Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: Re: Java class obfuscation
From: northern snowfall <dbailey27 () ameritech net>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:01:28 -0500
The aim of obfuscation is to make it hard(er) for decompilers to work, not make it unreadable. The trouble in attempting to get from the output of "gcc -O2" back to C code (in comparison to "gcc -g") is the aim.
Yeh, I understand that quite well. The point was that all a decompiler has to do is play pseudo-JVM and you've got byte code that can be translated to java. Translating asm back into C isn't that hard. People forget that you don't have to make the C look exactly like it did before the compile, all you have to do is make it do what the assembly tells you it's supposed to do. Code isn't hard. People make it hard. Don http://www.7f.no-ip.com/~north_
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- Java class obfuscation KF (Jun 19)
- Re: Java class obfuscation northern snowfall (Jun 19)
- Re: Re: Java class obfuscation Darren Reed (Jun 19)
- Re: Re: Java class obfuscation northern snowfall (Jun 19)
- Re: Re: Java class obfuscation Nicolas RUFF (lists) (Jun 20)
- Re: Re: Java class obfuscation Darren Reed (Jun 19)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Java class obfuscation Hall, Philip (Jun 19)
- RE: Java class obfuscation Mike S (Jun 20)
- Re: RE: Java class obfuscation KF (Jun 20)
- Re: Java class obfuscation northern snowfall (Jun 19)
