standing against being decompiled
hello all.
I have one question.
what are the means help my program agaist being decompiled?
at this time I know just one thing: obfuscation.
are there any other means.?
hello all.
I have one question.
what are the means help my program agaist being decompiled?
at this time I know just one thing: obfuscation.
are there any other means.?
As per my small experience in this field, application level of obfuscation with a high usage of inner classes will do that for u; there may be other ways too.
It will be decompiled, but with more unreadable format.
Message was edited by:
find_suvro@SDN
inner classes. hummm... thanks.
but any means instead obfuscation?
I have read some where Encyription is also an other way. but there where no more information only the word encyription.
encyripting what? and by which means.
Inner classes wont work. Obfuscation is the only way at the moment.
It help te also write crappy unreadable code yourself ;) It saves the obfuscator some time :P
time :lol
time is not important for me.
30 second or 1 minute. no one will die in this time!!!
I use proGuard(net beans uses that). I have read it's options spec and didn't found any option to do some changes for making the class structure complicated. all where related to names in some way. is there any option for doing this(in proguard or any other obfuscator) or I think wrong.
> Inner classes wont work. Obfuscation is the only way
> at the moment.
>
> It help te also write crappy unreadable code yourself
> ;) It saves the obfuscator some time :P
Well as I told, that conclusion came from the bit experience I have. When ever I'm going to decompile a class with more inner classes with it and also may be there are more than one class in a single file, the decompiler I use fail to generate the correct tree view and sometimes it can not regenerate some code blocks as well. I admit I don't know if this is the way the class files get generated or a flaw in my decompiler. But I have faced this scenario.
Yes, if you try jode, some classes will not be decompilable. But jode is quite old, and there are far better decompilers if you pay for them.
Hmm... That might be the reason.
I'm using Cavaj (the free version) and sometimes it fails to regenerated the right code blocks. But as I don't pay much attention to decompiling the classes of the available jars, apps or libs; I think I don't need a commercial one; atleast until I need to hack others codes. :-))
Mine is just fine for me until now...
> I use proGuard(net beans uses that). I have read it's
> options spec and didn't found any option to do some
> changes for making the class structure complicated.
> all where related to names in some way. is there any
> option for doing this(in proguard or any other
> obfuscator) or I think wrong.
could you please give me an answer.
the answer is that there's nothing that can't be decompiled.
This is true for any programming language, compiler, hardware, and operating system you care to use.
Using obfuscators and other tools to "secure" your application will only make crackers more curious about what secrets are hidden in there and thus more eager to crack the code.
another small question.
are decompilers for j2se and j2me different. or current decompilers are able to decompile both of them.
another small question.
are decompilers for j2se and j2me different. or current decompilers are able to decompile both of them.