.NETGURU
  Search:  
NamespacesDiscussions.NET v1.1Dot Net Guru's BlogIT Certification
Decompiler.NET reverse engineers your CLS compliant code
Messages   Related Types
This message was discovered on microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp.
Responses highlighted in red are from those people who are likely to be able to contribute good, authoratitive information to this discussion. They include Microsoft employees, MVP's and others who IMHO contribute well to these kinds of discussions.
Post a new message to this list...

Vortex Soft
http://www.junglecreatures.com/

Try it and tell me what's happenning in the Microsoft Corporation.

Notes:

VB, C# are CLS compliant
You can also use managed code with C++

Using what they call obfuscator, will not help you for a long time.
For each new obfuscator there will allways exist a new deobfuscator.

Your source's Symbols are written unchanged in the exe or dll file.
Looking to your Symbols, it's easy to understand your Source Code.
A honest compiler does not expose any Symbols, unless you Export them.

I like VB, it is an easy yet powerfull language, but it's good for
nothing else but studying or playing.
Reply to this message...
 
    
Brian Henry
btw, I just ran this on a largly obsucated project we created in house, and
the code came out no where close to what it looked like orignally. it's not
even really understandable

"Vortex Soft" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:%23hF4z%Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
William Stacey [MVP] (VIP)
Try this. Obfuscate with XenoCode on conservative or high setting and with
control flow obfuscations. Then run that dll or exe passed Jungle. In most
cases, you can't make heads or tails from the resulting code (I just tried
it.) once you get passed all the errors that are thrown. That said, looks
like they put some work into the product. Cheers.

--
William Stacey, MVP

"Vortex Soft" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:#hF4z#Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
CJ Taylor
> Try this. Obfuscate with XenoCode on conservative or high setting and
with
> control flow obfuscations. Then run that dll or exe passed Jungle. In
most
[Original message clipped]

Debunk! =)

[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Brian Henry
if VB.NET was good for nothing but studying and playing hows come some major
corporations run applications they created in VB.NET? Because of the way IL
is compiled symbols are going to be included... this happens with any IL
language such as Java. and what is stoping you from reverse engineering C++
code? if you can understand assembly and have some time on your hands you
can decompile it also in a sense

"Vortex Soft" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:%23hF4z%Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
ErikS
You need to get out more often:
http://denisbauer.com/NETTools/FileDisassembler.aspx

"Vortex Soft" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:%23hF4z%Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com
> I like VB, it is an easy yet powerfull language, but
it's good for
[Original message clipped]

Interesting comment in light of the CLR for .Net

[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Jonathan Pierce
[Original message clipped]

Thanks for the compliments regarding our Decompiler.NET product. The
product includes a built-in obfuscation option that generates
obfuscated source code that you can recompile that still runs like the
original code. You may want to try this feature to see how readable
the obfuscated code is.

Our obfuscator encrypts string literals and replaces them with
references. It also includes unique advanced features not provided by
other available obfuscators like generating public stub methods and
properties to avoid breaking public interfaces, but factoring their
bodies and calls within the same assembly into obfuscated
implementation methods. Our refactoring feature also includes an
option for encapsulates fields with generated properties and tightens
their scoping to private.

You can read an article that compares our Decompiler to other
available .NET decompilers in the August 2004 issue of .NET Developers
Journal. You can view the article here:
http://www.junglecreatures.com/press/DecompilerRoundUp_DNDJ_August_2004.pdf

Jonathan Pierce
President
Jungle Creatures, Inc.
http://www.junglecreatures.com/
Reply to this message...
 
    
Frans Bouma [C# MVP] (VIP)
Jonathan Pierce wrote:

[Original message clipped]

    That's great, but frankly, obfuscating compiled VB.NET or C# code is not
rocketscience. All you have to do is this a little grouping of methods with
the same return value/access level and make them overloads, mangle names for
internal/private/protected methods/parameters/members/properties and 99% of
the code is impossible to read. Good thing is: these tables are documented by
microsoft and any person with an afternoon of time can write an obfuscator
for that.

    Execution flow mangling is indeed more complex, however often this is done
by simply pre-jitting code to native x86 assembler and place the routines as
native code inside the assembly. This confuses decompilers, but also makes
the JIT functionality of the CLR pretty much useless in a lot of occasions.
Take into account that it is very hard to get this right when you take into
account complex event handling with 3rd party controls (e.g. a grid control)
and most developers will opt for the lowest possible obfuscation option
possible to avoid problems. You see, it takes extra testing work to test the
obfuscated executable through and through, as the code can work differently
when obfuscated. Oh, your obfuscator obviously produces 100% reliable code,
I'm sure, but I don't live in dreamland.

        Frans.

--
Get LLBLGen Pro, productive O/R mapping for .NET: http://www.llblgen.com
My .NET Blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma
Microsoft C# MVP
Reply to this message...
 
    
Jonathan Pierce
"Frans Bouma [C# MVP]" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:<Click here to reveal e-mail address>...

[Original message clipped]

Yes it does. You should try it before you make assumptions about it.
Our obfuscator generates equivalent obfuscated source code with
refactored public members and encrypted literals that you recompile.
Each version of Decompiler.NET that we release is decompiled and
obfuscated with itself, and then recompiled to produce the version
that ships. Most bugs introduced by decompilation or obfuscation would
cause the recompiled version of our product to not work correctly, so
we would detect them before even releasing the build.

Go ahead and try it out and feel free to identify any specific code
generation issues that you feel are bugs. Unless you can provide
examples of incorrect behavior, there is no reason to assume that our
product has issues just because you have had bad experiences with
other tools or your own attempts to implement an obfuscation tool.

Jonathan Pierce
President
Jungle Creatures, Inc.
http://www.junglecreatures.com/
Reply to this message...
 
