I am trying to reduce and make as difficult as possible the ability to access my source code after being compiled by NSIS. I have read that the only way to reduce the chance of unzipping is to modify the order of the opcodes in the Source\fileform.h from the source code and then Compile the new version.
This is a bit over my head. I was wondering if anyone has done this before and willing to post one they have done. (Or create one for me?)
Main reason for this is I have info that I encrypt using blow-fish within NSIS and do not want the chance oFf someone finding out what the encryption keys are. (Used for licencing the software) I understand noting is fool proof, but just want it as difficult as possible.
I know its asking a lot, but could really this.
Thanks!
I don't believe there are any publicly available modified builds like that. And if there were and it got popular, the decompilers would just add support for it.
I have a complete step-by-step guide to building NSIS here.
If you know C/C++, Delphi or C# you could build your own private NSIS plug-in that handles the encryption details.
No matter what you do, somebody who knows how to use a debugger can easily set a breakpoint on the blow-fish plug-in and view your key. The only way around that is a custom plug-in or an external application that handles the cryptography internally...
Related
I've just seen this library ByteNode it's the same as ByteCode of java but this is for NodeJS.
This library compiles your JavaScript code into V8 bytecode, which protect your source code, I'm wondering is there anyway to Decompile byteNode therefore it's not secure enough. I'm wondering because I would like to protect my source code using this library?
TL;DR It'll raise the bar to someone copying the code and trying to pass it off as their own. It won't prevent a dedicated person from doing so. But the primary way to protect your work isn't technical, it's legal.
This library compiles your JavaScript code into V8 bytecode, which protect your source code...
Well, we don't know it's V8 bytecode, but it's "compiled" in some sense. All we know is that it creates a "code cache" via the built-in vm.Script.prototype.createCachedData API, which is officially just a cache used to speed up recompiling the code a second time, third time, etc. In theory, you're supposed to also provide the original source code as a string to the vm.Script constructor. But if you go digging into Node.js's vm.Script and V8 far enough it seems to be the actual code in some compiled form (whether actual V8 bytecode or not), and the code string you give it when running is ignored. (The ByteNode library provides a dummy string when running the code from the code cache, so clearly the actual code isn't [always?] needed.)
I'm wondering is there anyway to Decompile byteNode therefore it's not secure enough.
Naturally, otherwise it would be useless because Node.js wouldn't be able to run it. I didn't find a tool to do it that already exists, but since V8 is open source, it would presumably be possible to find the necessary information to write a decompiler for it that outputs valid JavaScript source code which someone could then try to understand.
Experimenting with it, local variable names appear to be lost, although function names don't. Comments appear to get lost (this may not be as obvious as it seems, given that Function.prototype.toString is required to either return the original source text or a synthetic version [details]).
So if you run the code through a minifier (particularly one that renames functions), then run it through ByteNode (or just do it with vm.Script yourself, ByteNode is a fairly thin wrapper), it will be feasible for someone to decompile it into something resembling source code, but that source code will be very hard to understand. This is very similar to shipping Java class files, which can be decompiled (there's even a standard tool to do it in the JDK, javap), except that the format Java class files are well-documented and don't change from one dot release to the next (though they can change from one major release to another; new releases always support the older format, though), whereas the format of this data is not documented (though it's an open source project) and is subject to change from one dot release to the next.
Certain changes, such as changing the copyright message, are probably fairly easy to make to said source code. More meaningful changes will be harder.
Note that the code cache appears to have a checksum or other similar integrity mechanism, since directly editing the .jsc file to swap one letter for another in a literal string makes the code cache fail to load. So someone tampering with it (for instance, to change a copyright notice) would either need to go the decompilation/recompilation route, or dive into the V8 source to find out how to correct the integrity check.
