Good point. In fact cant think of any major technical reason for why there shouldn't be a compile/linker option that doesn't include ANY names in the finished executables.
Having said that - sadly it seems hackers will always find a way around. Secially if it is a horizontal as opposed to "vertical" app that is being sold. On 2/1/07 15:03, "Stefan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Am 02.01.2007 um 15:48 schrieb Daniel Stenning: > >> Happy New Year everyone. >> >> Putting any issues of reliability, performance and bug-fixing to >> one side, >> what are the three other things you would like added to RB this year ? >> >> Here my 3: >> >> 1) Allow RB to create dynamic libraries such as DLLS, dylibs, RB >> plugins >> >> 2) Templates >> >> 3) Ability to call C or RB callback functions via function >> pointers/references > > - Add a feature, which obfuscates function name on OS X. > > Now, UB build includes function/method names - even if 'include > symbols' > is disabled. Thus hacking an apps gets far simple. > > Based on this observation, I really wonder if anybody would still > be able to > harden the process of license management against crackers. > In Cocoa, one can use C-calls instead of ObjC calls, which fully > resolve to > addresses. Thus, functions/method name no longer appear. > > I'd propose a compiler, which consistently renames method using > random name. > _______________________________________________ > Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: > <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> > > Search the archives of this list here: > <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html> > _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives of this list here: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