    
Bill Woodruff
Jonathan Pierce wrote: "Each version of Decompiler.NET that
we release is decompiled and obfuscated with itself, and
then recompiled to produce the version that ships"

This seems to me to have a certain wonderful "integrity" to
it. This mind boggles to think of what kind of mind could
take a decompilation of an obfuscated decompiler and harvest
something useful from it. Extra points awarded for "living
by the sword" you forge.

best, Bill Woodruff
dotScience
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Reply to this message...
 
    
Frans Bouma [C# MVP] (VIP)
Jonathan Pierce wrote:

[Original message clipped]

    It would be the first obfuscator being able to do so.

[Original message clipped]

    No pre-jitted x86 code? No reshuffled code ? you have to if you want to do
the more advanced obfuscation that you claim to be able to do.

[Original message clipped]

    That's not the point. The point is: can reshuffling, prejitting be safe for
100%? Every obfuscator I tried (on .NET and java) have the same issues: code
obfuscated is sometimes failing in weird situations, often related to 3rd
party controls in combination with events.

    Unless theoretic proof is provided that the code is 100% compatible with
non-obfuscated code, every vendor obfuscating their work will be required to
retest the obfuscated executable from start to finish.

        FB
--
Get LLBLGen Pro, productive O/R mapping for .NET: http://www.llblgen.com
My .NET Blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma
Microsoft C# MVP
Reply to this message...
 
    
Vortex Soft
Jonathan Pierce wrote:

[Original message clipped]

it's weakness and allow us to protect owselfs since Microsoft doesn't

[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
CJ Taylor
[Original message clipped]

you are a f#(*@#($* moron...

Get off your knees, I think you've satisified Jon's ego enough...

[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Vortex Soft
CJ Taylor wrote:
[Original message clipped]

So many people became really upset because the .net programmers who read
this thread will be more careful. The dog's barking can be heard miles away.

What kind of people is interestered in hidding critical security
information?

Nick258
Reply to this message...
 
    
CJ Taylor
No.. it has nothing to do with being more careful. But you think you've
come across this amazing revalation that none of us knew about.

Microsoft told us of the "security concerns" of reverse engineering with
..NET all the way back in Beta 2 days...

Sun did the same thing with Java.

And many many more companies that developed compilers.

Don't make such a big deal about it. If you continue to read about .NET
you'll learn there are many tools. Don't forget, nothing will every protect
everything 100%, that's just how life is.

"Vortex Soft" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:%Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Jochen Kalmbach
FULL ACK.

(why is this subject discussed every 4 weeks !?)

--
Greetings
Jochen

My blog about Win32 and .NET
http://blog.kalmbachnet.de/
Reply to this message...
 
    
Vortex Soft
CJ Taylor wrote:
[Original message clipped]


And I have to insist, why doesn't the CLS compiler work the same way as
the old C or ASM (machine language using mnemonics) compiler: Exported
Symbols are visible, non Exported Symbols are not accessible???
Why does an .exe file contain ALL original Symbols?????

[Original message clipped]

software?
And the enums can't be changed!!!

_hjsd8889
Reply to this message...
 
    
Brian Henry
why are you trying to write a program to do something when you don't even
understand the basic concepts of .NET and assembled programs alone?! seems a
little bit idiotic. btw MS has stated and you can even look it up on MSDN
all the info about how it works and the warrnings around it.

"Vortex Soft" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
CJ Taylor
"Vortex Soft" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]

RTFM.

Yes they did.. you chose to ignore it. Obviously many other people here saw
it... Call up Balmer and tell him you want a copy of every memo so you can
make sure your "up to speed" with Microsoft product.

[Original message clipped]

It's a Consipiracy against just you...

Or it could be the fact that .NET != C AND .NET != ASM.

By making that statement you FURTHER prove you have not gone beyond the
first paragraph of Understanding .NET. Again, and for the last time .NET is
an IL based language, which means it is not compiled to run on a particular
platform. It uses a CLR to interpret IL code and run that on the host
processor.

So, you have the same paradigm you did with Java. Same code, different
interpreters. Not interpretted like VBS or JScript or another JITted
language like that, but compiled code "simliar" to machine level code (or
asm).

Again... RTFM.

[Original message clipped]

Exactly $4.32

[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Vortex Soft
CJ Taylor wrote:
[Original message clipped]

Well, I found that you are one of the many Obfuscators used to hide
evidence.

No more chit chat
Reply to this message...
 
    
CJ Taylor
[Original message clipped]

I'm an obfusicator? What on earth does this mean and what does it have to
do with obfusication of code or the fact you have no clue how the framework
operates?

[Original message clipped]

Because your wrong?
Reply to this message...
 
    
One Handed Man \( OHM - Terry Burns \)
LOL,

I like a good fight !

--

OHM ( Terry Burns )
. . . One-Handed-Man . . .
If U Need My Email ,Ask Me

Time flies when you don't know what you're doing

"CJ Taylor" <[cege] at [tavayn] dit commmmm> wrote in message
news:%23m%Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
CJ Taylor
Been awhile hasn't it? =) Time to stir one up!

=)

"One Handed Man ( OHM - Terry Burns )" <news.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:e%Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Jonathan Pierce
[Original message clipped]

You are correct that enum values can't directly be obfuscated since
they are implemented as public literal fields. Since they are literal,
references to their values can substituted at compile time.

On obfuscator can replace them with a corresponding class definitition
with const fields that can be obfuscated.

For example:

private enum Direction
{
North = 0,
South = 1,
East = 2,
West = 3,
}
        }
can be replaced with:
            
private struct a
            
{
internal const int a1 = 0;
internal const int a2 = 1;
internal const int a3 = 2;
internal const int a4 = 3;
}
Reply to this message...
 
    
Jon Skeet [C# MVP] (VIP)
Jonathan Pierce <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote:
[Original message clipped]

Presumably an obfuscator which was given sufficient licence by the user
could still obfuscate the enum though? If the user said, "I really
don't care what effects it has on anything else, my application is
entirely self-contained and I never use Enum.Parse/ToString" I don't
see why it couldn't be obfuscated. Surely just replacing Foo.XXX with
Foo.YYY everywhere in the code would work, wouldn't it?