Fundamentally, the way to protect your work is to ensure that you've put all the relevant notices in the relevant places such that the fact copying it is a violation of copyright is clear, then pursue your legal recourse should you find out about someone passing it off as their own.
is there any way
You could get a hundred answers here saying "I don't know a way", but that still won't guarantee that there isn't one.
not secure enough
Secure enough for what? What's your deployment scenario? What kind of scenario/attack are you trying to defend against?
FWIW, I don't know of an existing tool that "decompiles" V8 bytecode (i.e. produces JavaScript source code with the same behavior). That said, considering that the bytecode is a fairly straightforward translation of the source code, I'm sure it wouldn't be very hard to write such a tool, if someone had a reason to spend some time on it. After all, V8's JS-to-bytecode compiler is open source, so one would only have to look at those sources and implement the reverse direction. So I would assume that shipping as bytecode provides about as much "protection" as shipping as uglified JavaScript, i.e. none that I would trust.
Before you make any decisions, please also keep in mind that bytecode is considered an internal implementation detail of V8; in particular it is not versioned and can change at any time, so it has to be created by exactly the same V8 version that consumes it. If you want to update your Node.js you'll have to recreate all the bytecode, and there is no checking or warning in place that will point out when you forgot to do that.
Node.js source already contains code for decompiling binary bytecode.
You can get a text string from your V8 bytecode and then you would need to analyze it.
But text string would be very long and miss some important information such as a constant pool. So you need to modify the Node.js source.
Please check https://github.com/3DGISKing/pkg10.17.0
I have attached exported xml file.
If you study V8, it would be possible to analyze it and get source code from it.
It keeping it short and sweet, You can try Ghidra node.js package which is based on Ghidra reverse engineering framework which was open-sourced by NSA in the year 2019. Ghidra is capable of disassembling and decompiling the v8 bytecode. The inner working of disassembling is quite complex, this answer is short but sufficient.
How can I package my Java application into an executable jar that cannot be decompiled (for example , by Jadclipse)?
You can't. If the JRE can run it, an application can de-compile it.
The best you can hope for is to make it very hard to read (replace all symbols with combinations of 'l' and '1' and 'O' and '0', put in lots of useless code and so on). You'd be surprised how unreadable you can make code, even with a relatively dumb translation tool.
This is called obfuscation and, while not perfect, it's sometimes adequate.
Remember, you can't stop the determined hacker any more than the determined burglar. What you're trying to do is make things very hard for the casual attacker. When presented with the symbols O001l1ll10O, O001llll10O, OO01l1ll10O, O0Ol11ll10O and O001l1ll1OO, and code that doesn't seem to do anything useful, most people will just give up.
First you can't avoid people reverse engineering your code. The JVM bytecode has to be plain to be executed and there are several programs to reverse engineer it (same applies to .NET CLR). You can only make it more and more difficult to raise the barrier (i.e. cost) to see and understand your code.
Usual way is to obfuscate the source with some tool. Classes, methods and fields are renamed throughout the codebase, even with invalid identifiers if you choose to, making the code next to impossible to comprehend. I had good results with JODE in the past. After obfuscating use a decompiler to see what your code looks like...
Next to obfuscation you can encrypt your class files (all but a small starter class) with some method and use a custom class loader to decrypt them. Unfortunately the class loader class can't be encrypted itself, so people might figure out the decryption algorithm by reading the decompiled code of your class loader. But the window to attack your code got smaller. Again this does not prevent people from seeing your code, just makes it harder for the casual attacker.
You could also try to convert the Java application to some windows EXE which would hide the clue that it's Java at all (to some degree) or really compile into machine code, depending on your need of JVM features. (I did not try this.)
GCJ is a free tool that can compile to either bytecode or native code. Keeping in mind, that does sort of defeat the purpose of Java.
A little late I know, but the answer is no.
Even if you write in C and compile to native code, there are dissasemblers / debuggers which will allow people to step through your code. Granted - debugging optimized code without symbolic information is a pain - but it can be done, I've had to do it on occasion.
