathan Pierce
President
Jungle Creatures, Inc.
http://www.junglecreatures.com/
Nov 16 '05 #73

P: n/a
Been awhile hasn't it? =) Time to stir one up!

=)

"One Handed Man ( OHM - Terry Burns )" <news.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:e%***************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
LOL,

I like a good fight !

--

OHM ( Terry Burns )
. . . One-Handed-Man . . .
If U Need My Email ,Ask Me

Time flies when you don't know what you're doing

"CJ Taylor" <[cege] at [tavayn] dit commmmm> wrote in message
news:%2******************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
CJ Taylor wrote:
> It's a Consipiracy against just you...
>
> Or it could be the fact that .NET != C AND .NET != ASM.
>
> By making that statement you FURTHER prove you have not gone beyond the > first paragraph of Understanding .NET. Again, and for the last time

.NET is
> an IL based language, which means it is not compiled to run on a

particular
> platform. It uses a CLR to interpret IL code and run that on the host > processor.
>

Well, I found that you are one of the many Obfuscators used to hide
evidence.


I'm an obfusicator? What on earth does this mean and what does it have to do with obfusication of code or the fact you have no clue how the

framework
operates?

No more chit chat


Because your wrong?


Nov 16 '05 #74

P: n/a
Jonathan Pierce wrote: "Each version of Decompiler.NET that
we release is decompiled and obfuscated with itself, and
then recompiled to produce the version that ships"

This seems to me to have a certain wonderful "integrity" to
it. This mind boggles to think of what kind of mind could
take a decompilation of an obfuscated decompiler and harvest
something useful from it. Extra points awarded for "living
by the sword" you forge.

best, Bill Woodruff
dotScience
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Nov 16 '05 #75

P: n/a

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:O3**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
* "One Handed Man \( OHM - Terry Burns \)" <news.microsoft.com> scripsit:
My view is that in essence, comments should serve to explain code which
either has some quirk in it to compensate for an inadequacy or issue with
classes which it interacts with or is dealing with some particularly
complex
or intricate algorithm.
ACK.

Imagine there are '' HACK ...' or '' TODO ...' comments in the code, and
the person who reconstructs the code doesn't have these comments...


Wouldn't HACK or TODO qualify as an inadequacy or quirk?

I think he's saying only comment what needs commenting, not every single
line because someone once told you good programmers comment on every line.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>

Nov 16 '05 #76

P: n/a
* "Cor Ligthert" <no**********@planet.nl> scripsit:
I remember many EULAs which prohibit decompilation to protect their
property. The decompiler mentioned before can be used for stealing code
or innovation made by another party.
Right however can be used as well for legal decompilation.


It can be used to do that, but I don't see many useful cases where this
a reason to spend hundreds of USD for such a tool.
However for buying guns in the US (and with us as well, I legaly had them)
are regulations same as you wrote about EULA.


:-)

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>
Nov 16 '05 #77

P: n/a
* "Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> scripsit:
My view is that in essence, comments should serve to explain code which
either has some quirk in it to compensate for an inadequacy or issue with
classes which it interacts with or is dealing with some particularly
complex
or intricate algorithm.


ACK.

Imagine there are '' HACK ...' or '' TODO ...' comments in the code, and
the person who reconstructs the code doesn't have these comments...


Wouldn't HACK or TODO qualify as an inadequacy or quirk?


I'd be interested in the percentage of software release versions
containing several hacks and todos...

\\\

' TODO: Optimize algorithm for large 'n' in future versions
' to increase performance when... bla bla...
///

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>
Nov 16 '05 #78

P: n/a
>>Notice that the best decompiler
will not be able to reproduce local variable names


The local variable names are available in the pdb symbol file
generated by debug builds. Most vendors don't ship pdb files with
their products.

For code that you have compiled yourself or when you have the pdb
files, our Decompiler.NET product will retain the local variable names
from the original assembly pdb file.

Jonathan
Nov 16 '05 #79

P: n/a
Cor,
You should realize that I programmed my fair share of both COBOL & RPG
programs.

Jay

"Cor Ligthert" <no**********@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:uW**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Jay,

This has been a long time discussion when Cobol was the major programming
language.

Some where in my opinion using it as a kind of Assembler because they had
to
write too much.
(Code was not typed on a screen at the beginning).

