469,342 Members | 6,455 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,342 developers. It's quick & easy.

Decompiler.NET reverse engineers your CLS compliant code

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 21 '05
245 6548
Nak
Steve,

Now that just doesn't make sense. So many people saying stop arguing, you
all sound like children, and then you throw that one in. What is the point?
Let it all die down, the argument has gone off on a tangent. I have
admitted that I only reacted due to what I deemed as an advert, nothing
else, then I mistakingly made a poor assumption towards someone else's code,
which wasn't big and wasn't clever. And again I apologise, but what we
don't need is a seagull sitting on the sidelines cheering anyone on, because
it only stokes the fire.

Nick.

"Steve McLellan" <sjm.NOSPAM AT fixerlabs DOT com> wrote in message
news:e7**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Learn to read you ignomious buffoon. What I am saying, although I doubt
you'll understand this any better than anything else you've replied to on
this thread, is that because I *AM* an MVP, you are acting like a crabby
little peasent who's been stepped on by some Chaldean god.


I just wanted to say, regardless of context, this was a splendid and
magnificent wording. Bravo! :-)

Steve

Nov 21 '05 #151
Daniel,
Learn to read you ignomious buffoon


I never had expected from you that you would use such words. In my culture
where are a lot of debats, it means that you lost the discussion.

Cor
Nov 21 '05 #152
Nick,

Thank you for recounting your statement that our code had issues and
implying that our product doesn't work as advertised. We have gone to
tremendous lengths to make sure that our product works completely for our
customers and antogonistic statements can sometimes have a detrimental
effect on our target market since some potential customers might read and
believe them rather than taking the time to confirm our claims and the
claims made by others that our product works extremely well.

Unfortunately, satisfied users are much less vocal in these forums than
those who tend to post malicious antagonistic claims to intentionally
disrupt the accurate perception of our products in the target market to
fulfill their own agendas.

Jonathan

"Nak" <a@a.com> wrote in message
news:OY**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Jesus H christ. Look if anyone has to admit to being out of order, I
shall, I appologise for saying your code was dirty. This was meant as an
assumption not a declaration of an observation. But anyway, whether you
belive me or not, the statement was meant to antagonize, I put my hand up
and appologise. I do on the other hand think it was exceedingly sly to
post my personal email address in this group, I would have given it freely
if anyone asked for it, but in a format that could not be read by a
crawler.

Anyway, trust me, I have never decompiled anything, other than looking at
my own source in Reflector. I get a kick out of programming my own
solutions, not copying others. Anyway, I appologise for the remark I
made, I'm sure your product is fine, but still something I do not have the
need for.

Anyway, I'm off of this, it's gone too far for me.

Nick.

Nov 21 '05 #153

"Cor Ligthert" <no**********@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:uu*************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Daniel,
>> Learn to read you ignomious buffoon


I never had expected from you that you would use such words. In my culture
where are a lot of debats, it means that you lost the discussion.


My tounge can be sharp, I suppose, although I considered these words to be
fairly light.

Anyway, this was never a debate, it was pretty much an escalating argument.
There really isn't a way to win, you just yell and posture till someone gets
fed up and gives up. I will grant I got fed up rapidly and gave up first,
but nothing more.

I will agree that my response in a debate of issues or even a dispute on
technical or philosophical opinion would certainly have been uncalled for
and would have shown that I was losing ground rapidly, but this had
degenerated into name calling a few steps back. And, honestly, I'm pretty
sure I started it.
Nov 21 '05 #154
"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in
message news:uT**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
this had degenerated into name calling a few steps back. And, honestly, I'm
pretty sure I started it.


Daniel,

You may have started it in the subthread, but you definitely didn't start
it. In earlier antogonistic posts in this thread by some of the users that
you mentioned, our product was referred to as "crap", "a$$ bandit", "twat",
etc.

We were also told many times to "shut the f*ck up!"

All MVPs were also referred to as "hackers" among other things.

You certainly didn't start the name calling and I'm sorry that you felt that
it was necessary to respond on the same level.

Jonathan
Nov 21 '05 #155
Wow...

You have derailed...

P.S.

You *really* need to learn what the term "hacker" means...
"Jonathan Pierce" <su*****@junglecreatures.com> wrote in message
news:vV******************@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in
message news:uT**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
this had degenerated into name calling a few steps back. And, honestly, I'mpretty sure I started it.
Daniel,

You may have started it in the subthread, but you definitely didn't start
it. In earlier antogonistic posts in this thread by some of the users that
you mentioned, our product was referred to as "crap", "a$$ bandit",

"twat", etc.

We were also told many times to "shut the f*ck up!"

All MVPs were also referred to as "hackers" among other things.

You certainly didn't start the name calling and I'm sorry that you felt that it was necessary to respond on the same level.

Jonathan

Nov 21 '05 #156
You're right, we don't need cheering. Not that it matters, but (<g>) I meant
it as a compliment on the phrasing - as a student of language, I appreciate
any use of language that really seems to roll off the tongue :-) It
definitely is a time for us all to go and reflect, and I need some sleep
having been working for about 48 hours straight now :-)

Let the slumbering hounds lie, I shall heed the call.
"Nak" <a@a.com> wrote in message
news:O6**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Steve,

Now that just doesn't make sense. So many people saying stop arguing, you all sound like children, and then you throw that one in. What is the point? Let it all die down, the argument has gone off on a tangent. I have
admitted that I only reacted due to what I deemed as an advert, nothing
else, then I mistakingly made a poor assumption towards someone else's code, which wasn't big and wasn't clever. And again I apologise, but what we
don't need is a seagull sitting on the sidelines cheering anyone on, because it only stokes the fire.

Nick.

"Steve McLellan" <sjm.NOSPAM AT fixerlabs DOT com> wrote in message
news:e7**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Learn to read you ignomious buffoon. What I am saying, although I doubt
you'll understand this any better than anything else you've replied to on this thread, is that because I *AM* an MVP, you are acting like a crabby little peasent who's been stepped on by some Chaldean god.


