Specific languages, such as Java and. NET is readable in the source code. Code obfuscation is a method that renders it difficult to read with the decompiler. It is a vital weapon to secure the intellectual property of your corporation.
Why obfuscate a code?
Languages compiled like C++ are translated to bytecode directly. In a disassembler, which is a complex and complicated operation, the only way to reverse the engineering is to understand how they work. This is not unlikely, but it isn’t easy to deduce from a stream of assembly language high-level program logic.
On the other hand, within a specific operating system, languages such as C # and Java are not compiled. Instead, like .NET’s MSIL, they are assembled into an intermediate language. The intermediate language is similar to the installation, but can quickly be translated to source code. This helps anybody with a copy of your executable file to open it in a .NET decompiler like dotPeek and read directly or copy your source code.
Is it a good practice to obfuscate a code?
You can almost always use a simple obstructor, to rename functions, processes, and properties to decompile it when you deploy code in untrusted environments. This practice is followed to protect your source code.
You can use more invasive obscurers if you don’t need someone to be able to uncompile your app, but you can wonder whether this issue is best solved when moved to a language that has no problem, such as C++ or Rust.
What are the other options?
Converting one programming language to another is not an utterly insane idea — Unity employs a C++ bytecode translator named IL2CPP. It is much better, but it helps protect games against quick hacking, which is essential to piracy and cheat environment.
The experimental.net core runtime with Ahead-Of-Time compilation, CoreRT, is available from Microsoft but isn’t ready for development.
More experienced users will go more in-depth and change the source code structure. This involves substituting more complicated, but semantically similar, control structures. You may also inject dummy code, which does little but annoys the decompiler. This results in the source looking like spaghetti code, which makes it annoying for you to read.
The hiding of strings from the decompiler is another specific focus. You can look for lines such as error messages to find sections of code in managed executables. The string obfuscation replacements for strings are the hidden messages decrypted at runtime, stopping a decompiler from looking for them. Typically this requires a performance fee.
The best way to do that is to rename an individual. It is usual for variables, processes, classes and parameters to be correctly called when they are used. But you don’t have to because there is practically nothing that stops you from getting them with an L’s and I sequence or with a random variation of the Chinese Unicode characters. There’s no problem on the machine, but for a person, it is utterly unreadable: