> I guess it's plenty of fun to wade through obfuscated code to figure out
> exactly how the hell the 'fuscator fucked it up...

It's simple, really. There are two events that coincidentally have the 
same name, and the obfuscater has mistaken them for being THE SAME 
event. They aren't; they're in different namespaces.

Of course, without the source code to the obfuscater, knowing what the 
problem is doesn't help.

Meta: I wander if the obfuscater is obfuscated?

Also: I hear "writing your application in Haskell" is a good way to 
obfuscate stuff. The generated machine code doesn't follow the usual C 
calling conventions, which confuses the **** out of reverse engineering 
tools. That and the multiple, multiple levels of indirection. Then 
again, it's easy to *say* such things, I wonder if anybody has ever 
actually put it to the test?

Post a reply to this message