I just wanted to say, regardless of context, this was a splendid and
magnificent wording. Bravo! :-)

Steve


Nov 21 '05 #157
> You *really* need to learn what the term "hacker" means...

I actually was around in the 80's when the "cracker" term was coined to
distinguish "crackers" from "hackers" but the term "hacker" can have either
a derogatory or complimentary meaning and in the context that it was used in
this thread, it was used in a derogatory way and later clarified by him to
say that he really meant "cracker". I didn't mean to imply that "hacker" was
always a derogatory term.

Nick wrote:

"Being more clear: is Microsoft ready to
put its hand on Bible to say that each of MVPs are not hackers or malware
people?

Nov 21 '05 #158

"Jonathan Pierce" <su*****@junglecreatures.com> wrote in message
news:Kc*******************@twister.nyc.rr.com...
You *really* need to learn what the term "hacker" means...
I actually was around in the 80's when the "cracker" term was coined to
distinguish "crackers" from "hackers" but the term "hacker" can have

either a derogatory or complimentary meaning and in the context that it was used in this thread, it was used in a derogatory way and later clarified by him to
say that he really meant "cracker". I didn't mean to imply that "hacker" was always a derogatory term.

Nick wrote:

"Being more clear: is Microsoft ready to
put its hand on Bible to say that each of MVPs are not hackers or malware people?



And if by Nick you mean Vortex Soft.. then yes... he said that... It's only
derogatory by people that don't know how to use the word.

IT's all because of that stupid "hackers" movie...

And he never clarified it... I did...


Nov 21 '05 #159
I tried that against the remotesoft decompiler and it finally threw them
a curveball. The resultant code is pretty much a jumble. This is the
first one I've seen that works nicely against their decompiler. Good find.

William Stacey [MVP] wrote:
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.

Nov 21 '05 #160
Nak
> And if by Nick you mean Vortex Soft.. then yes... he said that... It's
only
derogatory by people that don't know how to use the word.


Aaah, ignore my statement.

Nick.
Nov 21 '05 #161
Nak
> Nick wrote:

"Being more clear: is Microsoft ready to
put its hand on Bible to say that each of MVPs are not hackers or malware
people?


Who wrote??

Nick.
Nov 21 '05 #162
One word: Marketing.

If it weren't for the Massive Microsoft Marketing Machine, we'd all be
complaining about Delphi.
Brian Henry wrote:
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.



Nov 21 '05 #163
Greg,

Although we are not necessary interested in supporting decompiling code that
it intentionally confused by obfuscators, we do want to support the ability
to decompile arbitrary MSIL, even when it is created by hand and compiled
with ilasm. As a result we will be attempting to add support for decompiling
arbitrary code flow obfuscation, even when the obfuscator causes extra
branch instructions to jump around and process the instructions out of
order. Keep an eye out for a future release of our Decompiler.NET product if
this feature is important to you. We can't however, guarantee to undo all of
the other tricks that obfuscators play to confuse decompilers.

Jonathan Pierce
President
Jungle Creatures, Inc.
http://www.junglecreatures.com/

"Greg Merideth" <be*****@forwardtechnology.net> wrote in message
news:St********************@comcast.com...
I tried that against the remotesoft decompiler and it finally threw them a
curveball. The resultant code is pretty much a jumble. This is the first
one I've seen that works nicely against their decompiler. Good find.

William Stacey [MVP] wrote:
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.

Nov 21 '05 #164
XenoCode inserts some branch instructions (br) here and there to confuse the
stack, which is very easy to remove. Our desktop version of the decompiler
works very well against those tricks, namely, you won't see those jumble
code. I will post that feature onto our online version in couple of months.

Huihong
Remotesoft, Inc.

"Greg Merideth" <be*****@forwardtechnology.net> wrote in message
news:St********************@comcast.com...
I tried that against the remotesoft decompiler and it finally threw them
a curveball. The resultant code is pretty much a jumble. This is the
first one I've seen that works nicely against their decompiler. Good find.
William Stacey [MVP] wrote:
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.

Nov 21 '05 #165
With the exception of microsoft products, I never purchase software that
ties me to a specific machine considering 1) I use removeable hard disks in
the same machine, 2) I frequently update internal components (video cards,
sound card, network card, new scanner, different digital camera, replacing
PCI modem with a USB model, etc.) such that my machine very quickly appears
to be a new machine, 3) I am a huge fan of Virtual PC/VMWare and like to
install my software into guest OS's, 4) Every 6 months or so I get a new PC,
and 5) I just don't trust software where the company could dissappear in a
year or two and leave dry in the dust.

I'm the exact same way with 3rd party ASP.NET components, they typically
lock you into a domain but for me that simply doesn't work because I might
have http:// ww w.mydomain.com /.net /.org /.info and use the non-.com ones
for mirrors incase my bandwidth usage gets close to my quotas. Most 3rd
parties would requirement to fork up another $399 for a new license for each
sever... blah. Very fortunate that for most components I would normally
have the desire to purchase were it not for the licensing policies they use,
I have the ability to create my own from scratch that often work better and
have better features and are tailored specifically for my own needs.

Decompilers are very useful for understanding the System.* internals and
fortunately there is Reflector which is free and has never let me down. I
therefore don't have the need to dump $500 and be tied to a machine that
will not be the same in even 6 weeks from now considering that I'm about to
upgrade to a dual pentium xeon pretty soon... and in the context of the
message, I'm a home user, this is not for my employment so I'm ever more
cautious when it comes to my own money. And yes, I *do* pay for all my
software, which is why I care so much.

