.net is not safe for me..??? it get's decompiled

[Ing. Eduardo F. Sandino]

I have seen on the net varius decompilers and i have tried to protect
my code with obfuscation but still it can be reversed... if you check
for Reflection Decompiler...
i don't know what to do.!!!

http://www.aisto.com/roeder/dotnet/

 

[q]

You don't decompile... it was never compiled. You never have to
decompile anything to see how somebody did something. You just have to
have a viewer (like Reflector) to view it. You can also load an
assembly (.NET EXE/ .NET DLL/Whatever) and use the reflection library
to view any method or whatever you need to in the code. That is, you
can make your own Reflector fairly simply...

If you don't want to contribute to society and not help the world, you
keep your code "private" and "safe" by using an obfuscator on your
work. For example, if you use Reflector to view the Reflector code,
you will find out that it's mostly gibberish. It's obfuscated.

 

[Ing. Eduardo F. Sandino]

Man.. the obfuscation is a charade.... .NET is not safe still...
obfuscated the code is legible... with a litle effort you understand...
all, the string's aren't encrypted nothing convice me, a time ago
everybody at microsoft hit to Java but know you have the same problem
but have solved it... .NET not convice me... cos i know what is good
and is bad... and .NET isn't safe for professionals.... is my real
opinion i will wait a time cos what kind of security .net offer.????
obfuscator... !!!! jummm!!!!

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

re:

everybody at microsoft hit to Java but know you have the same problem

Java apps are easily decompilable, too.
It's just the nature of the beast.

Regardless, I think you can obfuscate .net code easier than Java code.

 

[Kevin Spencer]

Dude, you can decompile *anything* with the right software...

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Professional Numbskull

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

 

[Erik Funkenbusch]

I have seen on the net varius decompilers and i have tried to protect
my code with obfuscation but still it can be reversed... if you check
for Reflection Decompiler...
i don't know what to do.!!!

http://www.aisto.com/roeder/dotnet/

There's also this:

http://boomerang.sourceforge.net/

 

[Ing. Eduardo F. Sandino]

..NET is a bill copy of java they stoled it from SUN, like windows is a
copy of MacOS and anything that microsoft do.....

 

[Huihong]

In my opinion, native code is still by far the best protection against
decompilation. Many people claim native code can be decompiled, but the
reality is that people are able to at most crack some keys or algorithm
from native code through intensive debugging. There are still no good
tools available today to decompile native code. Only if debug info is
available, decompiling native code might offer some value. Java and
..NET are totally different, people can see the code in high quality
with ease.

If you want serious protection, our native compiler is the only way to
go, I definitely think so. For casual protection, obfuscator and whole
protection tools offer some helps.

Huihong
Remotesoft
http://www.remotesoft.com

 

[Ing. Eduardo F. Sandino]

Yeah you are write the Frameworks still are insecure...

 

[Huihong]

When natively compiled, everything (including mscorlib) is in native
code format, it's going to be impossible to get the source code back. I
will post some samples, and people are more than welcome to try to
decompile them.

Huihong
http://www,remotesoft.com/linker/

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

You are a fake copy of an honest poster, like most trolls are.

Please don't spam this newsgroup with your trolling drivel any more.

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

I'm glad you posted that, Huihong.

The Salamander .Net Protector is, indeed, quite good at
providing protection against de-compilation and de-obfuscation.

http://www.remotesoft.com/salamander/protector.html

 

[Kevin Spencer]

.NET is a bill copy of java they stoled it from SUN, like windows is a

copy of MacOS and anything that microsoft do.....

Perhaps you can answer a question I've never been able to figure out: Is
ignorance truly bliss?

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Professional Numbskull

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

 

[Huihong]

Hi Juan,

Thanks for mentioning our protector. Yes, for assemblies that still
require the full Microsoft .NET framework installed on the machine, the
Protector tool is a good choice. If you have an exe or a COM .NET dll
that does not require full .NET Framework installed on target machines,
then our linker and native compiler tool provides even better
protection, as it no longer maintains .NET Format for some files, and
thus more powerful in defending reverse engineering.

Huihong
Remotesoft

 

[Ing. Eduardo F. Sandino]

I am not destroying nothing here, and i don't have nothing with
microsoft but we all know .NET is inspired in JAVA and has almost the
same architecture, but .NET just run on Windows, while JAVA anywhere...
and both JAVA and .NET can be decompiled, and if you use an obfuscator
a real programmer can still understand the decompiled code, so i am
saying the true nothing else....

and well if you use tools like salamander that is like a tool to
convert the compiled dll in other thing... but here is the problem you
developed in somenthing optimized to .net and then move it to native
compiled the reason of optimization is loose... look what i am saying
every body is living a BIG LIE frameworks sucks... .NET alone like JAVA
alone are vulnerable... so everybody is paying a lot for something that
really doesn´t cost like it say to cost... protection?, portability?
anti hackers??? please say the true....

