![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() sounds good but what do you think about .net reactor? it seems to offer more protection techniques but costs less.
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Hello folks,
my question also regards .net Reactor. First I agree that the application mode protection is crap because it has been shown many times that it is possible to circumvent the protection in less than 5 minutes! I have also seen a paper which seems to describe the basic principle, which .net Reactor seems to be based on (don't know if you refer to this paper with the gpl code, a link is very much appreciated). But the Reactor offers two protection modes: application (which is easy to crack) and library mode, which I'm not shure off. As I haven't seen any crackmes regarding library-mode-protected assemblies or tutorials on that topic my question is if anyone has tried to break this protection with activated necro bit. It seems to be tougher at first glance. And a second thing: .net Reactor also offers a strong name removal protection. What do the experts think about this? Regards, Andu Last edited by Andu : 04-16-2008 at 06:33 AM. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Its using code from Mono.Cecil, old versions uses code from first releases of .NET Reflector, it has a copy of the hurricane cipher in it also opensource (its a delphi unit), also QuickLZ is used and more .
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Thanks for your answers. What's about library mode contra the weak application mode?
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
![]() |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Could you please expand on this? Is there a tutorial available?
What's the point with necroBit after all? How does it help to protect the assembly? |