--
Jon Skeet - <Click here to reveal e-mail address>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Reply to this message...
 
    
Jonathan Pierce
"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:<Click here to reveal e-mail address>...

> Jonathan Pierce <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote:

> > > And the enums can't be changed!!!

> >

> > You are correct that enum values can't directly be obfuscated since

> > they are implemented as public literal fields. Since they are literal,

> > references to their values can substituted at compile time.

>

> Presumably an obfuscator which was given sufficient licence by the user

> could still obfuscate the enum though? If the user said, "I really

> don't care what effects it has on anything else, my application is

> entirely self-contained and I never use Enum.Parse/ToString" I don't

> see why it couldn't be obfuscated. Surely just replacing Foo.XXX with

> Foo.YYY everywhere in the code would work, wouldn't it?

>

Hi Jon,

I must have been extremely tired when I thought about the enum value issue.
Thank you for keeping me sane. You are correct that obfuscators can just
rename the enum field names for internal and private types like any other
class or struct. There was a bug in my obfuscator implementation that caused
it to not obfuscate field names for public fields on internal and private
types, enums or not. When I saw the fields not obfuscated, I was half asleep
and decided to implement replacing them with structs, instead of thinking
about why they weren't obfuscated. This just proves that I am able to code
while not fully awake, but should avoid it.

Thanks again for questioning my implementation and the supportive posts that
you have made to this thread.

Jonathan
Reply to this message...
 
    
Brian Henry
did you ever study intermediate languages ever? you obviosly have no clue
what you are talknig about. It's not just MS, it is ANY language that is
writen in any type of IL, java included

"Vortex Soft" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:%Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Jonathan Pierce
"Brian Henry" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:<Click here to reveal e-mail address>...
[Original message clipped]

I want to make it clear that the statement you were commenting about
was written by Vortex Soft and not by me. My name appears because he
was replying to my reply to his original message.

Jonatban Pierce
President
Jungle Creatures, Inc.
http://www.junglecreatures.com/
Reply to this message...
 
    
Nak
F&U*C(KING TW^ATS!!!

Stop your damn blatant advertising and get a life! Noone here is going to
rush off and buy your product because of your little play!

"Thanks for the compliments regarding our Decompiler.NET product."

plebule!

Nick.

"Vortex Soft" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:%Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
ErikS
Guess why he posted the PDF version of that compasion article and not the
online version:
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=45917&DE=1

Hint: Read the comment section.

"Nak" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:OVl$Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Brian Henry
ha!

"ErikS" <nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
One Handed Man \( OHM - Terry Burns \)
You really dont know what you are talking about do you !

--

OHM ( Terry Burns )
. . . One-Handed-Man . . .
If U Need My Email ,Ask Me

Time flies when you don't know what you're doing

"Vortex Soft" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:%23hF4z%Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
CJ Taylor
You know... RSA encryption can be cracked too... but most times, it's just
not worth the hassle...

"One Handed Man ( OHM - Terry Burns )" <news.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:e%Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Nak
Whoah!

"RSA encryption can be cracked too"

How much time do you have on your hands??

Nick.
Reply to this message...
 
    
CJ Taylor
There was more to that sentence... that being, is it *really* worth the
effort?

"Nak" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Nak
Aaah, fair enough, I thought you were going to shatter my illusions of RSA
for a moment then! HAHAHAHA........ :-( Sorry, just spending quite a
considerably ammount of time making a software licensing application that
uses RSA. Anyways yeah... Long time?

Nick.

"CJ Taylor" <[cege] at [tavayn] dit commmmm> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Vortex Soft
If you try the Decompiler.NET, you will get the full source code.
All Class, Function, Variable names are shown as in the original source!

CJ Taylor wrote:
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP] (VIP)
"Vortex Soft" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]

Then try obfusticating the release mode dll and then decompiling it again.

Tell us what you see.
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Vortex Soft
Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP] wrote:

[Original message clipped]

Thanks for your suggestion.

Every thing that can be encrypted can also be decrypted.

By design, the enumerations' element names are accessible in the wun
time, so they are exposed to the reverse engineering engine.
May be more that enumerations are exposed, I don't know.

It's the compiler task to avoid exposing non exportable symbols.
Do you agree?

_abc2389
Reply to this message...
 
    
Jon Skeet [C# MVP] (VIP)
Vortex Soft <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote:
[Original message clipped]

Did you follow it?

> Every thing that can be encrypted can also be decrypted.

I think you've missed what obfuscators do. They map existing names to
"nonsense" names, and only give the developer the map. Stack traces etc
can then be "decrypted" - but only someone with the map.

If you think that everything encrypted can be decrypted without the
private (secret) part, I suggest you read up on one-time pads as a
simple counter example. You could also tell me what this message says:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A.

Anyone with the appropriate text file would be able to work out what
that meant, but I don't think you'll be able to, somehow.

A good obfuscator will completely remove all information that can be
removed, as far as anyone without the nonsense->original map is
concerned. You may still be able to understand the code, but it's a
*lot* harder to do so.

--
Jon Skeet - <Click here to reveal e-mail address>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Reply to this message...
 
    
Vortex Soft
Jon Skeet [C# MVP] wrote:
[Original message clipped]

version 1.1.... that comes with the .NET Visual Studio. I am not able to
use that. (Am I missing something?)

[Original message clipped]


I discovered that most Symbols can be obfuscated, but I need to insist
on the enums:
[Enum].GetName(...)
returns the Symbol used in the enum as a string
so, the original Symbol is stored in the exe or dll, it can be decrypted.

Everyone that is not Obfuscating the evidence knows that it can be
decrypted or deobfuscated (whatever you name it).

I noticed that you are an MPV, I don't know you, it is the first time I
see your nick name, so you should not understand the following question
as any sort of attack to you.
Can you explain as clear as the post I read from you, what checks does
Microsoft do when nomeating MVPs? Being more clear: is Microsoft ready
to put its hand on Bible to say that each of MVPs are not hackers or
malware people?