However I have always been for explaining names and even used in that time
never a prefix, however things as "day in dateofbirth" while a lot found
that as well to much work; you earned that when you had to do a lot of
maintenance and could easy create copy parts with that (and reuse the name
day).

(This is indirect an answer on a message from OHM from past week about
prefixes).

VB had in my opinion not the same first goal as COBOL, "making a program
that could be read in plain English". However, you can reach it very much,
therefore document it in the code with readable names, and therefore make
it
possible to avoid documentation sentences (which often are made that bad,
that it brings you more on the wrong way than the right way).

COBOL was a superior language in that, however it is completely created
around batch processes. In my opinion, have the later extensions to make
it
usable for interactive use, never reached the possibilities from languages
which where directly made for that and therefore it will die.

This is not in contradiction with what you write, however to give some
extra
historical background.

Cor


Nov 16 '05 #80

P: n/a
OHM,
I should add that I will occasionally use the #Region label for my comments.

For example if a class implements the Singleton pattern, I will normally
include the members that support the Singleton pattern in a region that is
labeled. " Singleton pattern support ".

Likewise if a class has the concept of comparability & equality, I will
include the Equals & IComparable methods in a region call " IComparable
support ".

Which allows at a glance to see that the class supports or is.

Hope this helps
Jay

"One Handed Man ( OHM - Terry Burns )" <news.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
My view is that in essence, comments should serve to explain code which
either has some quirk in it to compensate for an inadequacy or issue with
classes which it interacts with or is dealing with some particularly
complex
or intricate algorithm.

Otherwise, my beleif is the same as yours, well written code needs little
explaination when being read by someone competent.

--

OHM ( Terry Burns )
. . . One-Handed-Man . . .
If U Need My Email ,Ask Me

Time flies when you don't know what you're doing

"Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]" <Ja************@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ud*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hm, yeah, that doesn't even count. It's all throw-away stuff.
> Anyone that thinks "comments" are optional, Is optional. But
> it's your mess so what I think doesn't matter.

You miss understood my statement! I did not intend to imply that comments
are optional. I actually meant that a lot of comments are redundant. If

you
label (name) the code for what it does, then I (in addition to Fowler &
Kerievsky below) don't see a real need for the comment. Fowler also

suggests
that if you have a block of code with a comment preceding it, that you
should move the block of code to its own method, with the comment as the
name of the method.

Another example is putting a comment on a variable or parameter

declaration.
If you simply pick a fuller name for the variable or parameter, do you
really need a comment on it?

For example, I have a routine that needs two date variables:

' with comments
Dim d1 As DateTime ' the start date
Dim d2 As DateTime ' the ending date

' without comments
Dim theStartDate As DateTime
Dim theEndingDate As DateTime

If you simply name the first variable as theStartDate do you really need
a
comment suggesting the value is the start date?

Consider seeing d1 & d2 used 5 times in your routine, would the code be
as
readable as using theStartDate & theEndingDate?

Would you need comments when you use d1 & d2?

Would you need comments when you use theStartDate & theEndingDate?

In other words "Human-Readable Code" or as Fowler states in Refactoring

"Any
fool can write code that a computer can understand. Good programmers
write
code that humans can understand".

You may want to read (& apply the ideas in) Martin Fowler's book
"Refactoring" and Joshua Kerievsky's book "Refactoring to Patterns" both
from Addison Wesley to have a better understanding of my statement.

Hope this helps
Jay

<he*@40th.com> wrote in message
news:eg**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Mr X.
> >> comments. Code without comments is rather worthless.
>
> JH [Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:30:37 -0500]:
> >In my experience well written code shouldn't need comments!
>
> Well, see, that's in your experience, which obviously has never
> had to deal with SOMEONE ELSE's "well-written code" (haha).
>
> >' adopted to VB.NET
> > Public Shared Sub Main()
>
> Hm, yeah, that doesn't even count. It's all throw-away stuff.
> Anyone that thinks "comments" are optional, Is optional. But
> it's your mess so what I think doesn't matter.
> --
> 40th Floor - Software @ http://40th.com/
> iPlay : the ultimate audio player for iPAQs
> mp3, ogg, mp4, m4a, aac, wav, and then some
> w/surround, xfeed, reverb - all on your ppc



Nov 16 '05 #81

P: n/a
* jp*****@nyc.rr.com (Jonathan Pierce) scripsit:
Notice that the best decompiler will not be able to reproduce local variable names


The local variable names are available in the pdb symbol file
generated by debug builds. Most vendors don't ship pdb files with
their products.


