Comments on: {smartassembly} reviewed http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/smartassembly/ Connecting Ideas Sun, 08 Nov 2009 03:11:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Krie http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/smartassembly/#comment-385171 Krie Fri, 20 Mar 2009 17:50:43 +0000 http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/smartassembly/#comment-385171 Well said, finally a good report on this stuff Well said, finally a good report on this stuff

]]> By: Geo... http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/smartassembly/#comment-384178 Geo... Thu, 19 Mar 2009 01:00:05 +0000 http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/smartassembly/#comment-384178 As a user of SmartAssembly for the last year and a half, I have to agree with your article... It's a really great product, and it works as advertised. The only thing I take exception to is this statement: > It doesn't offer much control to the end user with regards exactly what gets obfuscated and what doesn't, which obfuscation techniques are used and where they're employed, but the end result is just great. Actually, you can drill into the advanced dialogs for code pruning, obfuscation, etc and specifically tag classes or exclude your classes within an assembly. I rarely do this however, and choose instead to use the SmartAssembly.Attributes to decorate my classes/methods when special treatment is required. For example, I've noticed that if you are a fan of Reflection in your code, and you obfuscate the code, you can kiss your reflective invoke's goodbye. I usually decorate any methods called via reflection as [DoNotPrune, DoNotObfuscate], which works perfectly. Also, you may need to do some custom decoration if you are using the Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) and XAML. Another interesting note is that BAML (the compiled version of XAML) is not obfuscated... Anyway, great article, and it's a great product... :-) Geo... As a user of SmartAssembly for the last year and a half, I have to agree with your article… It’s a really great product, and it works as advertised. The only thing I take exception to is this statement:

> It doesn’t offer much control to the end user with regards exactly what gets obfuscated and what doesn’t, which obfuscation techniques are used and where they’re employed, but the end result is just great.

Actually, you can drill into the advanced dialogs for code pruning, obfuscation, etc and specifically tag classes or exclude your classes within an assembly. I rarely do this however, and choose instead to use the SmartAssembly.Attributes to decorate my classes/methods when special treatment is required.

For example, I’ve noticed that if you are a fan of Reflection in your code, and you obfuscate the code, you can kiss your reflective invoke’s goodbye. I usually decorate any methods called via reflection as [DoNotPrune, DoNotObfuscate], which works perfectly. Also, you may need to do some custom decoration if you are using the Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) and XAML. Another interesting note is that BAML (the compiled version of XAML) is not obfuscated…

Anyway, great article, and it’s a great product…

:-) Geo…

]]> By: Mahmoud Al-Qudsi http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/smartassembly/#comment-373802 Mahmoud Al-Qudsi Tue, 03 Mar 2009 14:23:08 +0000 http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/smartassembly/#comment-373802 Mark, what's your program look like? A single executable? Many DLL files? Some of them not yours? Mark, what’s your program look like? A single executable? Many DLL files? Some of them not yours?

]]> By: Mark http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/smartassembly/#comment-373646 Mark Tue, 03 Mar 2009 10:49:34 +0000 http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/smartassembly/#comment-373646 Dave, do you use any other tools to protect your software except SA? I am planing to launch a marketing related software product in C#. I know that there is a small cracking community and I want to add some protection to it. They failed to crack Themida but I had a look at it and it seems too troublesome for the end user. Many AV programs recognize it as a virus. Dave, do you use any other tools to protect your software except SA?

I am planing to launch a marketing related software product in C#. I know that there is a small cracking community and I want to add some protection to it. They failed to crack Themida but I had a look at it and it seems too troublesome for the end user. Many AV programs recognize it as a virus.

]]> By: Dave http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/smartassembly/#comment-284659 Dave Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:20:08 +0000 http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/smartassembly/#comment-284659 We actually make programs for a hacking community, and while I must say we're always fighting to keep on top of others, people are always trying to decompile our stuff. Previously, we have used Xenocode, Xheo and a few others. They all failed us. Not only faliled bad, but really faild. Xenocode could hardly produce an assembly that works, Xheo was easily decompiled. Smartassembly was a god send. This peice of software is the absoulte best obfuscuator out there. We do have issues with MAX protection, so we tone it down slightly, and everything is amazingly perfect. The best feature alone is us not having to tweek the obfuscuation every build. The first time we set it up and got it working has been the only time we've touched it. Moreover, once you setup one project, you learn everything really fast and setting up others is easy as pie. Also, since this review, they added alot of features. You can also tell SA to use max protection on this class but not that class. It is overall, the best working product out there. No decompilers have been able to crack it. We've yet to see "Cracked" versions of our applications out there since SA, which cause revenue to triple. Only downside is they charge quite a bit for smalltime developers to be able to keep using their webservice for error tracking, however this code isn't that hard to replicate, so it's not that bad. 5/5 stars. We actually make programs for a hacking community, and while I must say we’re always fighting to keep on top of others, people are always trying to decompile our stuff. Previously, we have used Xenocode, Xheo and a few others. They all failed us. Not only faliled bad, but really faild. Xenocode could hardly produce an assembly that works, Xheo was easily decompiled.