 

[Erik Funkenbusch]

I am not destroying nothing here, and i don't have nothing with
microsoft but we all know .NET is inspired in JAVA and has almost the
same architecture

Perhaps it was inspired by Java, but Sun did a lot of things wrong. .NET
is what Java should have been. Language independent, JIT targeted (not
interpreted), and native code backed where appropriate.

I strongly disagree that it's the same architecture. About the only thing
that's the same is that it's compiled to a byte code. Sure, C# is similar
to the Java lnaguage, but really both owe more to C++. After that, the
runtimes are very different, which is what I consider to be the
"architecture".

but .NET just run on Windows, while JAVA anywhere...

Uhh.. no.

..NET is based on an ECMA and ISO standardized runtime (or virtual machine)
and framework. Java isn't any kind of standard, other than a defacto one.
Sun can yank your license for your platform at any time, and you're largely
at their mercy.

..NET (in the form of Mono) runs on 5 platforms, and achitectures.

See:
http://www.mono-project.com/Supported_Platforms

Please stop repeating that tired, worn out myth that .NET only runs on
Windows. No, it doesn't run on as many platforms as Java, but it's no
slouch.

and both JAVA and .NET can be decompiled, and if you use an obfuscator
a real programmer can still understand the decompiled code, so i am
saying the true nothing else....

A real programmer can also disassemble your code as well.

 

[Kevin Spencer]

we all know .NET is inspired in JAVA and has almost the

same architecture

"we all know" very little. Some of us know some things. Some know other
things.Most of us know a lot less than we think we do. Most of us tend to
think that certain things are common knowledge simply because most people we
know and/or respect, for whatever reasons, believe them. Most of us are too
lazy to investigate ideas thoroughly, to find out whether they are indeed
true or not. In the world of the Internet, Google, and other means of making
a thorough investigation of things, this is inexcusable. It is particularly
inexcusable for a person who calls himself a programmer. Programmers don't
deal in rumors, innuendo, and guesswork. They deal with hard facts and cold
logic. That is the meat of our existence.

The fact that 2 technologies are similar in some ways, in terms of a cursory
outward examination, does not logically imply that one of them was inspired
by the other, or is a "copy" of the other. Since the outward part of any
technology is the part that the user interacts with, it is just as likely
that the same logic which dictated the interface for one was the inspiration
for the interface of the other. All chairs, for example, have seats within a
fairly small range of sizes. This is dictated by the average size of the
human body.

and well if you use tools like salamander that is like a tool to
convert the compiled dll in other thing... but here is the problem you
developed in somenthing optimized to .net and then move it to native
compiled the reason of optimization is loose...

I take it English is not your native language. That is understandable. But I
can't make head or tail of what you've written here. It might have been best
to leave it out altogether.

I am not destroying nothing here, and i don't have nothing with
microsoft but we all know .NET is inspired in JAVA and has almost the
same architecture, but .NET just run on Windows, while JAVA anywhere...
and both JAVA and .NET can be decompiled, and if you use an obfuscator
a real programmer can still understand the decompiled code, so i am
saying the true nothing else....

look what i am saying
every body is living a BIG LIE frameworks sucks... .NET alone like JAVA
alone are vulnerable... so everybody is paying a lot for something that
really doesn´t cost like it say to cost... protection?, portability?
anti hackers???

Protection? Any software can be decompiled. If the computer can read the
code, so can a human, using software. This has been true for as long as
there has been software. That is what copyright laws are for.

Portability? I have no idea what you're trying to imply there. Is a native
C++ Windows executable portable to a Mac?

Anti hackers? Dude, there have been hackers as long as there has been
software.

so everybody is paying a lot for something that
really doesn´t cost like it say to cost...

The .Net platform is *free*.

please say the true....

You're thinking is lazy, and your reason is sloppy. If you want to be a
successful developer you will need a great deal more self-discipline. It
ain't pretty, but it's true.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Professional Numbskull

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

 

[Mark Rae]

.NET is a bill copy of java they stoled it from SUN, like windows is a
copy of MacOS and anything that microsoft do.....

So don't use .NET if you dislike it so much - no-one is forcing you to...

Ditch your PC and buy a Mac if the OS is so much better...

Alternatively, I'm sure your pointless rant has reached Bill Gates' desk by
now, and he's already begun work on rewriting Windows and .NET - no doubt
he'll be in contact with you later today...

 

[Russell]

This is a .Net use group. It's really not the place to debate .Net
versus JAVA (personally I think they both have some strengths and
weaknesses).

As far as Windows ripping off the Mac interface, Xerox's X-windows
preceded them both. But Xerox never tried to "own" the notion of
windowing so both Apple and Microsoft were free to use the idea.

I don't actually have any good ideas about protecting your source code,
through obfustication or otherwise. I suspect people seldom steal code
in this fashion, though.