That will be the case for almost every released software.
For code that you have compiled yourself or when you have the pdb
files, our Decompiler.NET product will retain the local variable names
from the original assembly pdb file.


Tell me a reason why I should decompile an application if I already have its
source code.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>
Nov 16 '05 #82

P: n/a
Nak
LOL
I see that you are an honest person with a wide knowledge.
Could you help the ignorant people like me and millions others to protect
their work in a satisfactory way?


Go away! You are so obviously in league with jungle creatures, your probably
one of his colleagues! You put on a little play and advertise his crap
overpriced product and now try a different tactic in an attempt to save
face!

Well sir, you have no face!

Nick.
Nov 16 '05 #83

P: n/a
Nak
> I noticed that you are an MPV, I don't know you, it is the first time I
see your nick name, so you should not understand the following question as
any sort of attack to you.
Can you explain as clear as the post I read from you, what checks does
Microsoft do when nomeating MVPs? Being more clear: is Microsoft ready to
put its hand on Bible to say that each of MVPs are not hackers or malware
people?

(I am not talking about you, I repeat to avoid misunderstandings)


Ooooohhh!!!!!!

Hisssss, booooooo!!!

.....
Nov 16 '05 #84

P: n/a
Herfried,
I normally use TODO for items that are yet to be done. I use (try to use)
TODO comments & the task list as the to do list identified in Kent Beck's
"Test-Driven Development - By Example" from Addison Wesley. For example I
thought of a new feature I need to add to a class, however I don't currently
have time to add it, I will add a TODO in that class. However if I thought
of an entirely new class I will use the task list itself...

I normally use HACK comments for code that shouldn't be, but its the
"easiest" way to do it right now. Such as your Optimize algorithm comment.
Or the problem we had at work, that we had to introduce a hack to work
around a bug in a recent Crystal Reports update.

So HACK I consider "done" however I probably want to visit & Refactor how I
did it. While TODO are not finished yet, possible not even started.
If you come up with a firmer metric we may be able to come up with a tool to
measure. Such as TODO/HACK per file, TODO/HACK per project.

Hope this helps
Jay

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:u8**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
* "Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> scripsit:
My view is that in essence, comments should serve to explain code which
either has some quirk in it to compensate for an inadequacy or issue
with
classes which it interacts with or is dealing with some particularly
complex
or intricate algorithm.

ACK.

Imagine there are '' HACK ...' or '' TODO ...' comments in the code, and
the person who reconstructs the code doesn't have these comments...


Wouldn't HACK or TODO qualify as an inadequacy or quirk?


I'd be interested in the percentage of software release versions
containing several hacks and todos...

\\\

' TODO: Optimize algorithm for large 'n' in future versions
' to increase performance when... bla bla...
///

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>

Nov 16 '05 #85

P: n/a

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:uL**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
* jp*****@nyc.rr.com (Jonathan Pierce) scripsit:
Notice that the best decompiler
will not be able to reproduce local variable names
The local variable names are available in the pdb symbol file
generated by debug builds. Most vendors don't ship pdb files with
their products.


That will be the case for almost every released software.
For code that you have compiled yourself or when you have the pdb
files, our Decompiler.NET product will retain the local variable names
from the original assembly pdb file.


Tell me a reason why I should decompile an application if I already have

its source code.

False sense of knowledge regarding programming?
--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>

Nov 16 '05 #86

P: n/a
> And the enums can't be changed!!!


You are correct that enum values can't directly be obfuscated since
they are implemented as public literal fields. Since they are literal,
references to their values can substituted at compile time.

On obfuscator can replace them with a corresponding class definitition
with const fields that can be obfuscated.

For example:

private enum Direction
{
North = 0,
South = 1,
East = 2,
West = 3,
}
}
can be replaced with:

private struct a

{
internal const int a1 = 0;
internal const int a2 = 1;
internal const int a3 = 2;
internal const int a4 = 3;
}
Nov 16 '05 #87

P: n/a

"Nak" <a@a.com> wrote in message
news:Oy**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
I noticed that you are an MPV, I don't know you, it is the first time I
see your nick name, so you should not understand the following question as any sort of attack to you.
Can you explain as clear as the post I read from you, what checks does
Microsoft do when nomeating MVPs? Being more clear: is Microsoft ready to put its hand on Bible to say that each of MVPs are not hackers or malware people?