Smartassembly was a god send. This peice of software is the absoulte best obfuscuator out there. We do have issues with MAX protection, so we tone it down slightly, and everything is amazingly perfect. The best feature alone is us not having to tweek the obfuscuation every build. The first time we set it up and got it working has been the only time we’ve touched it.

Moreover, once you setup one project, you learn everything really fast and setting up others is easy as pie. Also, since this review, they added alot of features. You can also tell SA to use max protection on this class but not that class. It is overall, the best working product out there.

No decompilers have been able to crack it. We’ve yet to see “Cracked” versions of our applications out there since SA, which cause revenue to triple.

Only downside is they charge quite a bit for smalltime developers to be able to keep using their webservice for error tracking, however this code isn’t that hard to replicate, so it’s not that bad.

5/5 stars.

]]> By: Dan http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/smartassembly/#comment-173725 Dan Sun, 22 Jun 2008 18:31:53 +0000 http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/smartassembly/#comment-173725 Can you be more specific? Can you be more specific?

]]> By: Mahmoud Al-Qudsi http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/smartassembly/#comment-173717 Mahmoud Al-Qudsi Sun, 22 Jun 2008 18:16:22 +0000 http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/smartassembly/#comment-173717 I just took a look at it, and, sorry, it's terrible. I just took a look at it, and, sorry, it’s terrible.

]]> By: Dan http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/smartassembly/#comment-173685 Dan Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:50:26 +0000 http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/smartassembly/#comment-173685 CliSecure is not an obfuscator, it's a code protection tool. It leaves class & method names intact but at the same time secures your .NET code not allowing it to be reflected by standard .NET tools such as reflector. CliSecure is not an obfuscator, it’s a code protection tool. It leaves class & method names intact but at the same time secures your .NET code not allowing it to be reflected by standard .NET tools such as reflector.

]]> By: Dan http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/smartassembly/#comment-173673 Dan Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:24:17 +0000 http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/smartassembly/#comment-173673 The main issue with obfuscation tools is that they often break your code. I had many issues with obfuscation and therefore decided to evaluate some .NET code protection tools. CliSecure, in particulr, worked very well for me. It's very easy to use, just feed it with assemblies and let it secure your code. It doesn't require any modification or adjustements like most obfuscation tools require. Dan. The main issue with obfuscation tools is that they often break your code. I had many issues with obfuscation and therefore decided to evaluate some .NET code protection tools. CliSecure, in particulr, worked very well for me. It’s very easy to use, just feed it with assemblies and let it secure your code. It doesn’t require any modification or adjustements like most obfuscation tools require.

Dan.

]]> By: Mahmoud Al-Qudsi http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/smartassembly/#comment-173671 Mahmoud Al-Qudsi Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:23:01 +0000 http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/smartassembly/#comment-173671 Does it support cross-compilation? Because that's the big thing that {smartassembly} is missing and no one else seems to do right. Does it support cross-compilation? Because that’s the big thing that {smartassembly} is missing and no one else seems to do right.

]]> By: Dan http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/smartassembly/#comment-173666 Dan Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:19:49 +0000 http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/smartassembly/#comment-173666 I had many issues implementing obfuscation. The main problem was that obfuscation breaks your code. As a result I've tried .NET code protection tools, CliSecure in particular worked very well for me. It's very easy to use, just feed it with your assemblies and run it, and it doesn't require any modifications or adjustements to your code like most obfuscation tool required. I had many issues implementing obfuscation. The main problem was that obfuscation breaks your code. As a result I’ve tried .NET code protection tools, CliSecure in particular worked very well for me. It’s very easy to use, just feed it with your assemblies and run it, and it doesn’t require any modifications or adjustements to your code like most obfuscation tool required.

