• 0

dumb question, how to i close source?


Question

11 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Well, Java is rather easy to decompile, so if you rely that much on lack of easy code extraction... You're basically screwed with Java.

Afaik at least.

I could be wrong.

Glassed Silver:mac

  • 0

Java compiles to bytecode which can be rather easily converted back into readable source code with a free tool like this. Java isn't meant for keeping your source code secure and even if you use C++ someone sufficiently dedicated will manage to reverse-engineer your code if they want to. I'm not trying to be offensive, but if you have to ask this question you probably aren't writing anything that would be worth someone's time to try to steal anyway at the moment. Just write your program, practice and don't worry about people decompiling your code because anything you do can only make it slightly harder for them, not stop them.

  • 0

Java compiles to bytecode which can be rather easily converted back into readable source code with a free tool like this. Java isn't meant for keeping your source code secure and even if you use C++ someone sufficiently dedicated will manage to reverse-engineer your code if they want to. I'm not trying to be offensive, but if you have to ask this question you probably aren't writing anything that would be worth someone's time to try to steal anyway at the moment. Just write your program, practice and don't worry about people decompiling your code because anything you do can only make it slightly harder for them, not stop them.

I do not take you comment offensively but I am making encryption programs and I am simply exploring methods to ensure no reverse engineering of the encrypted data can happen (or happen with extreme ease)

  • 0

Could look into an obfuscator. Not 100% foolproof(if somebody wants to decompile your code they will, there are no magic bullets for software protection) but certainly makes it a bit tougher.

  • Like 1
  • 0

I do not take you comment offensively but I am making encryption programs and I am simply exploring methods to ensure no reverse engineering of the encrypted data can happen (or happen with extreme ease)

Pure Java doesn't seem like a too great idea for me here.

Glassed Silver:mac

  • 0

I do not take you comment offensively but I am making encryption programs and I am simply exploring methods to ensure no reverse engineering of the encrypted data can happen (or happen with extreme ease)

A good encryption method is hard to break even if the attacker knows exactly how it works. Obfuscating your source code will NOT improve the strength of the encryption it performs. Everyone knows how AES works, for instance, yet no one can break it. The program TrueCrypt is open-source yet it is widely used to secure sensitive data and is considered secure.

Security comes not from obfuscation of algorithms but from the time it would take an attacker to break the encryption.

  • Like 3
  • 0

A good encryption method is hard to break even if the attacker knows exactly how it works. Obfuscating your source code will NOT improve the strength of the encryption it performs. Everyone knows how AES works, for instance, yet no one can break it. The program TrueCrypt is open-source yet it is widely used to secure sensitive data and is considered secure.

Exactly, encryption should be provably difficult to calculate the reverse of some function. Don't rely on security through obscurity, use logic and proofs!

  • 0

There is no such thing.

You can make it harder yes, if you want to completely stop people from knowing how your program works well then the best and only way I can see to do that is release your program in a non-working state.

If a computer can read and execute it, so can a human (with some effort/tools/hassle)

  • 0

I do not take you comment offensively but I am making encryption programs and I am simply exploring methods to ensure no reverse engineering of the encrypted data can happen (or happen with extreme ease)

A good encryption method is hard to break even if the attacker knows exactly how it works. Obfuscating your source code will NOT improve the strength of the encryption it performs. Everyone knows how AES works, for instance, yet no one can break it. The program TrueCrypt is open-source yet it is widely used to secure sensitive data and is considered secure.

Security comes not from obfuscation of algorithms but from the time it would take an attacker to break the encryption.

This!

OP, forget it, code obfuscation is not about protecting data, it's about making it harder for other programmers to copy your code. As Asik said above, just simply encrypt your data, and for f-sake don't create your own encryption algorithm, use something standard.

This thread is pointless, lets return conversation to your other thread or make a new one on the lines of 'help me design a secure chat client'.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Did you go into settings > engines and switch some more stuff on. The more you enable the slower it will get but the better the results will be
    • SpaceX took its largest step yet toward becoming a retail wireless carrier on Friday when President and COO Gwynne Shotwell told investors at the company's IPO roadshow that SpaceX is considering launching a Starlink-branded mobile phone service for US consumers.............. https://www.techtimes.com/articles/319177/20260627/starlink-mobile-coming-t-verizon-spacex-has-spectrum-still-needs-towers.htm  
    • Stop asking people that. It's a "No True Scotsman" argument in that you are attempting to discredit the opinions of a person by Attacking the Messenger. The reason that these are logical fallacies is the TRUTH is based on facts as supported by evidence. Nothing else. So, always debate the facts with evidence to reach the truth. Once you learn to do this, you'll be able to recognize when people are fearmongering and lying to you for their own selfish ends.
    • It doesn't matter if you didn't directly hear it from person X or Y. Every one of your statements comes straight from the racist, skinhead, anti-immigrant, be afraid of everything, "they are all taking our jobs", etc. etc. mouthpieces. That's where Farag and Putin heard it from too...and used it against the UK. So, while you keep disavowing the people who publicly peddled that position, you keep proving over and over again that those lies influenced you into being tricked when the Brexit vote came around too. In fact, your final sentence makes it crystal clear that it was the racist/anti-immigrant lies you fell and voted for, since you stated that you didn't have an issue with the economic trade issues with the EU. Ahem. To be clear, all of these LIES are EONS old, mate. They are the same fearmongering lies peddled to the same ignorant, gullible cowards by the same charlatans, snake-oil salesmen, and would be demagogues who've been doing this since caveman Ugh lied about his slightly different neighbor in order to steal his land. And, finally, you answered your own previous question. The reason that the EU isn't clamoring to bring the UK back is that they have had enough of people who would rather shoot themselves in the foot than get over their "insecurity issues". It's the same reason the entire world is moving away from the USA as fast as it can...
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Woland13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      498
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      222
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      148
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      74
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      69
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!