There are steps that you can take to make this harder - e.g. on windows you can call the IsDebuggerPresent API in a loop to see if somebody is debugging your process, and if yes and it is a release build - terminate the process. Of course a sufficiently determined attacker could intercept your call to IsDebuggerPresent and always return false.
There are a whole variety of techniques that have cropped up - people who want to protect something and people who are out to crack it wide open, it is a veritable arms race! Once you go down this path - you will have to constantly keep updating/upgrading your defenses, there is no stopping.
This not my practical solution but , here i think good collection or resource and tutorials for making it happen to highest level of satisfaction.
A suggestion from this website (oracle community)
(clean way), Obfuscate your code, there are many open source and free
obfuscator tools, here is a simple list of them : [Open source
obfuscators list] .
These tools make your code unreadable( though still you can decompile
it) by changing names. this is the most common way to protect your
code.
2.(Not so clean way) If you have a specific target platform (like windows) or you can have different versions for different platforms,
you can write a sophisticated part of your algorithms in a low level
language like C (which is very hard to decompile and understand) and
use it as a native library in you java application. it is not clean,
because many of us use java for it's cross-platform abilities, and
this method fades that ability.
and this one below a step by step follow :
ProtectYourJavaCode
Enjoy!
Keep your solutions added we need this more.
I am attempting to develop a GUI application for Tails. I'm doing the initial development on Debian 8 since development directly in Tails can be a pain.
I started out using Anjuta, but the documentation is essentially non-existent. The Anjuta website has nothing at all about how Glade is integrated or how to use it. I can't even track down documentation on how to change the main window title. The only tutorial I found has you start a project and build it using the default files that are generated for a GTKmm project.
Is there a good book or online tutorial out there for doing GUI development in Anjuta?
This is maybe not a complete answer, but it's too large to put in as a comment. I use Anjuta fairly regularly, but I share your feeling about the missing documentation (which is, by the way, not unique for Anjuta). I appreciate Anjuta (and Glade) very much, so don't take the following as criticisms on either program.
I would recommend you consider using PyGTK for GUI creation. It is a lot more productive. You can design the GUI in Glade - exactly the same way you would do for C/C++ - and then implement the code in Python, which you can also edit and manage from Anjuta. There are plenty of code examples, for example on the nullege code search engine.
About the work flow in Anjuta (for C/C++). It is based mainly on the Autotools system, so you should really read up a little on make, Makefile, and related tools. Though in principle Anjuta manages this, you will, sooner or later hit a problem, and some knowledge about Autotools will help you a long way (also this tutorial or this one. This slide series is interesting - probably because it is more graphical. There are even some video tutorials, like this one.).
There is no real necessity to use Glade from inside Anjuta. In fact, Glade has passed a long process distancing itself from 'code generation'. It now only contains an XML generator, which can be called separately. I find the screen space left for Glade inside Anjuta insufficient for comfortable work anyway.
So, in conclusion: If you mainly need a GUI, consider Python + Gtk. If you do need C or C++, Anjuta is a great IDE, but look at Gtk Development examples (like this one). Following those, the use of Anjuta should be a lot clearer.
EDIT:
Very useful answer. I have some underlying legacy code that has to be
C++. Is there a way to mix Python and C++ in Anjuta, or do you know of
any guideposts or tutorials for such?
You can open a C++ project in Anjuta - maybe even import you legacy code directly as a Makefile project. You can also add new files to your C/C++ project and create them as Python files. I've never tried to do that though, and I'm not sure how Anjuta would treat them, for example, in the Makefile(s). I don't have large projects mixing languages at the moment, but for small projects, I like 'Geany', because it doesn't get in the way. You do have to maintain the Makefiles manually.
I'm a Linux user, and I have been very hesitant to use Glade to design GUIs, since the xml files it produces can easily be modified. I know it doesn't sound like a major issue, but what if it's a commercial app that you just don't want people changing?