Nonetheless, I have no doubts that its a fine product. Just one that I'll
never review or purchase.
Thanks,
Shawn

"Jonathan Pierce" <jp*****@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3d**************************@posting.google.c om...
"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/

Nov 21 '05 #166
Huh? VB is very powerful and is good for exactly what C# is good for and
managed-C++/C++/CLI is good for. Due to problems with COM+, we created a
custom transaction manager/server that completely replaces COM+ and work
much faster and does much more and it was written in VB.NET... of course,
now that we learned of the upcoming System.Transactions namespace, I don't
know where that'll leave us... but the point being that we have just as many
projects in this company written in VB.NET as there are C# and there is no
difference between the functionality or featureset or potential of the two
except that the languages they were developed in reflect the comfort of the
developer who wrote them.

If you mean to say "but its good for nothing else but [for me] its good for
nothing else but studying or playing" then I'll buy that. But to make such
a general statement, is incorrect. As a very good VB.NET developer for a
solution and he'll provide one in VB.NET. Ask a very good C# developer for
a solution and he'll provide one in C# and the same with a developer of any
other language. In the .NET world, VB.NET is no more or less capable than
C# (except in the case of operator overloading ala 2003) except VB.NET is
much better with COM-Interop than C# (at least, its easier than C# I should
say) and the IDE support is superior for VB.NET than C#.

Apart from the fact that there are endless holy-wars and religious
discussions regarding C# vs. VB.NET, I say the best tool for the job. In
the end, VB.NET usually wins with me but I've found some unique places where
C# is better suited for the task (such as my .NET-based NES emulator (not
public material, BTW)).

Thanks,
Shawn

I like VB, it is an easy yet powerfull language, but it's good for
nothing else but studying or playing.

Nov 21 '05 #167
I've never seen original variable names being shown in the source when I run
ILDASM or Reflector... but of course you'll see all the other meta data that
needs to be there.

"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!

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.


Nov 21 '05 #168
Its not like everyone developing an application is so unique that no one
else is, just that the management is "convinced" they are the only ones
doing it. I consulted for a company 2 years ago that wanted me to make an
online calendar and contact management system. They even tried to get
patents on it because they were convinced that no one else was using a
calendar quite the way they were (except yahoo calendars, hotmail, and a few
others...).

They had everyone sign NDA and Trade Secret documents and everything... its
a friggin' calendar. I copied the look-and-feel from Yahoo and the same
work flow (which incidentally happened to be the same that this company
wanted) only I implemented it myself and they thought that theirs was the
only one until I showed them a few others that were out there.

My point is that everyone wants to protect their work (rightfully so, I
suspect I'm the same way only I don't care as much since I realize a
determined person will uncover my "secrets" in no time, anyway) all equally
convinced that they are doing something that no one else is doing only, many
people are doing it all equally convinced that they need to "protect" their
IP because no one else is doing it. Its a vicious cycle of nonsense.

In all the places I've consulted and been full-time employed... the only
thing different about their respective business applications is some take
the concept to one extreme while others take it to another... functionality
might be greatly improved in some companies, but in the end, they are all
the same application over and over and over...... input custom info,
generate invoice, balance the books, keep a list of contacts for follow-ups,
post the invoice... post the payment... post this, reverse that, input this,
data-mine that... its all the same, relatively. Nothing novel about it.

Occasionally I see something that is actually quite inique and impressive so
it is the exception... I'd say a good 80% of business apps out there share
much in common with each other and aren't worth "protecting".
Thanks,
Shawn

"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 21 '05 #169
I've on many original source code bases that have no comments... don't need
a decompiler cause me to agree with your statement...

We'll written code, on the other hand, doesn't need comments except in
complex "workflows" more or less explaining a process or business rule, but
in the end, the code itself rarely needs comments. I find it very difficult
to read code with too many comments or the damned C# XML documentation ...
500 lines of XML docs for only 30 lines of C# code... ugh. I document the
XML comments externally using a utility I created...

* Too many comments: bad
* Not enough comments: ok for well-written code, bad for poorly written code
* No comments: see above.
Code without comments is rather worthless.

Nov 21 '05 #170
Totally agreed. You really articulated my thoughts much better than my
first earlier attempt.
Thanks,
Shawn
"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

Nov 21 '05 #171
> I've never seen original variable names being shown in the source when I
run
ILDASM or Reflector... but of course you'll see all the other meta data
that
needs to be there.

The local variable names are in the pdb file, and you are correct that
although Decompiler.NET does retain local variables names when you decompile
your assembly with it and have the pdb file, these other two tools that you
mentioned do not support this capability. I recommend that you try the
product that is mentioned in the title of this thread and not make any
asseumptions regarding it's quality or capabilities based on your experiece
with other products that you have tried in the past. Please let me know if
at any point you feel that any of our claims are not 100% accurate or
experience any issues that you want to discuss further based on your use of
the product.

Jonathan Pierce
President
Jungle Creatures, Inc.
http://www.junglecreatures.com/

Nov 21 '05 #172
I was referring to my decompiles of the System.* namespaces, of which, we do
not have the pdb files, and so therefore, there is no product that will
provide such functionality. I do not decompile assemblies for which I have
the source code for and presumably, I won't have pdb files for assemblies
that I don't have the source code for anyway. I'm not in the habbit of
peeking at other peoples code unless they provide it to me in some way (and
I don't peek at GPL code either as I dissagree with the license terms in
general) and it is so much more fun to come up with my own implementation
and learn along the way, anyway. The System.* namespaces are the only
exception and there is much to be learned about their internal workings and
at the very least, microsoft doesn't condemn doing so and so I feel no
guilt. Of course, there's always Rotor... but... not to go off-topic.

I was not making any comments about the capabilities of your product as I
really have no clue about its capabilities. I was only stating an opinion
of mine and it was not meant to be an authoritive, definitive, factual
conclusion of the matter.
Thanks,
Shawn


"Jonathan Pierce" <su*****@junglecreatures.com> wrote in message
news:cr***********************@twister.nyc.rr.com. ..
I've never seen original variable names being shown in the source when I
run
ILDASM or Reflector... but of course you'll see all the other meta data
that
needs to be there.
The local variable names are in the pdb file, and you are correct that
although Decompiler.NET does retain local variables names when you

decompile your assembly with it and have the pdb file, these other two tools that you mentioned do not support this capability. I recommend that you try the
product that is mentioned in the title of this thread and not make any
asseumptions regarding it's quality or capabilities based on your experiece with other products that you have tried in the past. Please let me know if
at any point you feel that any of our claims are not 100% accurate or
experience any issues that you want to discuss further based on your use of the product.

