|
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. | |
Share this Question
|
P: n/a
|
Fuck off!
"Vortex Soft" <No****@NoSpam.Net> wrote in message
news:%2******************@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. | |
|
P: n/a
|
Nick,
And I thought that is something for Nick, "It needs a thief to catch a
thief", with what I do not mean you of course. This is in the text.
New License Keys Issued
The latest version of Decompiler.NET requires that you install an updated
license file. You should have received an updated license file via email.
Please replace your existing license file with this new one after installing
the latest release.
Cor
| |
|
P: n/a
|
LOL! Not quite sure what to say, maybe I expressed my opinions with my
other post :-p
Nick.
"Cor Ligthert" <no**********@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:uY**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... Nick,
And I thought that is something for Nick, "It needs a thief to catch a
thief", with what I do not mean you of course. This is in the text.
New License Keys Issued
The latest version of Decompiler.NET requires that you install an updated
license file. You should have received an updated license file via email.
Please replace your existing license file with this new one after
installing
the latest release.
Cor
| |
|
P: n/a
|
if VB.NET was good for nothing but studying and playing hows come some major
corporations run applications they created in VB.NET? Because of the way IL
is compiled symbols are going to be included... this happens with any IL
language such as Java. and what is stoping you from reverse engineering C++
code? if you can understand assembly and have some time on your hands you
can decompile it also in a sense
"Vortex Soft" <No****@NoSpam.Net> wrote in message
news:%2******************@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. | |
|
P: n/a
|
That link appears to be dead.
"Vortex Soft" <No****@NoSpam.Net> wrote in message
news:%2******************@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. | |
|
P: n/a
|
You really dont know what you are talking about do you !
--
OHM ( Terry Burns )
. . . One-Handed-Man . . .
If U Need My Email ,Ask Me
Time flies when you don't know what you're doing
"Vortex Soft" <No****@NoSpam.Net> wrote in message
news:%2******************@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. | |
|
P: n/a
|
You know... RSA encryption can be cracked too... but most times, it's just
not worth the hassle...
"One Handed Man ( OHM - Terry Burns )" <news.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:e%***************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... You really dont know what you are talking about do you !
--
OHM ( Terry Burns )
. . . One-Handed-Man . . .
If U Need My Email ,Ask Me
Time flies when you don't know what you're doing
"Vortex Soft" <No****@NoSpam.Net> wrote in message
news:%2******************@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.
| |
|
P: n/a
|
"Vortex Soft" <No****@NoSpam.Net> wrote in message
news:%2******************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... I like VB, it is an easy yet powerfull language, but it's good for
nothing else but studying or playing.
Troll, troll, troll your boat.... | |
|
P: n/a
|
Virtually anything can be cracked, security management is all about managing
to an 'acceptable' risk for the environment in which the protected entity
exists.
--
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:uf**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... You know... RSA encryption can be cracked too... but most times, it's just
not worth the hassle...
"One Handed Man ( OHM - Terry Burns )" <news.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:e%***************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... You really dont know what you are talking about do you !
--
OHM ( Terry Burns )
. . . One-Handed-Man . . .
If U Need My Email ,Ask Me
Time flies when you don't know what you're doing
"Vortex Soft" <No****@NoSpam.Net> wrote in message
news:%2******************@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.
| |
|
P: n/a
|
"Jeff Johnson [MVP: VB]" <i.***@enough.spam> wrote in message
news:u7**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
"Vortex Soft" <No****@NoSpam.Net> wrote in message
news:%2******************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
I like VB, it is an easy yet powerfull language, but it's good for
nothing else but studying or playing.
Troll, troll, troll your boat....
gently down the data stream... | |
|
P: n/a
|
My point exactly.
=0
"One Handed Man ( OHM - Terry Burns )" <news.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:u0**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... Virtually anything can be cracked, security management is all about
managing to an 'acceptable' risk for the environment in which the protected entity
exists.
--
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:uf**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... You know... RSA encryption can be cracked too... but most times, it's
just not worth the hassle...
"One Handed Man ( OHM - Terry Burns )" <news.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:e%***************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... You really dont know what you are talking about do you !
--
OHM ( Terry Burns )
. . . One-Handed-Man . . .
If U Need My Email ,Ask Me
Time flies when you don't know what you're doing
"Vortex Soft" <No****@NoSpam.Net> wrote in message
news:%2******************@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.