Hey... Celebrity Allstar...

All of us here.... hackers...

MVP's..... hackers....

which is the reason they became MVP's...

I believe the word your looking for is "cracker" or "a$$ bandit"

(I am not talking about you, I repeat to avoid misunderstandings)


Ooooohhh!!!!!!

Hisssss, booooooo!!!

....

Nov 16 '05 #88

P: n/a
Herfried,
reconstructing. Complex algorithms are worth stealing, and these
algorithms are often heavily commented or documented. If comments, I would agree documented yes, I'm not sure if they are always commented.

Based on the millions of lines of code at the 3 large companies I have
worked on over the last 20 years. We always had standards to comment code,
however in practice it never really worked. The original author would
comment the code, a major change would be done and the comments would remain
the same.

I may be misinterpreting, however I get the impression that Extreme
Programming places less emphasis on comments, as the code should be
"Human-Readable Code" as evidenced by my interpretation of the two
Refactoring books previously mentioned.

Just a thought
Jay

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:uV**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... Jay,

* "Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]" <Ja************@msn.com> scripsit:
comments. Code without comments is rather worthless.


In my experience well written code shouldn't need comments! At least not
a
lot of comments.


I agree. Decompiling to "steal" something developed by someone else IMO
is only useful if the code that is stolen is valuable. Most simple code
is not valuable and can be easily implemented without stealing and
reconstructing. Complex algorithms are worth stealing, and these
algorithms are often heavily commented or documented. If comments,
documentation, and local variable names are missing, the reconstructed
code will compile, but it will take hours to understand it.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>

Nov 16 '05 #89

P: n/a
Try this. Obfuscate with XenoCode on conservative or high setting and with
control flow obfuscations. Then run that dll or exe passed Jungle. In most
cases, you can't make heads or tails from the resulting code (I just tried
it.) once you get passed all the errors that are thrown. That said, looks
like they put some work into the product. Cheers.

--
William Stacey, MVP

"Vortex Soft" <No****@NoSpam.Net> wrote in message
news:#h**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
http://www.junglecreatures.com/

Try it and tell me what's happenning in the Microsoft Corporation.


Notes:

VB, C# are CLS compliant
You can also use managed code with C++
Using what they call obfuscator, will not help you for a long time.
For each new obfuscator there will allways exist a new deobfuscator.
Your source's Symbols are written unchanged in the exe or dll file.
Looking to your Symbols, it's easy to understand your Source Code.
A honest compiler does not expose any Symbols, unless you Export them.
I like VB, it is an easy yet powerfull language, but it's good for
nothing else but studying or playing.


Nov 16 '05 #90

P: n/a
LOL.

--
William Stacey, MVP

...
I believe the word your looking for is "cracker" or "a$$ bandit"

...
Nov 16 '05 #91

P: n/a
Nak
Jonathan,
Nick,
Yup?
Please clarify what you are trying to say here. Our Decompiler.NET
product is an application, not an "aplette". The version we ship is
protected both with encryption and obfuscation.
LOL, get off your high horse, put your sandwich board down and shut the f*ck
up! You are starting to sound very irritating indeed! I will call your
application an "aplette" until I am blue in the face, this is not a
violation of anything other than your pride!
Attempts to decompile
it or bypass our license enforcement strategy are also a violation of
our license agreement and we utilize the legal system to protect our
proprietary intellectual property. The product was written entirely at
Jungle Creatures, Inc. aside from the 3rd party libraries licensed and
fully credited in the application About Box.
Refer to my previous statement you paranoid little man,
I would *never* do that! nope nope nope.
What part of that do you not understand? Secondly why the heck would I
*want* to look at your code? I have far more pressing matters at hand than
to care about anyone elses source code, obfuscated or not! So don't start
attempting the threaten me with "the legal system" until you have something
to threaten me with you fool.
Please try to avoid making inaccurate negative statements about our
products in public forums. Our product mentioned in this thread was
mentioned by the original post, and there is no attempt here to
advertise our products, only to respond to technical concerns
mentioned by the original post, and to refute inaccurate assumptions
or accusations made about our products or company in public forums. If
you don't want to see our products mentioned, than you should refrain
from making statements about them in public forums that require us to
respond.


