470,849 Members | 683 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 470,849 developers. It's quick & easy.

How are you protecting your dot net apps from reverse engineering?

Hi all. I was wondering if you are just relying on the dotfuscator that is
included in VS2005 or do you use another method to protect your apps from
reverse engineering?

TIA

Robert
Apr 12 '06 #1
8 1260
I think Preemptive's .NET Obfuscator is one of the most popular
(probably due to inclusion of the community edition).

The Professional edition does an excellent job but I've only worked at
one place that could afford nearly $2000 for a license.

I've heard good things about RemoteSoft's Salamander obfuscator but
haven't used it myself - it's also much cheaper than Preemptive's
http://www.remotesoft.com/salamander/obfuscator.html

Apr 12 '06 #2
Thanks for the reply and link Jason.

Robert
"Jason Hales" <ja*********@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@e56g2000cwe.googlegr oups.com...
I think Preemptive's .NET Obfuscator is one of the most popular
(probably due to inclusion of the community edition).

The Professional edition does an excellent job but I've only worked at
one place that could afford nearly $2000 for a license.

I've heard good things about RemoteSoft's Salamander obfuscator but
haven't used it myself - it's also much cheaper than Preemptive's
http://www.remotesoft.com/salamander/obfuscator.html

Apr 13 '06 #3
Try Xenocode Postbuild. I like it a lot!!!

Apr 13 '06 #4
Anything can be decompiled. Therefore, my strategy is to continually stay
ahead of the competition in terms of what I create. As long as I keep moving
forward, anything that might be copied or stolen from me is already obsolete
in my toolbox.

Just a thought.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Professional Numbskull

Show me your certification without works,
and I'll show my certification
*by* my works.

<in**@devdept.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@j33g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
Try Xenocode Postbuild. I like it a lot!!!

Apr 13 '06 #5
Thanks for the info.

Robert
<in**@devdept.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@j33g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
Try Xenocode Postbuild. I like it a lot!!!

Apr 13 '06 #6
Good point Kevin... but you have to try.

Robert
"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Anything can be decompiled. Therefore, my strategy is to continually stay
ahead of the competition in terms of what I create. As long as I keep
moving forward, anything that might be copied or stolen from me is already
obsolete in my toolbox.

Just a thought.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Professional Numbskull

Show me your certification without works,
and I'll show my certification
*by* my works.

<in**@devdept.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@j33g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
Try Xenocode Postbuild. I like it a lot!!!


Apr 13 '06 #7
> Good point Kevin... but you have to try.

You mean *you* have to try. I certainly don't have to, and I don't.

--
;-),

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Professional Numbskull

Show me your certification without works,
and I'll show my certification
*by* my works.

"Robert Johnson" <jo*******@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Good point Kevin... but you have to try.

Robert
"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Anything can be decompiled. Therefore, my strategy is to continually stay
ahead of the competition in terms of what I create. As long as I keep
moving forward, anything that might be copied or stolen from me is
already obsolete in my toolbox.

Just a thought.

Apr 13 '06 #8
What protection measures to take really depends on your comfort level.

If you think "well, I better do something", then obfuscators are fine,
defending casual users.

If you think "God, I really need to protect my code", then try native
compilation.

I wrote my salamander decompiler in java languages, before release, I
tried obfuscation, but didn't meet my goals, so I converted java source
code to C++ (for this I developed our java to C++ Octopus translator),
and recompiled it to native executables. Today, I still develop in Java
for the decompiler, but generate native code for release.

This is made possible for C#/VB.NET/MC++, with our native compiler:

http://www.remotesoft.com/linker

Huihong


Robert Johnson wrote:
Hi all. I was wondering if you are just relying on the dotfuscator that is
included in VS2005 or do you use another method to protect your apps from
reverse engineering?

TIA

Robert


Apr 13 '06 #9

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

18 posts views Thread by Alan Sheehan | last post: by
2 posts views Thread by Jacky Luk | last post: by
7 posts views Thread by Bobby C. | last post: by
7 posts views Thread by Gui | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.