Am 24.07.2014 12:06, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>> 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?

Yeah; and if /I/ were to obfuscate my stuff by writing it in Haskell, 
the result would certainly be broken code, too ;-)

Post a reply to this message