>
| |
|
P: n/a
|
Whoah!
"RSA encryption can be cracked too"
How much time do you have on your hands??
Nick.
| |
|
P: n/a
|
Damn it didnt appear! :-(
I knew I should have expleted it!
Nick.
"Nak" <a@a.com> wrote in message
news:Oo*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... LOL! Not quite sure what to say, maybe I expressed my opinions with my
other post :-p
Nick.
"Cor Ligthert" <no**********@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:uY**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... Nick,
And I thought that is something for Nick, "It needs a thief to catch a
thief", with what I do not mean you of course. This is in the text.
New License Keys Issued
The latest version of Decompiler.NET requires that you install an updated
license file. You should have received an updated license file via email.
Please replace your existing license file with this new one after
installing
the latest release.
Cor
| |
|
P: n/a
|
There was more to that sentence... that being, is it *really* worth the
effort?
"Nak" <a@a.com> wrote in message
news:Od**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... Whoah!
"RSA encryption can be cracked too"
How much time do you have on your hands??
Nick.
| |
|
P: n/a
|
Probably - if you had an algorithm to do it fast, I'm sure you could get a
job in some fairly specialist places :-)
Steve
"CJ Taylor" <[cege] at [tavayn] dit commmmm> wrote in message
news:eJ**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... There was more to that sentence... that being, is it *really* worth the
effort?
"Nak" <a@a.com> wrote in message
news:Od**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... Whoah!
"RSA encryption can be cracked too"
How much time do you have on your hands??
Nick.
| |
|
P: n/a
|
Mmm yes...
would you mind posting that algorithm here? =)
"Steve McLellan" <sjm.NOSPAM AT fixerlabs DOT com> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... Probably - if you had an algorithm to do it fast, I'm sure you could get a
job in some fairly specialist places :-)
Steve
"CJ Taylor" <[cege] at [tavayn] dit commmmm> wrote in message
news:eJ**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... There was more to that sentence... that being, is it *really* worth the
effort?
"Nak" <a@a.com> wrote in message
news:Od**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... Whoah!
"RSA encryption can be cracked too"
How much time do you have on your hands??
Nick.
| |
|
P: n/a
|
You need to get out more often: http://denisbauer.com/NETTools/FileDisassembler.aspx
"Vortex Soft" <No****@NoSpam.Net> wrote in message
news:%2******************@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. | |
|
P: n/a
|
Um..... no :-) I'll probably get 'disappeared' by MI5 on the way home now
:-)
"CJ Taylor" <[cege] at [tavayn] dit commmmm> wrote in message
news:O5**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... Mmm yes...
would you mind posting that algorithm here? =)
"Steve McLellan" <sjm.NOSPAM AT fixerlabs DOT com> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... Probably - if you had an algorithm to do it fast, I'm sure you could get
a job in some fairly specialist places :-)
Steve
"CJ Taylor" <[cege] at [tavayn] dit commmmm> wrote in message
news:eJ**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... There was more to that sentence... that being, is it *really* worth
the effort?
"Nak" <a@a.com> wrote in message
news:Od**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Whoah!
>
> "RSA encryption can be cracked too"
>
> How much time do you have on your hands??
>
> Nick.
>
>
| |
|
P: n/a
|
Remember - all depends on the key length chosen. If you're going to choose a
16-bit key - hell I can crack that too :-) (Yes- within my lifetime ;-)) !!
Read here: http://news.com.com/2100-1023-204556.html?legacy=cnet
Ofcourse, the standard now is to use 512 bit keys and sooner or later we'll
be moving to a 1024 bit standard as soon as as someone (or rather group)
cracks a 512-bit RSA key encoded message. Thats a totally different ball
game altogether.
Imran.
"Nak" <a@a.com> wrote in message
news:Od**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... Whoah!
"RSA encryption can be cracked too"
How much time do you have on your hands??
Nick.
| |
|
P: n/a
|
> 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.
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.
Our obfuscator encrypts string literals and replaces them with
references. It also includes unique advanced features not provided by
other available obfuscators like generating public stub methods and
properties to avoid breaking public interfaces, but factoring their
bodies and calls within the same assembly into obfuscated
implementation methods. Our refactoring feature also includes an
option for encapsulates fields with generated properties and tightens
their scoping to private.