(I am not talking about you, I repeat to avoid misunderstandings)

_obs7366
Reply to this message...
 
    
Jon Skeet [C# MVP] (VIP)
Vortex Soft <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote:
[Original message clipped]

I'm talking about following the suggestion of obfuscating the release
mode dll and then decompiling. You can do that with any obfuscator -
there are lots of them around, and most have demo versions.

[Original message clipped]

That depends on the obfuscator. I would imagine some obfuscators
*could* obfuscate the enum values, if you really wanted it to and if
you were sure you didn't need to use Enum.Parse etc.

How many security or IPR-sensitive enum values do you normally run
across, out of interest? I can't remember the last time I saw one... If
no obfuscators currently on the market do this, I suspect it's because
there's no perceived need for it.

[Original message clipped]

No - it clearly doesn't have the time or energy to investigate people
to a huge extent. If someone is revealed to be a software pirate or
anything similar, however, I believe they would be kicked out of the
programme immediately.

--
Jon Skeet - <Click here to reveal e-mail address>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Reply to this message...
 
    
Jonathan Pierce
[Original message clipped]

I've never seen a request for this before, but now that it has been
mentioned, I went ahead and added the feature to the next version of our
built-in obfuscator capability in Decompiler.NET. Since enums fields compile
to public static literal fields, the implementation instead replaces
internal or private enums with structs and their fields with internal const
fields and substitutes their references with the enum's underlying type.
Enums types that are declared pubic are left unmodified to retain their
public interface for external calling assemblies.

Jonathan
Reply to this message...
 
    
Nak
[Original message clipped]

Ooooohhh!!!!!!

Hisssss, booooooo!!!

.....
Reply to this message...
 
    
CJ Taylor
"Nak" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]

Hey... Celebrity Allstar...

All of us here.... hackers...

MVP's..... hackers....

which is the reason they became MVP's...

I believe the word your looking for is "cracker" or "a$$ bandit"

[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Nak
LOL

> I believe the word your looking for is "cracker" or "a$$ bandit"

I would be careful, he might threaten you with legal action!

Nick.
Reply to this message...
 
    
William Stacey [MVP] (VIP)
LOL.

--
William Stacey, MVP

...
> I believe the word your looking for is "cracker" or "a$$ bandit"
...
Reply to this message...
 
    
One Handed Man \( OHM - Terry Burns \)
Thats right, its all about what risk is acceptable, how hostile is the
environment in which you put your valuables at risk. Given enough time most
codes can be cracked eventually, the question is at what cost in time and
resources it takes to do this. For example, securing a novel with 128 BIT
RSA encryption would be good enough for me as an Author if I was convinced I
had written a bestseller, however, If I wrote an Autbiography ( being me ),
then simply asking for a clear password would be good enough.

--

OHM ( Terry Burns )
. . . One-Handed-Man . . .
If U Need My Email ,Ask Me

Time flies when you don't know what you're doing

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
CJ Taylor
"One Handed Man ( OHM - Terry Burns )" <news.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]

Ha! Clear Text huh? I would not even send the password, just *hope*
someone adds something interesting... Mine would be 3 pages, and mainly
consist of TLA's.

As far as the obfusication argument goes, I think that has been covered. As
we keep repeating the same thing over and over, it just so happens Vortex
Soft has his opinion which we will refer to as "the wrong one" and then
there is what the rest of the world's opinion which we will call "fact"

As I stated with RSA. Yeah it can be decrypted. But going back to a
familar theory "Time is relative". Now, if you feel good taking 10 years to
crack someone's credit card number. So be it. =) Same thing with taking
10 years to crack someones obfusicated code.

You could have just spent the 2 weeks rewriting it yourself. =) Terry said
it best, "acceptable risk". That's how all of its done.. The likleyhood of
it being cracked in a "reasonable" amount of time is slim to none. One day
will it? Of course. One day we will cure cancer, vacation to the moon, and
have those cool little replicators from Star Trek so I can have Gino's Pizza
Rolls whenever I want...

We should have all those *relativly* soon... =)

[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
One Handed Man \( OHM - Terry Burns \)
I dont care about replicators, I just want my own personal HoloDeck.

--

OHM ( Terry Burns )
. . . One-Handed-Man . . .
If U Need My Email ,Ask Me

Time flies when you don't know what you're doing

"CJ Taylor" <[cege] at [tavayn] dit commmmm> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
CJ Taylor
That comes with a program of Dr. Crusher. Or that one time Erika Eliniak
dated Data... I would take her too in there. =)

"One Handed Man ( OHM - Terry Burns )" <news.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Vortex Soft
CJ Taylor wrote:
[Original message clipped]

I see that you are an honest person with a wide knowledge.
Could you help the ignorant people like me and millions others to
protect their work in a satisfactory way?

_iiioias8883
Reply to this message...
 
    
Nak
LOL

[Original message clipped]

Go away! You are so obviously in league with jungle creatures, your probably
one of his colleagues! You put on a little play and advertise his crap
overpriced product and now try a different tactic in an attempt to save
face!

Well sir, you have no face!

Nick.
Reply to this message...
 
    
Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP] (VIP)
"Nak" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]

While I appreciate that you are rather fervent about this, you are really
starting to push the point here. Up to this point I have seen no behaviour
by Jungle Creatures outside of supporting their product(and suggesting it
when people ask about decompilers).

Your comments on this thread have been inappropriate, as have several
others(CJ Taylor and Brian Henry come to mind), and you comprise what I
would consider those who should go away, atleast from this thread.

The original poster is frustrating, to be sure, but you are being just as
bad. This is not a forum for conspiracy theories or for bashing other
people, even if they make a product you don't care for.
Reply to this message...
 
