[RESOLVED] .Net to native?

[TheCPUWizard]

1) ANY program can be reverse engineered. Until DRM is embedded in the processor itself, this will be true. I have reverse engineered programs written in just about every language over the past 30 years. If there is a gain to be made from reverse engineering, somewone will do it.

2) There are two distinct issues, the first is copying your implementation (see point #1), the second is tampering. The techniques for making tamper resistant code apply to all languages.

3) Obsfucation takes many forms. The simple "identifier substitution" really does nothing (just consider if you were reverse engineering a program written by someone who use variable names in their native tongue which you do not speak. However there are many techniques that can be added (an most commerical obsfucators add them) which makes reverse engineering exactly on-par with any native language.

As was mentioned early in the thread...if you distribute your code, then any and every "Security" measure can be broken, and will be if there is sufficient incentive. For "real" programs this is very rarely an issue since what the customer wants is support and will typically purchase from a reputable vendor.

[Joeman]

I know I am alittle late posting, but I have to comment

I am a huge fan of open source( virtualbox, linux, sauerbraten, firefox, code::blocks, gcc, blender, and lots more ). The more the better, but I do believe in keeping your source code private. I am not a fan of making it easy to steal high level code when you want your code private and it is exactly how microsoft left it with the .net program languages. So now the coder has to worry about it( the high level code ). Sure there are ways to help defend your high level code. Even very costly ones.

(an most commerical obsfucators add them) which makes reverse engineering exactly on-par with any native language.

If cost isn't an issue, native is free .. that is if you can compile to native like c, c++, vb6, and so forth.

[Arjay]

I have to wonder.... what percentage of programs out there really have to worry about reverse engineering?

[dglienna]

What? I wrote an app a long time ago, and instead of 300 sales, I ended up getting ONE sale, and 300 satisfied-for-now rejections. That was back in the QuickBasic days, though.

[TheCPUWizard]

If someone is writing "jelly bean" programs and attempting to sell them, they are typically looking at a sell price of well under $100 (US). Much of the competition already comes in the form of other free or trial or low cost products. Generally these programs are so simple that there is no need for reverse engineering, as it can be duplicated just from observation.

If someone is writing commercial application they are typically looking at sell prices of several hundred (or much more). They are complex enough that reverse engineering becomes an important part of a competitor duplicating the product.

However, in the latter case, what the customer is buying is VALUE, most often in terms of SUPPORT. If you build a reputation of supporting your products that differentiates it from the competition (regardless of if the compition developes an original solution, clean clones yours, or even downright steals it) then your company will have a significant market share.

At least that is how it hasw worked for my company for the past 25 years, as well as for every small to mid sized software development company that has managed to stay in business for 7 years or more.

I have not had ANY first (or second) hand verifiable knowledge of any software shop losing significant revenue soley based on the ability (or lack thereof) to reverse engineer their product.