Full Disclosure mailing list archives

Re: Re: Java class obfuscation

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)
  • <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)