    
Nak
Hi Daniel,

[Original message clipped]

Not that I ever denied that, I just absolutly hate that method of
advertising and that is what I percieved it to be. That isn't what the
newsgroup was intended for. If by any chance it wasn't a sales push then as
mr "Vortex" is a possible client or end user of JungleCreatures /
Decompiler.NET, they should conduct their chit chat elsewhere. This isn't a
forum for JungleCreatues to offer support on their products is it?

[Original message clipped]

Yup, my comments can be *very* inappropriate at times, but I am not
leaving this newsgroup, I've been here long enough now and respect many of
the hard working participants. Just because I am not an MVP, or CJ or
Brian, that is the only reason you are making this statement, which
personally I believe to be unfair. But expected from an MVP, no offence but
sometimes they can get a little too authorative, the status doesnt come with
a uniform does it?

Believe it or not, I am a regular of this group and do not always get
irate by this kind of thing, but sometimes I do. If *you* don't like what
you read, put it in your "block list".

[Original message clipped]

Oh well, pots and kettles, but you are not the referee, so there is no
need to start blowing your whistle.

At the moment "mate" *I* don't even make products I care for, it's been
one of those days!

Nick.
Reply to this message...
 
    
Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP] (VIP)
"Nak" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]

Not per se, however it *is* a forum for support and discussion of the
framework, and in some cases supporting a tool related to the framework is
appropriate. Mr. Pierce, in my experiance, has not posted outside of that
particular set of rules.

[Original message clipped]

No, there is no uniform. There are nifty lapel pins and an ID card though.

Actually, authoritarian behaviour isn't uncommon among MVP's, however it is
not because they *are* mvps, but because before becoming mvp's they were
highly community minded, including trying to contain the spread of
falsehoods. Most are a little less heavy handed than I am, however.

Also, for the record, I'll bring this up with anyone who behaves like this.
You aren't the first, and I doubt the last, who I will call out for such
behavior. An MVP label(or even an MSFT one) isn't going to deter me from
that.
MVP's tend *not* to start these kind of issues, but they are certainly not
immune.

I personally think your behaviour has been rank and that you don't deserve a
terrible amount of respect from your posts. They are inflamatory, uncalled
for, and intolerably rude.
[Original message clipped]

I am well aware you are a regular, but that doesn't excuse you from behaving
badly.

And, for what its worth, I don't use a block list. Everyone has a right to
have their say and to deal with the feedback from it. You are welcome to
continue with your harrasement, I certainly can't stop you, but I certainly
am not going to bow out while you act up. I will say, when I feel it is
appropriate, my thoughts on your posts.

[Original message clipped]

Nor is there a need for you to harrass people. Live with it.
Reply to this message...
 
    
Cor Ligthert
Daniel,

And I find Nick so extremly nice writing at the moment, I was in doubt if it
was Nick, however now he wrote he is Nick Patterman, it should be him.

You should have seen his post previous year that was really top flaming
especialy when he did it with his mate.

:-)

Cor
Reply to this message...
 
    
Nak
[Original message clipped]


Perhaps Nick's true identity was exposed by someone who wanted to make him
accountable for his inappropriate posts where he attempted to conceal his
true identity. His postings this year seem to be consistent with your
observations regarding his style of flaming and overall disposition.

Nak
Reply to this message...
 
    
Nak
Ladies and gentlemen, we have ourselves a Troll!, oh deary me!

Nick.

"Nak" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:TrY1d.118406$Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Nak
Hi Cor,

[Original message clipped]

I haven't been 100% nice in this thread, and have no intention of
starting. Yes that is my email address and web site, but I'm unsure as to
*why* it has been posted. Obviously someone with allot of spare time on
their hands, "as if I don't know who".

[Original message clipped]

I have strong views just the same as everyone else, and last year their
were some heated discussions being has as I was developing software 24/7.
It gets to you at times when your not having much luck with whatever your
currently working on.

Also, I have posted a complaint to Click here to reveal e-mail address, if that's the
correct address. Apparently these groups are moderated by MVP's, so if any
of them were half decent they would have that post removed for me. And
believe me, I would be greatly appreciative, I would never go on a mission
to do that to anyone else, why do that to me? Pah, very sad! Anyways.

Nick.
Reply to this message...
 
    
Nak
"Nak" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...

Nick,

It may not be in your best interest to request that moderators review your
posts since many of them are inappropriate and often inconsistent with their
posting guidelines.

[Original message clipped]

I doubt that moderators are interested in assisting you in concealing your
identity so that you can continue to make inappropriate posts inconsistent
with their posting guidelines.
If you have strong opinions, you should be willing to stand behind them by
identifying yourself rather than making unsupported claims that you do not
wish to be held accountable for.

Nak
Reply to this message...
 
    
Nak
Yes John!

"Nak" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:%AY1d.118407$Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Steve McLellan
Guys, maybe you want to take this offline? I was actually interested in this
thread, but I'm giving up trying to monitor it as you two seem to have
nothing better to do than sling ineffectual insults around and it's become
mindlessly tedious to try to find the posts with some actual content.

Steve
Reply to this message...
 
    
Jonathan Pierce
Steve,

Thanks for attempting to inject some sanity back into this group. This is a
technical forum and many users are interested in discussing the issues
associated with .NET decompilation and obfuscation. Since the title of this
thread mentions our product directly, I am particularly interested in
keeping the discussions on a technical level and relevant to the interst of
readers in this group. I appreciate your attempts to monitor this thread and
ensure that discussions here remain technical and relevant in nature.

I will continue to monitor the thread as well and answer technical issues
related to decompilation, obfuscation, refactoring, or directly related to
our product mentioned here.

Readers are also free to contact me directly at Click here to reveal e-mail address

Jonathan Pierce
President
Jungle Creatures, Inc.
http://www.junglecreatures.com/

"Steve McLellan" <sjm.NOSPAM AT fixerlabs DOT com> wrote in message
news:%Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Nak
Hey!

I had left the thread until I noticed my personal details appear!!!, sheesh!

But yes, I agree, it's childish, and I would also like my email address
removed, I don't mind giving it in an "obfuscated" way, but not clear text
in this group. Not that it will get removed!