Jonathan Pierce
President
Jungle Creatures, Inc.
http://www.junglecreatures.com/

Nov 21 '05 #173
Shawn B. wrote:
I've never seen original variable names being shown in the source when I run ILDASM or Reflector... but of course you'll see all the other meta data that needs to be there.


Try BinText 3.0

This is a partial extract of one of my exe dump:

FilePos Mem pos ID Text
0056B45E 1156C45E 0 Countries
0056B468 1156C468 0 CountryCode
0056B479 1156C479 0 CountryName
0056B48F 1156C48F 0 MinTime
0056B497 1156C497 0 Compile
0056B49F 1156C49F 0 Events
0056B3E0 1156C3E0 0 GetText
0056B3E8 1156C3E8 0 FrameSize
0056B3F2 1156C3F2 0 DecodeText
0056B3FD 1156C3FD 0 FileName1
0056B407 1156C407 0 Props
0056B40D 1156C40D 0 get_INIFileName
0056B41D 1156C41D 0 get_Prop
0056B426 1156C426 0 Section
0056B432 1156C432 0 set_Prop
0056B43B 1156C43B 0 Write
0056B441 1156C441 0 INIFileName
0056B452 1156C452 0 Values
0056B45E 1156C45E 0 Countries
0056B468 1156C468 0 CountryCode
0056B479 1156C479 0 CountryName
0056B48F 1156C48F 0 MinTime
0056B497 1156C497 0 Compile
0056B49F 1156C49F 0 Events
VS

Nov 21 '05 #174
Shawn B. wrote:
In all the places I've consulted and been full-time employed... the only
thing different about their respective business applications is some take
the concept to one extreme while others take it to another... functionality
might be greatly improved in some companies, but in the end, they are all
the same application over and over and over...... input custom info,
generate invoice, balance the books, keep a list of contacts for follow-ups,
post the invoice... post the payment... post this, reverse that, input this,
data-mine that... its all the same, relatively. Nothing novel about it.

Occasionally I see something that is actually quite inique and impressive so
it is the exception... I'd say a good 80% of business apps out there share
much in common with each other and aren't worth "protecting".


If you used the CLS to develop any application (not an applet)
containing non public domain algorithms and released it to the public,
post it's Demo URL here if you don't fear it to be reverse engineered.
Thanks

VS

PS - I put my hand on the Holy Bible and swear not even think about
reverse engineer it even if it has any value (for me:).

Nov 21 '05 #175
These are not local variable names. They are symbols that are probably field
or property names which are in the compiled assembly. The local variables
are only present in the pdb file.

Jonathan

"Vortex Soft" <No****@NoSpam.Net> wrote in message
news:uL**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Shawn B. wrote:
I've never seen original variable names being shown in the source

when I run
ILDASM or Reflector... but of course you'll see all the other meta

data that
needs to be there.


Try BinText 3.0

This is a partial extract of one of my exe dump:

FilePos Mem pos ID Text
0056B45E 1156C45E 0 Countries
0056B468 1156C468 0 CountryCode
0056B479 1156C479 0 CountryName
0056B48F 1156C48F 0 MinTime
0056B497 1156C497 0 Compile
0056B49F 1156C49F 0 Events
0056B3E0 1156C3E0 0 GetText
0056B3E8 1156C3E8 0 FrameSize
0056B3F2 1156C3F2 0 DecodeText
0056B3FD 1156C3FD 0 FileName1
0056B407 1156C407 0 Props
0056B40D 1156C40D 0 get_INIFileName
0056B41D 1156C41D 0 get_Prop
0056B426 1156C426 0 Section
0056B432 1156C432 0 set_Prop
0056B43B 1156C43B 0 Write
0056B441 1156C441 0 INIFileName
0056B452 1156C452 0 Values
0056B45E 1156C45E 0 Countries
0056B468 1156C468 0 CountryCode
0056B479 1156C479 0 CountryName
0056B48F 1156C48F 0 MinTime
0056B497 1156C497 0 Compile
0056B49F 1156C49F 0 Events
VS

Nov 21 '05 #176
Jonathan Pierce wrote:
These are not local variable names. They are symbols that are probably field or property names which are in the compiled assembly. The local variables are only present in the pdb file.

Jonathan


Thanks for replying
This MY exe file, I have access to the original source code, I know what
I am saying, no offence to such a illustrious (forgive me my bad
spellings) person.
VS

Nov 21 '05 #177
You need to post your code snippet then to make your example complete. I
still don't agree with your assessment.
Post the code here that goes with your claim about what you see in BinHex.

Jonathan

"Vortex Soft" <No****@NoSpam.Net> wrote in message
news:uC**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Jonathan Pierce wrote:
These are not local variable names. They are symbols that are

probably field
or property names which are in the compiled assembly. The local

variables
are only present in the pdb file.

Jonathan


Thanks for replying
This MY exe file, I have access to the original source code, I know what I
am saying, no offence to such a illustrious (forgive me my bad spellings)
person.
VS

Nov 21 '05 #178
Jonathan Pierce wrote:
You need to post your code snippet then to make your example complete. I
still don't agree with your assessment.
Post the code here that goes with your claim about what you see in BinHex.

Jonathan


First:
I believe that you din not read clearly my post, I did not refer to your
useful program, I refeered to a public domain program named ------
bixtext.exe --------- a small utility that displays any 'suposed' string
in any file, no mather if it is exe, dll or whatever.

Second:
I think that you did a great contribution to the programmers comunity
exposing what a malware person would hide.

