Is there an obfuscator for D that at least renames identifiers?
This is because sometimes they leak from various processes and
could be potential sources of attack.
It would be a tool that probably just replaces their values with,
say their hash + something else and done pre release build.
Id
On 14/06/18 03:01, DigitalDesigns wrote:
Is there an obfuscator for D that at least renames identifiers? This is
because sometimes they leak from various processes and could be
potential sources of attack.
It would be a tool that probably just replaces their values with, say
their hash + some
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 at 00:01:31 UTC, DigitalDesigns wrote:
Is there an obfuscator for D that at least renames identifiers?
This is because sometimes they leak from various processes and
could be potential sources of attack.
Yes, DustMite has an obfuscation mode.
You will need to give it
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 at 00:01:31 UTC, DigitalDesigns wrote:
Is there an obfuscator for D that at least renames identifiers?
This is because sometimes they leak from various processes and
could be potential sources of attack.
It would be a tool that probably just replaces their values
wit
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 at 02:13:58 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
On 14/06/18 03:01, DigitalDesigns wrote:
Is there an obfuscator for D that at least renames
identifiers? This is because sometimes they leak from various
processes and could be potential sources of attack.
It would be a tool th
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 at 05:21:03 UTC, DigitalDesigns wrote:
Just one question! Are you kidding me?
He most certainly is not.
Infact I prefer size-optimized machinecode over source sometimes.
Because
it is a trustworthy representation of what the program does.
Rather then being a half-t
On 14/06/18 08:21, DigitalDesigns wrote:
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 at 02:13:58 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
With that said, what you're trying to achieve is probably not a good
idea anyways. With very few exceptions(1), reverse-engineering code to
figure out what it does is not considerably more
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 at 08:54:16 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
On 14/06/18 08:21, DigitalDesigns wrote:
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 at 02:13:58 UTC, Shachar Shemesh
wrote:
With that said, what you're trying to achieve is probably not
a good idea anyways. With very few exceptions(1),
reverse-e
On 14/06/18 13:39, DigitalDesigns wrote:
Wait? Are you sure you are not kidding? Do you want another shot?
No, I'm fine. Thank you. I am not out here to convert anyone. If you
want to believe the magic of obfuscation, go right ahead.
You can probably even leverage D's CTFE to do it inside t
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 at 11:07:17 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
On 14/06/18 13:39, DigitalDesigns wrote:
Wait? Are you sure you are not kidding? Do you want another
shot?
No, I'm fine. Thank you. I am not out here to convert anyone.
If you want to believe the magic of obfuscation, go righ
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 at 08:54:16 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
So, no, I was not kidding. Not even close.
I've had some experience on both sides of this... so, I think I
can say with some certainty that debugging symbols make
reverse-engineering MUCH easier (many hunts to find the relevant
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 at 10:39:19 UTC, DigitalDesigns wrote:
Wait? Are you sure you are not kidding? Do you want another
shot?
I won't say that obfuscation is entirely useless, if I have to
choose I'll of course take the version with symbols for reverse
engineering and there are specific
On 06/14/2018 04:33 AM, DigitalDesigns wrote:
> 3 strikes and
> your out!
That was your third. :/
Ali
13 matches
Mail list logo