Nick.

"Steve McLellan" <sjm.NOSPAM AT fixerlabs DOT com> wrote in message
news:%Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Jon Skeet [C# MVP] (VIP)
Nak <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote:
[Original message clipped]

This group is effectively unmoderated - it's certainly not moderated by
MVPs. If a particular post warrants removal, I believe anyone can make
a complaint. (It may be dealt with more swiftly if the person
complaining is an MVP, but that's about it.)

Daniel wasn't moderating the group - he was expressing his opinions
about some posts, as have other people on the thread.

--
Jon Skeet - <Click here to reveal e-mail address>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Reply to this message...
 
    
CJ Taylor
Anyone else confused?

"Nak" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Nak
CJ,

LOL!, not really, I know who it is, I can do simple maths.

Nick.

"CJ Taylor" <[cege] at [tavayn] dit commmmm> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Nak
Daniel,

If you are interested in contacting Nick Pateman directly, his personal web
page is here:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/nickpatemanpwp/

and his direct email address is: Click here to reveal e-mail address

You can also IM him on AIM at: furkinfedup

Aside from attempting to post to newsgroups anonymously, he describes
himself as a 22 year old currently living on the South Coast of England

"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in
message news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Nak
LOL!

And, your point is?

Nick.

"Nak" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:s2Y1d.37485$Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Nak
Nick,

I understand the reasoning behind using a false email address to avoid
receiving spam, but there is no point in attempting to hide your identity
when making inappropriate comments as Daniel described since often
relatively easy to ascertain the true identity of the author of posted
messages by users using an alias to conceal their true identity. Posting
anonymously also detracts from your credibility for usets who read the
contents of your posts.

Nak

"Nak" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Nak
Excuse me ?,

[Original message clipped]

I am *not* hiding my identity and never have, I have no need for my
email address in here, I have posted my web address in here many times and
if anyone wanted to find out about me they need only go visit it.

I don't believe you have the right to post my details, do you? But
whatever, you have done it now anyway, and that is far worse than any
flaming I have done in this newsgroup. It not only violates the data
protections act but it is also a very sly thing to do. But you're obviously
a very sly person because your consealing your identity far more than *I*
ever have, or have any desire to.

By the way, I don't post for credability, I post for resolving problems,
and sometimes to help others if I see that they are stick with something
that I can help with. But I have no intention of building up "credit" so
that I can apply for MVP status, that is something I do not care for.

Nick.
Reply to this message...
 
    
CJ Taylor
Big ol' Ack!

MVP's do tend to get a bit of an authority complex with their fancy title.

Do I do a bit of mud slinging, yep. I don't deny that. I tried being nice,
I tried explaining it. And like I do with many others in this group,
especially newbies I take the time to try to explain it.

The OP was convinced, and would not have it any other way that none of us
had ever heard of obfusiciation. Even after we told him so... Arguing
exports and symbols and a few other buzz words.

As for Jonathan. I don't know, there seemed to be a lot of promotion. You
can't expect us to sit here and read the same tired crap over and over
though. We use the news groups as well, therefore allowed to voice our
opinion. In whatever manner it may be.

Am I an MVP? Nope. Do I care that I am? No... I like developing, scratch
that.. I love developing.. I love to learn.. I love to see others learn...
I don't need a flashy title with a virtual badge to go with it so I can tell
people what they can talk about on a public forum.

"Nak" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Nak
[Original message clipped]

I agree intently.

[Original message clipped]

Well said, MVP's are great, but they shouldnt think that non MVP's arent
capable of being MVP's too. I still stand very firm on my opinion of what
an MVP is, simply a way for Microsoft to give the end users of their
products support without having to actually pay anyone. But that's another
story completely.

Nick.
Reply to this message...
 
    
Jonathan Pierce
[Original message clipped]

CJ,

This thread was originated by an independant user who has no affiliation
with our company, but was pointing out his concerns regarding his perception
of security risks related to his awareness of the completeness of our
product's ability to generate correct and high-level source code from
unobfuscated assemblies.
The title of the thread mentions our product directly and was not influenced
in any way by our company. We read the newsgroups as well and seeing the
thread was the first that we had heard about this user. One posts on this
and other threads are always technical in nature and directly responsive and
relevant to the thread subject and provide answers and suggestions for
addressing the questions or issues initiated by the post that we are
responding to. Like other vendors, when our product directly answers the
user's question or provides a feature that meets his needs as described in
his post, we suggest our product as a solution and describe the features
that address the concerns of the author of the post. If you don't want to
read references to our product, than you probably should stop reading thread
posts whose subject directly mentions it and was started by a legitimate
independant newsgroup user who is expressing his concerns over the
capabilities of .NET decompilation and obfuscation tools and their issues in
the correct newsgroup relevant to such concerns.

Jonathan
Reply to this message...
 
    
CJ Taylor
[Original message clipped]

I understand that. I wasn't taking a shot at you directly, it just seemed
he was ignoring a bunch of other products that existed and really seemed to
be promoting yours.

When you jumped in, it just seemed a little strange. Reason why, you don't
see a lot of vendors out here actually talking a bunch about their products.
I understand you saw your name and all, that makes sense, but alot of other
components have been mentioned in the past with no response.

Forgive me if I offended you, just saying, it seemed to be a little odd.
Also, the conversation wasn't necessarily to debunk your product. If it
works, great. If it doesn't, I don't really care. I don't use it. [That
whole Reflector argument]

It goes back to Vortex basically telling us Microsoft is screwing us because
of exporting all symbols and bla bla bla... which many of us stated, MANY
times, "Yeah, we know..." But apparently, your product was the only
solution.

And the article, well, you were very very knowledgable about it. Perhaps a
good president of a company, perhaps an influencer. A lot of us here have
waded through a lot of B.S.. It just didn't seem much different.

If not.. hey good luck to you, sorry if I offended you, but lawsuits? For a
software package that can cause lawsuits? Hmmm... sounds like a bit of a
oxymoron.