Bla bla bla, yadda yadda yadda, there are always people like you in
newsgroups, always! It's a shame you can't obfuscate your adverts so there
is no hope of me understanding them!

Nick.
Nov 16 '05 #92

P: n/a
Not that would be handy. Take some source and output UMLs (ms kinda does
this in vs2005), pseudo code, and logic flow diagrams, and text comments
derived from the code.

--
William Stacey, MVP

"Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]" <Ja************@msn.com> wrote in message
news:OJ**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Herfried,
reconstructing. Complex algorithms are worth stealing, and these
algorithms are often heavily commented or documented. If comments, I would agree documented yes, I'm not sure if they are always commented.

Based on the millions of lines of code at the 3 large companies I have
worked on over the last 20 years. We always had standards to comment code,
however in practice it never really worked. The original author would
comment the code, a major change would be done and the comments would

remain the same.

I may be misinterpreting, however I get the impression that Extreme
Programming places less emphasis on comments, as the code should be
"Human-Readable Code" as evidenced by my interpretation of the two
Refactoring books previously mentioned.

....

Nov 16 '05 #93

P: n/a
Nak
LOL
I believe the word your looking for is "cracker" or "a$$ bandit"


I would be careful, he might threaten you with legal action!

Nick.
Nov 16 '05 #94

P: n/a
Herfried,
Tell me a reason why I should decompile an application if I already have
its
source code. You don't use backup software or check in to Visual Source safe often enough
and inadvertently delete the source to your project. :-)

Jay

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:uL**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...* jp*****@nyc.rr.com (Jonathan Pierce) scripsit:
Notice that the best decompiler
will not be able to reproduce local variable names


The local variable names are available in the pdb symbol file
generated by debug builds. Most vendors don't ship pdb files with
their products.


That will be the case for almost every released software.
For code that you have compiled yourself or when you have the pdb
files, our Decompiler.NET product will retain the local variable names
from the original assembly pdb file.


Tell me a reason why I should decompile an application if I already have
its
source code.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>

Nov 16 '05 #95

P: n/a
Nak
> You don't use backup software or check in to Visual Source safe often
enough and inadvertently delete the source to your project. :-)


Ouch!, no doubt Decompiler.NET would come in handy and restore peace and
harmony back into the world?

Nick.
Nov 16 '05 #96

P: n/a
> Try this. Obfuscate with XenoCode on conservative or high setting and
with
control flow obfuscations. Then run that dll or exe passed Jungle. In most cases, you can't make heads or tails from the resulting code (I just tried
it.) once you get passed all the errors that are thrown. That said, looks
like they put some work into the product. Cheers.
Debunk! =)

--
William Stacey, MVP

Nov 16 '05 #97

P: n/a

"Nak" <a@a.com> wrote in message
news:Ol**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
LOL
I see that you are an honest person with a wide knowledge.
Could you help the ignorant people like me and millions others to protect
their work in a satisfactory way?


Go away! You are so obviously in league with jungle creatures, your
probably one of his colleagues! You put on a little play and advertise
his crap overpriced product and now try a different tactic in an attempt
to save face!

Well sir, you have no face!


While I appreciate that you are rather fervent about this, you are really
starting to push the point here. Up to this point I have seen no behaviour
by Jungle Creatures outside of supporting their product(and suggesting it
when people ask about decompilers).

Your comments on this thread have been inappropriate, as have several
others(CJ Taylor and Brian Henry come to mind), and you comprise what I
would consider those who should go away, atleast from this thread.