You can read an article that compares our Decompiler to other
available .NET decompilers in the August 2004 issue of .NET Developers
Journal. You can view the article here: http://www.junglecreatures.com/press...ugust_2004.pdf
Jonathan Pierce
President
Jungle Creatures, Inc. http://www.junglecreatures.com/ | |
|
P: n/a
|
"James" <j@j.net> wrote in message news:<Ob*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>... That link appears to be dead.
If you are having problems accessing out site, please let me know. We
have been in business since 1999 and we have many customers who rely
on the commercial products that we offer. Please email me directly if
you have any more problems accessing our web site at su*****@junglecreatures.com
Jonathan Pierce
President
Jungle Creatures, Inc. http://www.junglecreatures.com/ | |
|
P: n/a
|
* Vortex Soft <No****@NoSpam.Net> scripsit: VB, C# are CLS compliant
That's wrong. Especially C# code is not CLS compliant in all cases.
VB.NET sticks more to the CLS and tries to produce CLS compliant code,
for example by not supporting unsigned integer datatypes directly.
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.
This depends on the obfuscator you use. Notice that the best decompiler
will not be able to reproduce local variable names and the code
comments. Code without comments is rather worthless.
I like VB, it is an easy yet powerfull language, but it's good for
nothing else but studying or playing.
Bla bla...
--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/> | |
|
P: n/a
|
If you try the Decompiler.NET, you will get the full source code.
All Class, Function, Variable names are shown as in the original source!
CJ Taylor wrote: There was more to that sentence... that being, is it *really* worth the
effort?
"Nak" <a@a.com> wrote in message
news:Od**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Whoah!
"RSA encryption can be cracked too"
How much time do you have on your hands??
Nick.
| |
|
P: n/a
|
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.
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
Our obfuscator encrypts string literals and replaces them with
references. It also includes unique advanced features not provided by
other available obfuscators like generating public stub methods and
properties to avoid breaking public interfaces, but factoring their
bodies and calls within the same assembly into obfuscated
implementation methods. Our refactoring feature also includes an
option for encapsulates fields with generated properties and tightens
their scoping to private.
You can read an article that compares our Decompiler to other
available .NET decompilers in the August 2004 issue of .NET Developers
Journal. You can view the article here:
http://www.junglecreatures.com/press...ugust_2004.pdf
Jonathan Pierce
President
Jungle Creatures, Inc.
http://www.junglecreatures.com/
| |
|
P: n/a
|
"Vortex Soft" <No****@NoSpam.Net> wrote in message
news:u4**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... If you try the Decompiler.NET, you will get the full source code.
All Class, Function, Variable names are shown as in the original source!
Try recompiling in Release mode, then decompiling.
Then try obfusticating the release mode dll and then decompiling it again.
Tell us what you see. CJ Taylor wrote: There was more to that sentence... that being, is it *really* worth the
effort?
"Nak" <a@a.com> wrote in message
news:Od**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Whoah!
"RSA encryption can be cracked too"
How much time do you have on your hands??
Nick.
| |
|
P: n/a
|
Herfried, comments. Code without comments is rather worthless.
In my experience well written code shouldn't need comments! At least not a
lot of comments.
Well written code should be largely self explanatory based on the class,
method, property, parameter, field, and variable names.
I am not however suggesting that there should be NO comments at all.
I like the example from the "Human-Readable Code" section in Joshua
Kerievsky's "Refactoring to Patterns" from Addison Wesley:
' adopted to VB.NET
Public Shared Sub Main()
Dim firstOfMonth As DateTime = November(1, 2004)
Dim lastOfMonth As DateTime = November(30, 2004)
End Sub
Where the November function is defined as:
Private Shared Function November(ByVal day As Integer, ByVal year As
Integer) As DateTime
Return New DateTime(year, 11, day)
End Function
Just a thought
Jay
"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:e$**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...* Vortex Soft <No****@NoSpam.Net> scripsit: VB, C# are CLS compliant
That's wrong. Especially C# code is not CLS compliant in all cases.
VB.NET sticks more to the CLS and tries to produce CLS compliant code,
for example by not supporting unsigned integer datatypes directly.
Using what they call obfuscator, will not help you for a long time.
For each new obfuscator there will allways exist a new deobfuscator.
Your source's Symbols are written unchanged in the exe or dll file.
