Roy S
posted
94 posts
since
May 01, 2010
from
Belgium
|
|
Re: Secure Code?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Visual studio comes with a community edition of dotfuscator (check the visual studio tools folder) which will make your code very hard to read. After doing that, the variables, classes, methods, ... will have simple names like a, b, c, ... and you'll get code like a = b(c[a].f).g(a); People will still be able to read your code but they'll have to be very motivated to actually understand it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sam Hobbs
posted
5925 posts
since
Sep 07, 2009
from
Los Angeles, California, USA
|
|
Re: Secure Code?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't use .Net. Other languages such as unmanaged C++ compile to machine code that is extremely difficult to figure out.
|
|
|
|
|
Thinking is a feeling; pleasant for some and unpleasant for others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
theLizard
posted
578 posts
since
Oct 18, 2009
from
|
|
Re: Secure Code?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even using a Dotfuscator, if you have written dll's in c# and
dotfuscated them then the app that you want to call the dll from will
have a very difficult time, this is because you won't know what the
functions / methods in the dll have been changed to.
Sam is right on this, C++ produces machine code which is harder to reverse engineer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tanmay Sarkar
posted
194 posts
since
May 28, 2010
from
India
|
|
Re: Secure Code?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sir, then what's your suggestion! In case of protection I should use C++ not C# . And how I start it (unmanaged)... ?
Thanks for all replay.
|
|
|
|
|
|