]]> By: Mahmoud Al-Qudsi http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/smartassembly/#comment-131303 Mahmoud Al-Qudsi Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:25:18 +0000 http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/smartassembly/#comment-131303 I fully agree with you. At the time when this article was written, we neglected to try {smartassembly} on anything larger than a single exe with multiple library dependencies. However, we've recently tried to obfuscate/optimize a much larger project with multiple executable files and share libraries between them all, and it was not a fun experience. If you obfuscate a library, it breaks the dependencies in the exe files. For each file you need optimized, you need a seperate project (one file is obfuscated per project). Hopefully future versions of {smartassembly} will feature improvements in the cross-obfuscation realm........ I fully agree with you. At the time when this article was written, we neglected to try {smartassembly} on anything larger than a single exe with multiple library dependencies.

However, we’ve recently tried to obfuscate/optimize a much larger project with multiple executable files and share libraries between them all, and it was not a fun experience.

If you obfuscate a library, it breaks the dependencies in the exe files. For each file you need optimized, you need a seperate project (one file is obfuscated per project).

Hopefully future versions of {smartassembly} will feature improvements in the cross-obfuscation realm……..

]]> By: GV http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/smartassembly/#comment-131098 GV Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:42:13 +0000 http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/smartassembly/#comment-131098 I'm a customer of SA....and i think that SA is a good solution...in terms of moneyprotection... ok someone may say not the most unexploitable.... but i think that his protection is enough for many software companies that don't have a world-wide distribution, but a simple and more realistic pool of customers. many of us don't have hackes that try to steal our super-formulas, in the worst case we can have people that try to duplicate the installation on another machine...without even know what they are doing...and for the "little-selfmade-pro-hacker-wannabe" that our software may ancounter SA seems really enough...(considering his price remember) The thing that SA REALLY NEED is cross-obfuscation!!!!! all the other things can go fine... Projects are very large and it is impossible to embed all in a single exe....what about upgrades???? what about maintenance in general??? if i want to change a single function in a library i need to REBUILD all the solution ????? SA is a good choice but REALLY cross-obfuscation is a thing that we can no longer ignore when writing reviews on obfuscators!!!!! reviews are for all not only for personal-use, single-little-exe's programmers....the most part of customers of an obfuscator are software companies not peoples in their house!!! I’m a customer of SA….and i think that SA is a good solution…in terms of moneyprotection…
ok someone may say not the most unexploitable….
but i think that his protection is enough for many software companies that don’t have a world-wide distribution, but a simple and more realistic pool of customers.
many of us don’t have hackes that try to steal our super-formulas, in the worst case we can have people that try to duplicate the installation on another machine…without even know what they are doing…and for the “little-selfmade-pro-hacker-wannabe” that our software may ancounter SA seems really enough…(considering his price remember)

The thing that SA REALLY NEED is cross-obfuscation!!!!! all the other things can go fine…
Projects are very large and it is impossible to embed all in a single exe….what about upgrades???? what about maintenance in general??? if i want to change a single function in a library i need to REBUILD all the solution ?????

SA is a good choice but REALLY cross-obfuscation is a thing that we can no longer ignore when writing reviews on obfuscators!!!!! reviews are for all not only for personal-use, single-little-exe’s programmers….the most part of customers of an obfuscator are software companies not peoples in their house!!!

]]> By: Computer Guru http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/smartassembly/#comment-77019 Computer Guru Fri, 14 Dec 2007 06:36:25 +0000 http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/smartassembly/#comment-77019 Well, in my experience most of the small obfuscation companies (basically all but Preemptive and Salamander) will gladly allow you to send a program that won't obfuscate, and send you a patched version of their product that works with it. As a sidenote: in {smartassembly} 2.2, the problem we experienced with 30-minute obfuscation times was fixed. Well, in my experience most of the small obfuscation companies (basically all but Preemptive and Salamander) will gladly allow you to send a program that won’t obfuscate, and send you a patched version of their product that works with it.

As a sidenote: in {smartassembly} 2.2, the problem we experienced with 30-minute obfuscation times was fixed.

]]> By: Khatib http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/smartassembly/#comment-76949 Khatib Thu, 13 Dec 2007 23:30:28 +0000 http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/smartassembly/#comment-76949 Unfortunately, all obfuscation companies are loosing some serious customers, simply because they do not release a simple document of guidelines for writing code that works with obfuscation. I had to go through all the pain of changing my code to make it obfuscatable. I wish i could have some time to write these guidelines myself one day. I know people who already shifted from .NET to other technologies like delphi and c++ just because of the missing the right connection between .NET and obfuscation. Unfortunately, all obfuscation companies are loosing some serious customers, simply because they do not release a simple document of guidelines for writing code that works with obfuscation. I had to go through all the pain of changing my code to make it obfuscatable. I wish i could have some time to write these guidelines myself one day. I know people who already shifted from .NET to other technologies like delphi and c++ just because of the missing the right connection between .NET and obfuscation.

]]>