Looking to your Symbols, it's easy to understand your Source Code.
A honest compiler does not expose any Symbols, unless you Export them.
This depends on the obfuscator you use. Notice that the best decompiler
will not be able to reproduce local variable names and the code
comments. Code without comments is rather worthless.
I like VB, it is an easy yet powerfull language, but it's good for
nothing else but studying or playing.
Bla bla...
--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/> | |
|
P: n/a
|
> Jonathan Pierce wrote: Using what they call obfuscator, will not help you for a long time.
For each new obfuscator there will allways exist a new deobfuscator.
Your source's Symbols are written unchanged in the exe or dll file.
Looking to your Symbols, it's easy to understand your Source Code.
Thanks for the compliments regarding our Decompiler.NET product. The
product includes a built-in obfuscation option that generates
obfuscated source code that you can recompile that still runs like the
original code. You may want to try this feature to see how readable
the obfuscated code is.
It's the .NET programmers comunity that should thank you for exposing
it's weakness and allow us to protect owselfs since Microsoft doesn't
you are a f#(*@#($* moron...
Get off your knees, I think you've satisified Jon's ego enough... Our obfuscator encrypts string literals and replaces them with
references. It also includes unique advanced features not provided by
other available obfuscators like generating public stub methods and
properties to avoid breaking public interfaces, but factoring their
bodies and calls within the same assembly into obfuscated
implementation methods. Our refactoring feature also includes an
option for encapsulates fields with generated properties and tightens
their scoping to private.
You can read an article that compares our Decompiler to other
available .NET decompilers in the August 2004 issue of .NET Developers
Journal. You can view the article here:
http://www.junglecreatures.com/press...ugust_2004.pdf
Jonathan Pierce
President
Jungle Creatures, Inc.
http://www.junglecreatures.com/
| |
|
P: n/a
|
Aaah, fair enough, I thought you were going to shatter my illusions of RSA
for a moment then! HAHAHAHA........ :-( Sorry, just spending quite a
considerably ammount of time making a software licensing application that
uses RSA. Anyways yeah... Long time?
Nick.
"CJ Taylor" <[cege] at [tavayn] dit commmmm> wrote in message
news:eJ**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... There was more to that sentence... that being, is it *really* worth the
effort?
"Nak" <a@a.com> wrote in message
news:Od**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... Whoah!
"RSA encryption can be cracked too"
How much time do you have on your hands??
Nick.
| |
|
P: n/a
|
"Cor Ligthert" <no**********@planet.nl> wrote in message news:<uY**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>... Nick,
And I thought that is something for Nick, "It needs a thief to catch a
thief", with what I do not mean you of course. This is in the text.
New License Keys Issued
The latest version of Decompiler.NET requires that you install an updated
license file. You should have received an updated license file via email.
Please replace your existing license file with this new one after installing
the latest release.
Cor
Cor,
I don't understand what you are trying to say here about our product
license enforement strategy.
We offer a free trial version, and issue digitally signed license
files to our customers that restict the application to the machine
where they installed it. The statement above refers to the changes
that we made regarding our license file format that prevented old
license files from enabling full functionality in newer releases of
our product.
We also offer obfuscation features to assist customers in obfuscating
their code to protect their intellectual property. We use our own
obfuscation implementation along with encryption to produce each
release of our products that we release to customers.
Using our product requires that you agree with our license agreement
which prohibits you using our tools for illegal purposes.
Can you explain what you mean by the "thief" reference?
Feel free to email me directly.
Jonathan Pierce
President
Jungle Creatures, Inc. http://www.junglecreatures.com/ | |
|
P: n/a
|
> Remember - all depends on the key length chosen. If you're going to choose a
16-bit key - hell I can crack that too :-) (Yes- within my lifetime ;-))
!!
Read here: http://news.com.com/2100-1023-204556.html?legacy=cnet
All I have to say on that matter is f**ksticks
Ofcourse, the standard now is to use 512 bit keys and sooner or later
we'll
be moving to a 1024 bit standard as soon as as someone (or rather group)
cracks a 512-bit RSA key encoded message. Thats a totally different ball
game altogether.
That sucks, I've never even been able to open a passworded zip file using an
app designed for the task of brute force simply because it takes too long.
These groups must be very adamant on destruction that's all I can say!
Nick.
"Imran Koradia" <no****@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:eM**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Imran.