The original poster is frustrating, to be sure, but you are being just as
bad. This is not a forum for conspiracy theories or for bashing other
people, even if they make a product you don't care for.
Nov 16 '05 #98

P: n/a
Nak
Hi Daniel,
While I appreciate that you are rather fervent about this, you are really
starting to push the point here. Up to this point I have seen no behaviour
by Jungle Creatures outside of supporting their product(and suggesting it
when people ask about decompilers).
Not that I ever denied that, I just absolutly hate that method of
advertising and that is what I percieved it to be. That isn't what the
newsgroup was intended for. If by any chance it wasn't a sales push then as
mr "Vortex" is a possible client or end user of JungleCreatures /
Decompiler.NET, they should conduct their chit chat elsewhere. This isn't a
forum for JungleCreatues to offer support on their products is it?
Your comments on this thread have been inappropriate, as have several
others(CJ Taylor and Brian Henry come to mind), and you comprise what I
would consider those who should go away, atleast from this thread.
Yup, my comments can be *very* inappropriate at times, but I am not
leaving this newsgroup, I've been here long enough now and respect many of
the hard working participants. Just because I am not an MVP, or CJ or
Brian, that is the only reason you are making this statement, which
personally I believe to be unfair. But expected from an MVP, no offence but
sometimes they can get a little too authorative, the status doesnt come with
a uniform does it?

Believe it or not, I am a regular of this group and do not always get
irate by this kind of thing, but sometimes I do. If *you* don't like what
you read, put it in your "block list".
The original poster is frustrating, to be sure, but you are being just as
bad. This is not a forum for conspiracy theories or for bashing other
people, even if they make a product you don't care for.


Oh well, pots and kettles, but you are not the referee, so there is no
need to start blowing your whistle.

At the moment "mate" *I* don't even make products I care for, it's been
one of those days!

Nick.
Nov 16 '05 #99

P: n/a

"Nak" <a@a.com> wrote in message
news:eU**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Hi Daniel,
While I appreciate that you are rather fervent about this, you are really
starting to push the point here. Up to this point I have seen no
behaviour by Jungle Creatures outside of supporting their product(and
suggesting it when people ask about decompilers).
Not that I ever denied that, I just absolutly hate that method of
advertising and that is what I percieved it to be. That isn't what the
newsgroup was intended for. If by any chance it wasn't a sales push then
as mr "Vortex" is a possible client or end user of JungleCreatures /
Decompiler.NET, they should conduct their chit chat elsewhere. This isn't
a forum for JungleCreatues to offer support on their products is it?


Not per se, however it *is* a forum for support and discussion of the
framework, and in some cases supporting a tool related to the framework is
appropriate. Mr. Pierce, in my experiance, has not posted outside of that
particular set of rules.
Your comments on this thread have been inappropriate, as have several
others(CJ Taylor and Brian Henry come to mind), and you comprise what I
would consider those who should go away, atleast from this thread.


Yup, my comments can be *very* inappropriate at times, but I am not
leaving this newsgroup, I've been here long enough now and respect many of
the hard working participants. Just because I am not an MVP, or CJ or
Brian, that is the only reason you are making this statement, which
personally I believe to be unfair. But expected from an MVP, no offence
but sometimes they can get a little too authorative, the status doesnt
come with a uniform does it?


No, there is no uniform. There are nifty lapel pins and an ID card though.

Actually, authoritarian behaviour isn't uncommon among MVP's, however it is
not because they *are* mvps, but because before becoming mvp's they were
highly community minded, including trying to contain the spread of
falsehoods. Most are a little less heavy handed than I am, however.

Also, for the record, I'll bring this up with anyone who behaves like this.
You aren't the first, and I doubt the last, who I will call out for such
behavior. An MVP label(or even an MSFT one) isn't going to deter me from
that.
MVP's tend *not* to start these kind of issues, but they are certainly not
immune.

I personally think your behaviour has been rank and that you don't deserve a
terrible amount of respect from your posts. They are inflamatory, uncalled
for, and intolerably rude.
Believe it or not, I am a regular of this group and do not always get
irate by this kind of thing, but sometimes I do. If *you* don't like what
you read, put it in your "block list".


I am well aware you are a regular, but that doesn't excuse you from behaving
badly.

And, for what its worth, I don't use a block list. Everyone has a right to
have their say and to deal with the feedback from it. You are welcome to
continue with your harrasement, I certainly can't stop you, but I certainly
am not going to bow out while you act up. I will say, when I feel it is
appropriate, my thoughts on your posts.
The original poster is frustrating, to be sure, but you are being just as
bad. This is not a forum for conspiracy theories or for bashing other
people, even if they make a product you don't care for.


Oh well, pots and kettles, but you are not the referee, so there is no
need to start blowing your whistle.


Nor is there a need for you to harrass people. Live with it.
Nov 16 '05 #100

192 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.