> The title of the thread mentions our product directly and was not
influenced
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
CJ Taylor
BTW,

I made one off color remark. If you look through my posts I am either
talking to other people, or attempting to explain that we all knew and
compare it to something like RSA.

So the next time you decide to whip out your MVP lapel pin and ID badge make
sure your clear on how many off color comments I make.

"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in
message news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP] (VIP)
Out of curiosity, if I had posted my original reply *without* the mvp
marker, would you all have been as assinine?

I try to kep the mvp label *out* of what I do, and I know several mvp's who
don't mark themselves as one because, although everyone try's to pass it off
as unimportant, the level of disrespect you can get from having the label
tends to equal the level of respect it returns. Its annoying.

Being an MVP can be binding. I would have certainly berated the three of
you, MVP or not, however by being one the results are just fussing about the
title and an utter disregard for the lot of you acting like children.

This thread is stupid, I'll leave it at that. The consistent harrassment of
someone on the forum is disappointing, and should *never* have been started.
However, if you want to start a flame war, or participate in one, expect to
be treated badly as a result.

Also, for the record, MVP's have no capacity to moderate these newsgroups.
Moderation of newsgroups is nearly impossible to begin with, but the
microsoft news server is administered and maintained by someone within
microsoft.

If you dig through blogs.msdn.com, someone there is the admin(or part of the
team), I just forget who.

"CJ Taylor" <[cege] at [tavayn] dit commmmm> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]

Perhaps I jumped to your name a bit, still, you certainly didn't make *ONE*
off color comment, I was able to find two by being lazy and using what was
still visible in my reader window.
Reply to this message...
 
    
CJ Taylor
[Original message clipped]

Your comment is assinine. If you didn't have the MVP title, would I have
made any comments regarding it? No. But you are and you did post with it.

The MVP comments are regarding MVP's coming in and trying to be big brother
to everyone and tell us how to act, speak, and think. You can use your
*lazy* tactics
to scan the groups and see that.

> I try to kep the mvp label *out* of what I do, and I know several mvp's
who
> don't mark themselves as one because, although everyone try's to pass it
off
[Original message clipped]

Wow. Your thoughts are just everywhere on this one. Being an MVP can be
binding, yet you would have berated us MVP or not. So is that the binding
part of the MVP? What's holding you back?

So your saying you don't get the repect your deserve as an MVP? And because
of that you keep your MVP title away... *sometimes*. What determines when
to use it and when not to? Is this like a race card?

if you don't want to be an MVP, don't be one. Your not being paid after
all. I don't care if I ever become an MVP or not, especially if it means I
have to be careful not to hurt anyone's feelings. I come on here to
get/give advice, not to achieve some flashy title to make myself feel good.

> This thread is stupid, I'll leave it at that.

Because you said it was? If you read the thread you would notice we are all
agreeing with that. However, the OP pursued the conversation insisiting
that Microsoft withheld information. After many of us (myself included)
explained we already knew.

[Original message clipped]


What harrasement? The fact we had to tell the OP over and over that he was
wrong and WHY he was wrong? I don't see that as harrassment. I don't think
many others do either.

> However, if you want to start a flame war, or participate in one, expect
to
[Original message clipped]

Where do you see the flame war? The point was, he was wrong. And as for
Jonathan, people in here debunked his own claims he made about his
decompiler/obfuscator. Are we not to do that? Just take whatever anyone
says about there software as truth?

So your going to treat me badly now? A little hypocritcal I would say.

[Original message clipped]

I didn't say MVP's did. I said you act like you are moderators...read more
carefully.

> If you dig through blogs.msdn.com, someone there is the admin(or part of
the
[Original message clipped]

2 huh. Well, must have missed on. Among all the other comments I made
trying to explain the point.. Well, judge me however you want. Maybe one
day this news group will be exactly the way *you* want it...
Reply to this message...
 
    
Jonathan Pierce
CJ,

I feel that Daniel was completely justified in his attempts to moderate this
forum in attempts to keep the discussion technical in nature and to point
out his observations regarding inappropriate, inaccurate, and often
harassing posts.

[Original message clipped]

I don't know whether Daniel was referring to the harassment of the post
authors he mentioned with regard to the original post author or to myself,
but I personally felt harrassed and was forced to respond to inaccurate
accusations about our companues products to defend our companies reputation.
I would much prefer to spend my time answering technical questions relevant
to the topic of decompilation, obfuscation, and refactoring being discussed
in this thread.

There were many posts in this thread mainly from the users that Daniel
mentioned that were antagonistic, and made inaccurate claims about our
product and company ranging from statements regarding having illegally
decompiled our source code, to threats about posting it publicly, to
accusations that we did not author our own code or give proper credit to the
3rd party libraries that we legally licensed and credit in our About Box.

I appreciate your apology earlier but now you are reverting to a similar
style of defensive behavior that Daniel has taken his time to point out.

I'd personally like to stop having to waste my time defending our company
against inaccurate knowingly false malicious accusations about our product
and inaccurate vague assumptions that and statements that are libelous in
nature and directly harm us financially. It would be nice to be able to keep
these discussions technical in nature with an even tone but I've found that
aside from responding to posts asking their authors to back up their false
and derogatory statements, my only alternative will be to pursue legal
resources to recover damages made to our company and it's reputation.

I applaud Daniel 100% for his actions here, and would like to see more MVP's
become more vocal in moderating these forums. I also think that these
technical newsgroups should be restricted to not accept anonymous or spoofed
messages or at mininum, flag them as not credible posts.

Jonathan

"CJ Taylor" <[cege] at [tavayn] dit commmmm> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Brian Henry
a jumbled mess is what you see ;)

"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in
message news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Vortex Soft
Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP] wrote:

[Original message clipped]

Every thing that can be encrypted can also be decrypted.

By design, the enumerations' element names are accessible in the wun
time, so they are exposed to the reverse engineering engine.
May be more that enumerations are exposed, I don't know.

_abc2389
Reply to this message...
 