Third:
My code is not public domain (unless the m...f... who entered my system
got it) and the full code has 40+ modules and classes.
Resume:
I am not fighting against you or MicroSoft
Bye

VS

Nov 21 '05 #179
Well my bum is on your lips.

"Nak" wrote:
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 21 '05 #180
>(the m...f... who entered my system
got it) >


hmmm.........
Nov 21 '05 #181
I understand that you find the product useful and fully appreciate it.and
are not complaining about anything.

We are just discussing here whether or not you understand that the local
variable names are present in the compiled dll or not.

Go ahead and compile this simple code intoa dll nd post the output from your
magic bixtext.exe program.

public class TestLocalVariables

{
public void Method1 ()

{
int theIntLocalVariable = 0;
bool theBoolLocalVariable = false;
object theObjectLocalVariable = null;
}
}

Now, if what you claim is true, we should see these symbols in your
bixtext.exe output that you ran on the dll.
theIntLocalVariable
theBoolLocalVariable
theObjectLocalVariable

-Jonathan


"Vortex Soft" <No****@NoSpam.Net> wrote in message
news:O7**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Jonathan Pierce wrote:
You need to post your code snippet then to make your example complete. I
still don't agree with your assessment.
Post the code here that goes with your claim about what you see in
BinHex.

Jonathan


First:
I believe that you din not read clearly my post, I did not refer to your
useful program, I refeered to a public domain program named ------
bixtext.exe --------- a small utility that displays any 'suposed' string
in any file, no mather if it is exe, dll or whatever.

Second:
I think that you did a great contribution to the programmers comunity
exposing what a malware person would hide.

Third:
My code is not public domain (unless the m...f... who entered my system
got it) and the full code has 40+ modules and classes.
Resume:
I am not fighting against you or MicroSoft
Bye

VS

Nov 21 '05 #182
Nak
Indeed.

"CJ Taylor" <cege at the123 dont use this part till here tavayn dot com>
wrote in message news:O2**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
(the m...f... who entered my system
got it) >


hmmm.........

Nov 21 '05 #183
"Shawn B." <le****@html.com> wrote in message news:<e0**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>...
With the exception of microsoft products, I never purchase software that
ties me to a specific machine considering 1) I use removeable hard disks in
the same machine, 2) I frequently update internal components (video cards,
sound card, network card, new scanner, different digital camera, replacing
PCI modem with a USB model, etc.) such that my machine very quickly appears
to be a new machine, 3) I am a huge fan of Virtual PC/VMWare and like to
install my software into guest OS's, 4) Every 6 months or so I get a new PC,
and 5) I just don't trust software where the company could dissappear in a
year or two and leave dry in the dust.

Shawn,

Our hardware check, similar to Microsoft, is not dependant on these
minor hardware changed. If a customer does occasionally replace their
motherboard or needs to move to a new machine, we will reissue
licenses that expire on the old machine. Hardware checks are to only
way that we can avoid sharing of the application by multiple users. If
you are replacing your machine soon, you should wait before purchasing
our products.
I have the ability to create my own from scratch that often work better and
have better features and are tailored specifically for my own needs.
This took me over two years to write. Feel free to write your own if
you like. I am looking forward to the next third party review
comparing our products. Not only does the code we produce run
correctly, but it is higher level that what other tools produce since
we have spent more time on our optimizer. fortunately there is Reflector which is free and has never let me down.
You can thank me for that as well since I've been helping Lutz by
sending code generation bugs in Reflector, and snippets to reproduce
the issues, as well as testing some of his releases before he makes
them public. At least the last 10 bugs he fixed were reported to him
by me.

I therefore don't have the need to dump $500 and be tied to a machine
As I said, it can be moved, but not shared with other people at the
same time.
I'm a home user, this is not for my employment so I'm ever more
cautious when it comes to my own money. And yes, I *do* pay for all my
software, which is why I care so much.
Your time is also valuable. We also including new features like
automatic refactoring that noone else provides and a built in
obfuscator that Reflector does not have. If Reflector wasn't free,
you'd probably be glad that our product was available to you at a cost
well below what would justify it's development cost.
Nonetheless, I have no doubts that its a fine product. Just one that I'll
never review or purchase.


You should try it out before you judge it. The latest release has an
early look at a browser interface feature we will be fully supporting
soon that is similar to what Reflector offers.

Jonathan
Nov 21 '05 #184
Again, I didn't judge your product.

I can respect that you don't want multiple people using a single license,
I'm a home user and so there never would be more than one people on my
licenses, even though I have multiple machines, and multiple primary
harddisks for each machine (removables).

Nonetheless, regardless of whether a license can be reissued, I still still
see it as tying to a specific machine. What happens if you go out of
business in 2 years? Then how do I get license reissued? I can understand
you're perspective, that your sales are strong, you've been around,
whatever. That doesn't change the fact that nothing guarantees you'll be in
business in 2 years or that anyone will buy you out to keep the product
going, or that if I choose not to upgrade after you put out multiple major
releases, you'll even consider "reissuing" another key for an "unsported"
product. I've been burned in the past, I'm very selective now.

Besides, I didn't say I'd write my own decompiler, I just said if it was
that important I could, I'm more than capable, its just not a priority and
since I don't decompile non System.* assemblies, the price is not
justifyable.

My choice not to purchase software that ties me down (regardless if I can
call you up and get another license -- just the very thing I feel I
shouldn't have to do if I purchase it) is a general rule of thumb and is not
personal. I stopped using Norton AV for the same reason, I also opted not
to update my Photoshop 7 to CS for the same reason. Its not because I'm a a
thief or whatever else people want to think, its because I dissagree with
the "feeling" of such treatment. I feel that if I purchase it, I shouldn't
have to be dependant on the vendor to continue using the software, and
regardless if a key can be moved to another machine, there isn't a guarantee
that vendor will always support the key or keep on "reissuing" or will be in
businees for as long as I might need to use the software. I dissagree with
the MS product activation, also, but I have no choice so I'm okay with it.
I have no choice because my income depends on writing software for their
platform, so switching to an alternate OS won't return the investement. My
MSDN Universal suits me just fine.