I use Mac OS X every once in a while, and I figured out that they use files called ".nib"s for GUIs. I think they're essentially the same type used in Nextstep and Openstep (there's even a Linux app which lets you edit these files). Anyway, these files are included in the application bundle, and according to some people, are completely editable. This person claims he even successfully edited Keynote's interface.
Now, why would that be possible? Is it completely okay for the end user to change the interface? Or is it better to have the GUI directly in the compiled application code, like traditional GTK apps?
OS X nib files are one option; the other option is to do things programmatically. For android, XML files can define the GUI or program code can do it. In Windows WPF, the UI is made in XML. Firefox/Mozilla? XUL, another XML-based UI language.
Most modern GUI toolkits have either both of these options or even just defining UIs in files.
But even binaries are modifiable. With a good binary reverse engineering tool, it's wide open. The only way to be really certain is to do what Apple did with iOS, and run signed code; the entire bundle is signed by a key and can't be run if modified.
This isn't a problem for most everyone. Why do you care if the UI is modified? The underlying code isn't, so functionality can't be added or modified.
As a corollary (and a little off-topic) something that you might have a valid concern about is stuff a little more like this.
I don't really see a problem with it. If a user messes up his UI, then it's his problem. Think of it like moddable games. Users always loved them, and in the end, most games benefit from it. There is usually nothing secret about an application's user interface. If there is, you could always do some sort of encryption.
As others have said, you can also add checksums if you just want to disallow editing.
The xml specifies little more than what the interface looks like. Without the compiled-in event handling code, it's pretty much useless. My opinion is customers change it at their own risk, and you might actually get some free useful improvements out of their hacks.
If you're really paranoid about people changing it, you could always add an MD5 digest verification step or something when you load the xml, or compile the xml string into a header file, but that defeats many of the benefits.
The theming engine can make substantial-looking changes to your GUI, as can tools like Parasite. Updating the Glade layout — at their own risk — is much safer than either of those.
What's wrong with users customizing the UI anyway?
I'm producing a dll for a business partner of mine that he is going to integrate into his app. But I also want to somehow lock the dll so it cannot be used by anyone else. The API of the dll is quite straight forward so it'd be easy to reverse-engineer and use it elsewhere.
How do I do that? My only idea so far would be to add a function in the DLL that'd unlock it if the right parameter is passed to it. But again, it can't be static, this would be too easy to intercept, so I am looking for something semi-dynamic.
Any ideas? Thanks in advance.
A
For .net libraries, this is already built into the framework, you just need to set it up. Here is an MSDN article about it.
How to: License Components and Controls
Other than liccensing, you should also obfuscate your code using a tool such as dotFuscator.
PreEmptive's DotFuscator
How likely do you think it is that you'll actually suffer any ill effects (lost income etc) due to this? How significant would such ill effects be? Weigh that up against the cost of doing this in the first place. You could use obfuscation (potentially - it depends on what kind of DLL it is; native or .NET?) but that will only give a certain measure of protection.
You need to accept that it's unlikely (or impossible) that you'll find a solution which is 100% secure. There are shades of grey, and the harder you make it for miscreants, the more effort (or money) you're like to have to put into it too. It may well also make it harder to diagnose issues (e.g. obfuscators munge stack traces; some allow a mapping tool back to the original, but you're likely to lose some information).
It looks like you need to create and use license keys:
http://www.google.com/search?q=creating+license+keys+for+applications&rls=com.microsoft:pt&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1
Quick and dirty in .NET: strong-name all your assemblies and all assemblies that will access your "locked" dll. Mark all your API classes as internal instead of public. Then, on your "locked" dll, specify those dlls that should have access to your internal API with the InternalsVisibleTo attribute.
Are you trying to protect from casual pirates or something else ? Whatever you do, if the software is remotely useful it is gonna be craked, patched and what not - just ask any of the third party controls vendors.
Any solution that you come up with, it is going to be cracked. Someone might just open the dll in hex editor and patch your function that does the checks, validation and verification.