"Nak" <a@a.com> wrote in message
news:Od**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... Whoah!
"RSA encryption can be cracked too"
How much time do you have on your hands??
Nick.
| |
|
P: n/a
|
F&U*C(KING TW^ATS!!!
Stop your damn blatant advertising and get a life! Noone here is going to
rush off and buy your product because of your little play!
"Thanks for the compliments regarding our Decompiler.NET product."
plebule!
Nick.
"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.
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
Our obfuscator encrypts string literals and replaces them with
references. It also includes unique advanced features not provided by
other available obfuscators like generating public stub methods and
properties to avoid breaking public interfaces, but factoring their
bodies and calls within the same assembly into obfuscated
implementation methods. Our refactoring feature also includes an
option for encapsulates fields with generated properties and tightens
their scoping to private.
You can read an article that compares our Decompiler to other
available .NET decompilers in the August 2004 issue of .NET Developers
Journal. You can view the article here:
http://www.junglecreatures.com/press...ugust_2004.pdf
Jonathan Pierce
President
Jungle Creatures, Inc.
http://www.junglecreatures.com/ | |
|
P: n/a
|
Hey, 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.
Haha, some people like them, some people dont. I have gone through stages
of attempting to put descriptions above each and every method with inputs,
outputs, description and author but just got bored with it. Also I find
code very hard to read at 1024 x 768 in a text editor about 100 x 100 in
size without having to rake through comments in it too.
I think the code that should mainly have comments is code that is used to
teach. But anyway, thats only my opinion.
Nick. | |
|
P: n/a
|
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.
"Vortex Soft" <No****@NoSpam.Net> wrote in message
news:%2******************@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. | |
|
P: n/a
|
> All I have to say on that matter is f**ksticks
?!? That sucks, I've never even been able to open a passworded zip file using
an app designed for the task of brute force simply because it takes too
long. These groups must be very adamant on destruction that's all I can
say!
That's true. However, there are techniques (lot of higher math involved)
that'll get you closer faster than brute force. Ofcourse, you really must be
wanting something very badly (or just have an unbelievably high level of
grudge towards 'someone') to go the lengths.
Imran. | |
|
P: n/a
|
a jumbled mess is what you see ;)
"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in
message news:e6**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
"Vortex Soft" <No****@NoSpam.Net> wrote in message
news:u4**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... If you try the Decompiler.NET, you will get the full source code.
All Class, Function, Variable names are shown as in the original source!
Try recompiling in Release mode, then decompiling.
Then try obfusticating the release mode dll and then decompiling it again.
Tell us what you see. CJ Taylor wrote: There was more to that sentence... that being, is it *really* worth the
effort?
"Nak" <a@a.com> wrote in message
news:Od**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Whoah!
"RSA encryption can be cracked too"
How much time do you have on your hands??
Nick.
| |
|
P: n/a
|
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.
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
Our obfuscator encrypts string literals and replaces them with
references. It also includes unique advanced features not provided by
other available obfuscators like generating public stub methods and
properties to avoid breaking public interfaces, but factoring their
bodies and calls within the same assembly into obfuscated
implementation methods. Our refactoring feature also includes an
option for encapsulates fields with generated properties and tightens
their scoping to private.
You can read an article that compares our Decompiler to other
available .NET decompilers in the August 2004 issue of .NET Developers
Journal. You can view the article here:
http://www.junglecreatures.com/press...ugust_2004.pdf
Jonathan Pierce
President
Jungle Creatures, Inc.
http://www.junglecreatures.com/ | |
|
P: n/a
|
the really funny thing is the fact you are selling classes you stole from
code project and assembled them together to make this
"Vortex Soft" <No****@NoSpam.Net> wrote in message
news:%2******************@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. | |
|
P: n/a
|
> 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 | |
|
P: n/a
|
btw, I just ran this on a largly obsucated project we created in house, and
the code came out no where close to what it looked like orignally. it's not
even really understandable
"Vortex Soft" <No****@NoSpam.Net> wrote in message
news:%2******************@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. | |
|
P: n/a
|
Guess why he posted the PDF version of that compasion article and not the
online version: http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=45917&DE=1
Hint: Read the comment section.
"Nak" <a@a.com> wrote in message
news:OV**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... F&U*C(KING TW^ATS!!!