So, once again, I'm not "judging" your product. I'm just stating a fact.
The fact is, *any* non MS product that has such tight licensing will not get
my money. There are exceptions: for example, Rational software allows you
to use a "floating" license. Therefore it guarantees only the number of
licenses purchase can be similtaneously active, on any machine in the
network (I run a home network where I test my distributed applications).
There is also libronix, which uses activation, but they allow you to back up
the key so I can use it as much as I want without their "blessing". Except
each book that I activate is tied to that key so books can't be shared. If
my books or key end up on the Internet they know who the culprit is. I'm
fine with that. I'm not fine with being actively dependant on a vendor in
order to keep using the software despite all of my requirements.

You have your right to license in this manner. So be it. I have my right
to not purchase *any* product that does so, no matter how good it is. I'm
fully licensed for Adobe Photoshop, but I'll switch to GiMP before I'll
upgrade and be locked down. Same with Norton AV, I just happen to dissagree
with that kind of licensing. It does nothing to keep prices low or make an
honest user "feel" honest and makes me have to always justify myself whever
I get a new PC or upgrade multiple components of it or whatever.

Thanks,
Shawn


"Jonathan Pierce" <jp*****@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3d*************************@posting.google.co m...
"Shawn B." <le****@html.com> wrote in message

news:<e0**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>...
With the exception of microsoft products, I never purchase software that
ties me to a specific machine considering 1) I use removeable hard disks in the same machine, 2) I frequently update internal components (video cards, sound card, network card, new scanner, different digital camera, replacing PCI modem with a USB model, etc.) such that my machine very quickly appears to be a new machine, 3) I am a huge fan of Virtual PC/VMWare and like to
install my software into guest OS's, 4) Every 6 months or so I get a new PC, and 5) I just don't trust software where the company could dissappear in a year or two and leave dry in the dust.


Shawn,

Our hardware check, similar to Microsoft, is not dependant on these
minor hardware changed. If a customer does occasionally replace their
motherboard or needs to move to a new machine, we will reissue
licenses that expire on the old machine. Hardware checks are to only
way that we can avoid sharing of the application by multiple users. If
you are replacing your machine soon, you should wait before purchasing
our products.
I have the ability to create my own from scratch that often work better and have better features and are tailored specifically for my own needs.


This took me over two years to write. Feel free to write your own if
you like. I am looking forward to the next third party review
comparing our products. Not only does the code we produce run
correctly, but it is higher level that what other tools produce since
we have spent more time on our optimizer.

fortunately there is Reflector which is free and has never let me down.


You can thank me for that as well since I've been helping Lutz by
sending code generation bugs in Reflector, and snippets to reproduce
the issues, as well as testing some of his releases before he makes
them public. At least the last 10 bugs he fixed were reported to him
by me.

I
therefore don't have the need to dump $500 and be tied to a machine


As I said, it can be moved, but not shared with other people at the
same time.
I'm a home user, this is not for my employment so I'm ever more
cautious when it comes to my own money. And yes, I *do* pay for all my
software, which is why I care so much.


Your time is also valuable. We also including new features like
automatic refactoring that noone else provides and a built in
obfuscator that Reflector does not have. If Reflector wasn't free,
you'd probably be glad that our product was available to you at a cost
well below what would justify it's development cost.
Nonetheless, I have no doubts that its a fine product. Just one that I'll never review or purchase.


You should try it out before you judge it. The latest release has an
early look at a browser interface feature we will be fully supporting
soon that is similar to what Reflector offers.

Jonathan

Nov 21 '05 #185
> You can thank me for that as well since I've been helping Lutz by
sending code generation bugs in Reflector, and snippets to reproduce
the issues, as well as testing some of his releases before he makes
them public. At least the last 10 bugs he fixed were reported to him
by me.


Thank you.

Reflector rocks!

Is it possible to load your obfuscator into Reflector and render the output
with Reflector?
Nov 21 '05 #186
> You should try it out before you judge it. The latest release has an
early look at a browser interface feature we will be fully supporting
soon that is similar to what Reflector offers.


What is the point of doing that?

You will spend a lot of time cloning this functionality and the original
Reflector is just so much nice. You can just make your obfuscator tool a
plug-in?

Your Reflector tool will cost $500 compared to the real Reflector tool which
free?
Nov 21 '05 #187
> You can thank me for that as well since I've been helping Lutz by
sending code generation bugs in Reflector, and snippets to reproduce
the issues, as well as testing some of his releases before he makes
them public. At least the last 10 bugs he fixed were reported to him
by me.


Thank you.

Reflector rocks!

Is it possible to load your obfuscator into Reflector and render the output
with Reflector?
Nov 21 '05 #188
> You should try it out before you judge it. The latest release has an
early look at a browser interface feature we will be fully supporting
soon that is similar to what Reflector offers.


What is the point of doing that?

You will spend a lot of time cloning this functionality and the original
Reflector is just so much nice. You can just make your obfuscator tool a
plug-in?

Your Reflector tool will cost $500 compared to the real Reflector tool which
free?
Nov 21 '05 #189

"Rick" <nospam> wrote in message
news:us**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Your Reflector tool will cost $500 compared to the real Reflector tool
which free?


Our customers prefer the decompilation capability offered by the real
Decompiler.NET.

Our product has many other capabilities that Reflector doesn't include, and
we have many more planned. Some of our customers have requested an ability
to browse assemblies simiilar to the way the class browser in Visual Studio
and other decompiler tools like Reflector allow. The prmary value in our
Decompiler is it'c core decompilation capability that produces higher level
and more accurate code that Reflector, so we would also have to add our
decompiler to it, and all of our other features like our refactoring tools,
and wouldn't be retaining much from it's original value aside from it's user
interface and plugin architecture. We prefer to continue to sell our
products as standalone tools and soon integrated into Visual Studio when
2005 ships.

Jonathan
Nov 21 '05 #190

"Shawn B." <le****@html.com> wrote in message
news:es**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
see it as tying to a specific machine. What happens if you go out of
business in 2 years?
That won't happen. We're also only charging $500, not 5 million. There is as
much of a risk that you may get hit by a bus tomorrow and won't need the
software anymore.
Besides, I didn't say I'd write my own decompiler, I just said if it was
that important I could, I'm more than capable, its just not a priority and
since I don't decompile non System.* assemblies, the price is not
justifyable.

We spent over two years writing ours. I imaging that two years of your time
is worth more to you than the $500 we charge for a license which our
costomers feel is a tremendous value to them. I'm not fine with being actively dependant on a vendor in
order to keep using the software despite all of my requirements.
You are not if you don't replace your motherboard or machine itself. Tivo
doesn't even let you move your lifetime subscriptions to newer hardware that
they themselves sell.
I just happen to dissagree
with that kind of licensing. It does nothing to keep prices low


Pirated copied cause vendots to raise their prices for their software since
their target market is cannibalized. Locking down licensed copies to
hardware reduces the amount of software piracy and therefore does keep
prices lower that without it.Although you may feel that $500 is high, we
intenitionally priced our product much lower than the cost to develop it to
make it accessible to small developers like yourself who might benefit from
it. If Reflector also charged $500 and there weren't any free choices
available with relatively good decompilation capability, you would probably
feel differently towards our product and be glad that a product like it was
available to you instead of having to invest the two years yourself trying
to write your own decompiler that works as well.

Jonathan
Nov 21 '05 #191

"Rick" <nospam> wrote in message
news:us**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Your Reflector tool will cost $500 compared to the real Reflector tool
which free?


Our customers prefer the decompilation capability offered by the real
Decompiler.NET.

Our product has many other capabilities that Reflector doesn't include, and
we have many more planned. Some of our customers have requested an ability
to browse assemblies simiilar to the way the class browser in Visual Studio
and other decompiler tools like Reflector allow. The prmary value in our
Decompiler is it'c core decompilation capability that produces higher level
and more accurate code that Reflector, so we would also have to add our
decompiler to it, and all of our other features like our refactoring tools,
and wouldn't be retaining much from it's original value aside from it's user
interface and plugin architecture. We prefer to continue to sell our
products as standalone tools and soon integrated into Visual Studio when
2005 ships.

Jonathan
Nov 21 '05 #192

"Shawn B." <le****@html.com> wrote in message
news:es**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
see it as tying to a specific machine. What happens if you go out of
business in 2 years?
That won't happen. We're also only charging $500, not 5 million. There is as
much of a risk that you may get hit by a bus tomorrow and won't need the
software anymore.
Besides, I didn't say I'd write my own decompiler, I just said if it was
that important I could, I'm more than capable, its just not a priority and
since I don't decompile non System.* assemblies, the price is not
justifyable.

We spent over two years writing ours. I imaging that two years of your time
is worth more to you than the $500 we charge for a license which our
costomers feel is a tremendous value to them. I'm not fine with being actively dependant on a vendor in
order to keep using the software despite all of my requirements.
You are not if you don't replace your motherboard or machine itself. Tivo
doesn't even let you move your lifetime subscriptions to newer hardware that
they themselves sell.
I just happen to dissagree
with that kind of licensing. It does nothing to keep prices low


Pirated copied cause vendots to raise their prices for their software since
their target market is cannibalized. Locking down licensed copies to
hardware reduces the amount of software piracy and therefore does keep
prices lower that without it.Although you may feel that $500 is high, we
intenitionally priced our product much lower than the cost to develop it to
make it accessible to small developers like yourself who might benefit from
it. If Reflector also charged $500 and there weren't any free choices
available with relatively good decompilation capability, you would probably
feel differently towards our product and be glad that a product like it was
available to you instead of having to invest the two years yourself trying
to write your own decompiler that works as well.

Jonathan
Nov 21 '05 #193
My testing shows that original Reflector creates better code and crash less
as your tool .
"Jonathan Pierce" <su*****@junglecreatures.com> wrote in message
news:0z********************@twister.nyc.rr.com...

"Rick" <nospam> wrote in message
news:us**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Your Reflector tool will cost $500 compared to the real Reflector tool
which free?


Our customers prefer the decompilation capability offered by the real
Decompiler.NET.

Our product has many other capabilities that Reflector doesn't include,
and we have many more planned. Some of our customers have requested an
ability to browse assemblies simiilar to the way the class browser in
Visual Studio and other decompiler tools like Reflector allow. The prmary
value in our Decompiler is it'c core decompilation capability that
produces higher level and more accurate code that Reflector, so we would
also have to add our decompiler to it, and all of our other features like
our refactoring tools, and wouldn't be retaining much from it's original
value aside from it's user interface and plugin architecture. We prefer to
continue to sell our products as standalone tools and soon integrated into
Visual Studio when 2005 ships.

Jonathan

Nov 21 '05 #194
That won't happen. We're also only charging $500, not 5 million. There is
as
much of a risk that you may get hit by a bus tomorrow and won't need the
software anymore.
How to you compare risk of you going out of business with getting hit by a
bus?
We spent over two years writing ours. I imaging that two years of your
time is worth more to you than the $500 we charge for a license which our
costomers feel is a tremendous value to them.
Price is not determined by work spent.
If Reflector also charged $500 and there weren't any free choices
available with relatively good decompilation capability, you would
probably feel differently towards our product and be glad that a product
like it was available to you instead of having to invest the two years
yourself trying to write your own decompiler that works as well.


Nov 21 '05 #195
now thats funny...

;)

You realize of course you will be deemed an "uncredible" source since you
proved his product doesn't work as well...

