Printable View
Hello,
do you know of any cheap (free) tool that's able to make .net assemblies very difficult to disassemble?
I learnt about dotfuscator, xenocode and others but they're very expensive. I mean, It's insane to buy a 300$~1000$ application just to secure a 50$ one.
What do you do when it's time to deploy and sell your .net application, do you try to secure it or just don't care?
Thanks for your answers :wave:
It makes sense to buy a $300-$1000 application if you're going to be continuing development on your product or creating more products. And if you really need it.
Visual Studio comes with a DotFuscator community edition. Have you given that a try?
Depends on what you're making. I don't obfuscate assemblies for ASP.NET applications, since they are not visible to web users.Quote:
What do you do when it's time to deploy and sell your .net application, do you try to secure it or just don't care?
Thanks for your answers
On a related note, one way to delegate dependancy of your application on class libraries is to make your application use web services. The web service can use class libraries instead and return the relevant information and results to the application.
It's a pretty good scheme, the only constraint being that an internet connection must be present.
uhm, no, actually I'm doing it the SharpDevelop way.Quote:
Originally Posted by mendhak
Thanks for the advice, I'll take this into account. Though I'll have a rough time to explain the boss that the customers will need an active internet connection to make the software work :(Quote:
Originally Posted by mendhak
I found a free obfuscator (Aspose.Obfuscator), but I also found a thread and someone says it's pretty buggy. I'll give it a shot, it won't hurt.
Too bad there's not an obfuscator provided by Microsoft.
Thanks for your help.
edit:
that's very true but, unfortunately, I work for a new -very small- company, I can't tell my boss to buy Visual Studio AND Crystal Reports AND .net Charting AND Obfuscators, he's gonna detract those from my salary. I have to make simpler things from scratch. It's supposed to be hard at the beginning, isn't it?Quote:
It makes sense to buy a $300-$1000 application if you're going to be continuing development on your product or creating more products
What type of users are you targeting with this app? What is the likelihood that they will even know that you can disassemble .NET executables, let alone how to do it? What is the likelihood that they will have the ability to get around even basic obfuscation. If it's a $50 app then what's the chance that other developers with the ability to disassemble and get past basic obfuscation couldn't reproduce the same thing simply by observing the functionality? It is generally more important to ensure that users do not, either knowingly or not, make illegal copies of the compiled software and use it themselves or distribute it to others. In this case it is licensing, not obfuscation, that will protect you.
People who don't know anything about programming so, yes, they'll never know they can disassemble the app and even if they did, they couldn't make use of the source.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcilhinney
Yes, I'm actually developing a basic system that *theoretically* doesn't allow multiple installations to run. But, if a customer asks a friends who knows about programming, it would be pretty straightforward for him to understand how the whole copy protection system works and get past it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcilhinney
What I'm trying to accomplish here is basic obfuscation in order to discourage any disassembling intent. This way I can tell my boss "the source is not public, we have a copy protection system for our app" -stop.
Then, we all know that experienced programmers can crack even the most complex program, but darn, I don't care.
As an alternative to Crystal Reports, may I suggest SQL Server Reporting Services? It's free with a SQL Server license ;)