Stop your damn blatant advertising and get a life! Noone here is going
to rush off and buy your product because of your little play!
"Thanks for the compliments regarding our Decompiler.NET product."
plebule!
Nick.
"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.
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
Our obfuscator encrypts string literals and replaces them with
references. It also includes unique advanced features not provided by
other available obfuscators like generating public stub methods and
properties to avoid breaking public interfaces, but factoring their
bodies and calls within the same assembly into obfuscated
implementation methods. Our refactoring feature also includes an
option for encapsulates fields with generated properties and tightens
their scoping to private.
You can read an article that compares our Decompiler to other
available .NET decompilers in the August 2004 issue of .NET Developers
Journal. You can view the article here:
http://www.junglecreatures.com/press...ugust_2004.pdf
Jonathan Pierce
President
Jungle Creatures, Inc.
http://www.junglecreatures.com/
| |
|
P: n/a
|
ha!
"ErikS" <nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eI**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... Guess why he posted the PDF version of that compasion article and not the
online version:
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=45917&DE=1
Hint: Read the comment section.
"Nak" <a@a.com> wrote in message
news:OV**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... F&U*C(KING TW^ATS!!!
Stop your damn blatant advertising and get a life! Noone here is going
to rush off and buy your product because of your little play!
"Thanks for the compliments regarding our Decompiler.NET product."
plebule!
Nick.
"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.
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
Our obfuscator encrypts string literals and replaces them with
references. It also includes unique advanced features not provided by
other available obfuscators like generating public stub methods and
properties to avoid breaking public interfaces, but factoring their
bodies and calls within the same assembly into obfuscated
implementation methods. Our refactoring feature also includes an
option for encapsulates fields with generated properties and tightens
their scoping to private.
You can read an article that compares our Decompiler to other
available .NET decompilers in the August 2004 issue of .NET Developers
Journal. You can view the article here:
http://www.junglecreatures.com/press...ugust_2004.pdf
Jonathan Pierce
President
Jungle Creatures, Inc.
http://www.junglecreatures.com/
| |
|
P: n/a
|
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 | |
|
P: n/a
|
Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP] wrote: "Vortex Soft" <No****@NoSpam.Net> wrote in message
news:u4**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
If you try the Decompiler.NET, you will get the full source code.
All Class, Function, Variable names are shown as in the original source!
Try recompiling in Release mode, then decompiling.
Then try obfusticating the release mode dll and then decompiling it again.
Tell us what you see.
Every thing that can be encrypted can also be decrypted.
By design, the enumerations' element names are accessible in the wun
time, so they are exposed to the reverse engineering engine.
May be more that enumerations are exposed, I don't know.
_abc2389 | |
|
P: n/a
|
Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP] wrote: "Vortex Soft" <No****@NoSpam.Net> wrote in message
news:u4**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
If you try the Decompiler.NET, you will get the full source code.
All Class, Function, Variable names are shown as in the original source!
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.
Every thing that can be encrypted can also be decrypted.
By design, the enumerations' element names are accessible in the wun
time, so they are exposed to the reverse engineering engine.
May be more that enumerations are exposed, I don't know.
It's the compiler task to avoid exposing non exportable symbols.
Do you agree?
_abc2389 | |
|
P: n/a
|
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
| |
|
P: n/a
|
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 | |
|
P: n/a
|
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
| |
|
P: n/a
|
LOL! Good work!
Nick.
"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
"Vortex Soft" <No****@NoSpam.Net> wrote in message
news:%2******************@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.
| |
|
P: n/a
|
Vortex Soft wrote: http://www.junglecreatures.com/
Try it and tell me what's happenning in the Microsoft Corporation.
Notes:
VB, C# are CLS compliant
C# is not 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.
not necessarily. The point is that you can make totally not related methods
make overloads of the same method which you then call a0oO or whatever.
Whenever that happens, you are not able to reproduce the real method.
If you for example make all your forms in a .exe internal and all methods of
these forms internal, you can practically mangle everything in the .exe to a
couple of overloaded methods.
FB
--
Get LLBLGen Pro, productive O/R mapping for .NET: http://www.llblgen.com
My .NET Blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma
Microsoft C# MVP | |
This discussion thread is closed Replies have been disabled for this discussion. | |  Question stats - viewed: 5888
- replies: 245
- date asked: Nov 21 '05
|