And the loop continues... ahhh...
=)

<a> wrote in message news:ep*************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
My testing shows that original Reflector creates better code and crash less as your tool .
"Jonathan Pierce" <su*****@junglecreatures.com> wrote in message
news:0z********************@twister.nyc.rr.com...

"Rick" <nospam> wrote in message
news:us**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Your Reflector tool will cost $500 compared to the real Reflector tool
which free?


Our customers prefer the decompilation capability offered by the real
Decompiler.NET.

Our product has many other capabilities that Reflector doesn't include,
and we have many more planned. Some of our customers have requested an
ability to browse assemblies simiilar to the way the class browser in
Visual Studio and other decompiler tools like Reflector allow. The prmary value in our Decompiler is it'c core decompilation capability that
produces higher level and more accurate code that Reflector, so we would
also have to add our decompiler to it, and all of our other features like our refactoring tools, and wouldn't be retaining much from it's original
value aside from it's user interface and plugin architecture. We prefer to continue to sell our products as standalone tools and soon integrated into Visual Studio when 2005 ships.

Jonathan


Nov 21 '05 #196

Price is not determined by work spent.

I'd be a millionaire.. as most people here...

=)


Nov 21 '05 #197
Sorry, it was not my goal :-(

I tried assembly with security attribute and Reflector shows the right
attribute while other tool doesn't.

Also trying the demo examples from remotesoft.com, Reflector creates good
code, other tool doesn't.
"CJ Taylor" <[cege] at [tavayn] dit commmmm> wrote in message
news:uc**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
now thats funny...

;)

You realize of course you will be deemed an "uncredible" source since you
proved his product doesn't work as well...

And the loop continues... ahhh...
=)

<a> wrote in message news:ep*************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
My testing shows that original Reflector creates better code and crash

less
as your tool .
"Jonathan Pierce" <su*****@junglecreatures.com> wrote in message
news:0z********************@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
> "Rick" <nospam> wrote in message
> news:us**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
>> Your Reflector tool will cost $500 compared to the real Reflector tool
>> which free?
>
> Our customers prefer the decompilation capability offered by the real
> Decompiler.NET.
>
> Our product has many other capabilities that Reflector doesn't include,
> and we have many more planned. Some of our customers have requested an
> ability to browse assemblies simiilar to the way the class browser in
> Visual Studio and other decompiler tools like Reflector allow. The prmary > value in our Decompiler is it'c core decompilation capability that
> produces higher level and more accurate code that Reflector, so we
> would
> also have to add our decompiler to it, and all of our other features like > our refactoring tools, and wouldn't be retaining much from it's
> original
> value aside from it's user interface and plugin architecture. We prefer to > continue to sell our products as standalone tools and soon integrated into > Visual Studio when 2005 ships.
>
> Jonathan
>



Nov 21 '05 #198
Have you read this thread all the way?
<a> wrote in message news:u6**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Sorry, it was not my goal :-(

I tried assembly with security attribute and Reflector shows the right
attribute while other tool doesn't.

Also trying the demo examples from remotesoft.com, Reflector creates good
code, other tool doesn't.
"CJ Taylor" <[cege] at [tavayn] dit commmmm> wrote in message
news:uc**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
now thats funny...

;)

You realize of course you will be deemed an "uncredible" source since you proved his product doesn't work as well...

And the loop continues... ahhh...
=)

<a> wrote in message news:ep*************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
My testing shows that original Reflector creates better code and crash

less
as your tool .
"Jonathan Pierce" <su*****@junglecreatures.com> wrote in message
news:0z********************@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
> "Rick" <nospam> wrote in message
> news:us**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
>> Your Reflector tool will cost $500 compared to the real Reflector tool >> which free?
>
> Our customers prefer the decompilation capability offered by the real
> Decompiler.NET.
>
> Our product has many other capabilities that Reflector doesn't include, > and we have many more planned. Some of our customers have requested an > ability to browse assemblies simiilar to the way the class browser in
> Visual Studio and other decompiler tools like Reflector allow. The

prmary
> value in our Decompiler is it'c core decompilation capability that
> produces higher level and more accurate code that Reflector, so we
> would
> also have to add our decompiler to it, and all of our other features

like
> our refactoring tools, and wouldn't be retaining much from it's
> original
> value aside from it's user interface and plugin architecture. We
prefer to
> continue to sell our products as standalone tools and soon integrated

into
> Visual Studio when 2005 ships.
>
> Jonathan
>



Nov 21 '05 #199
Nak
CJ,
You realize of course you will be deemed an "uncredible" source since you
proved his product doesn't work as well...
You can't say that!

Law suit law suit law suite, so on and so fourth and such like...

Nick.

"CJ Taylor" <[cege] at [tavayn] dit commmmm> wrote in message
news:uc**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... now thats funny...

;)

And the loop continues... ahhh...
=)

<a> wrote in message news:ep*************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
My testing shows that original Reflector creates better code and crash

less
as your tool .
"Jonathan Pierce" <su*****@junglecreatures.com> wrote in message
news:0z********************@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
> "Rick" <nospam> wrote in message
> news:us**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
>> Your Reflector tool will cost $500 compared to the real Reflector tool
>> which free?
>
> Our customers prefer the decompilation capability offered by the real
> Decompiler.NET.
>
> Our product has many other capabilities that Reflector doesn't include,
> and we have many more planned. Some of our customers have requested an
> ability to browse assemblies simiilar to the way the class browser in
> Visual Studio and other decompiler tools like Reflector allow. The prmary > value in our Decompiler is it'c core decompilation capability that
> produces higher level and more accurate code that Reflector, so we
> would
> also have to add our decompiler to it, and all of our other features like > our refactoring tools, and wouldn't be retaining much from it's
> original
> value aside from it's user interface and plugin architecture. We prefer to > continue to sell our products as standalone tools and soon integrated into > Visual Studio when 2005 ships.
>
> Jonathan
>



Nov 21 '05 #200

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.