    
Steve McLellan
Probably - if you had an algorithm to do it fast, I'm sure you could get a
job in some fairly specialist places :-)

Steve

"CJ Taylor" <[cege] at [tavayn] dit commmmm> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
CJ Taylor
Mmm yes...

would you mind posting that algorithm here? =)

"Steve McLellan" <sjm.NOSPAM AT fixerlabs DOT com> wrote in message
news:%Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Steve McLellan
Um..... no :-) I'll probably get 'disappeared' by MI5 on the way home now
:-)

"CJ Taylor" <[cege] at [tavayn] dit commmmm> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Imran Koradia (VIP)
Remember - all depends on the key length chosen. If you're going to choose a
16-bit key - hell I can crack that too :-) (Yes- within my lifetime ;-)) !!
Read here: http://news.com.com/2100-1023-204556.html?legacy=cnet

Ofcourse, the standard now is to use 512 bit keys and sooner or later we'll
be moving to a 1024 bit standard as soon as as someone (or rather group)
cracks a 512-bit RSA key encoded message. Thats a totally different ball
game altogether.

Imran.

"Nak" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Nak
[Original message clipped]

All I have to say on that matter is f**ksticks

[Original message clipped]

That sucks, I've never even been able to open a passworded zip file using an
app designed for the task of brute force simply because it takes too long.
These groups must be very adamant on destruction that's all I can say!

Nick.

"Imran Koradia" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...

[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Imran Koradia (VIP)
> All I have to say on that matter is f**ksticks

?!?

[Original message clipped]

That's true. However, there are techniques (lot of higher math involved)
that'll get you closer faster than brute force. Ofcourse, you really must be
wanting something very badly (or just have an unbelievably high level of
grudge towards 'someone') to go the lengths.

Imran.
Reply to this message...
 
    
One Handed Man \( OHM - Terry Burns \)
Virtually anything can be cracked, security management is all about managing
to an 'acceptable' risk for the environment in which the protected entity
exists.

--

OHM ( Terry Burns )
. . . One-Handed-Man . . .
If U Need My Email ,Ask Me

Time flies when you don't know what you're doing

"CJ Taylor" <[cege] at [tavayn] dit commmmm> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
CJ Taylor
My point exactly.

=0

"One Handed Man ( OHM - Terry Burns )" <news.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
> Virtually anything can be cracked, security management is all about
managing
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] (VIP)
* Vortex Soft <Click here to reveal e-mail address> scripsit:
> VB, C# are CLS compliant

That's wrong. Especially C# code is not CLS compliant in all cases.
VB.NET sticks more to the CLS and tries to produce CLS compliant code,
for example by not supporting unsigned integer datatypes directly.

[Original message clipped]

This depends on the obfuscator you use. Notice that the best decompiler
will not be able to reproduce local variable names and the code
comments. Code without comments is rather worthless.

[Original message clipped]

Bla bla...

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>
Reply to this message...
 
    
Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook] (VIP)
Herfried,
> comments. Code without comments is rather worthless.
In my experience well written code shouldn't need comments! At least not a
lot of comments.

Well written code should be largely self explanatory based on the class,
method, property, parameter, field, and variable names.

I am not however suggesting that there should be NO comments at all.

I like the example from the "Human-Readable Code" section in Joshua
Kerievsky's "Refactoring to Patterns" from Addison Wesley:

' adopted to VB.NET

Public Shared Sub Main()

Dim firstOfMonth As DateTime = November(1, 2004)
Dim lastOfMonth As DateTime = November(30, 2004)

End Sub

Where the November function is defined as:

Private Shared Function November(ByVal day As Integer, ByVal year As
Integer) As DateTime
Return New DateTime(year, 11, day)
End Function

Just a thought
Jay

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:e$Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
hel@40th.com
Mr X.
>> comments. Code without comments is rather worthless.

JH [Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:30:37 -0500]:
>In my experience well written code shouldn't need comments!

Well, see, that's in your experience, which obviously has never
had to deal with SOMEONE ELSE's "well-written code" (haha).

[Original message clipped]

Hm, yeah, that doesn't even count. It's all throw-away stuff.
Anyone that thinks "comments" are optional, Is optional. But
it's your mess so what I think doesn't matter.
--
40th Floor - Software @ http://40th.com/
iPlay : the ultimate audio player for iPAQs
mp3, ogg, mp4, m4a, aac, wav, and then some
w/surround, xfeed, reverb - all on your ppc
Reply to this message...
 
    
Nak
Hey,

[Original message clipped]

Haha, some people like them, some people dont. I have gone through stages
of attempting to put descriptions above each and every method with inputs,
outputs, description and author but just got bored with it. Also I find
code very hard to read at 1024 x 768 in a text editor about 100 x 100 in
size without having to rake through comments in it too.

I think the code that should mainly have comments is code that is used to
teach. But anyway, thats only my opinion.

Nick.
Reply to this message...
 
    
Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook] (VIP)
[Original message clipped]

are optional. I actually meant that a lot of comments are redundant. If you
label (name) the code for what it does, then I (in addition to Fowler &
Kerievsky below) don't see a real need for the comment. Fowler also suggests
that if you have a block of code with a comment preceding it, that you
should move the block of code to its own method, with the comment as the
name of the method.

Another example is putting a comment on a variable or parameter declaration.
If you simply pick a fuller name for the variable or parameter, do you
really need a comment on it?

For example, I have a routine that needs two date variables:

' with comments
Dim d1 As DateTime ' the start date
Dim d2 As DateTime ' the ending date

' without comments
Dim theStartDate As DateTime
Dim theEndingDate As DateTime

If you simply name the first variable as theStartDate do you really need a
comment suggesting the value is the start date?

Consider seeing d1 & d2 used 5 times in your routine, would the code be as
readable as using theStartDate & theEndingDate?

Would you need comments when you use d1 & d2?

Would you need comments when you use theStartDate & theEndingDate?

In other words "Human-Readable Code" or as Fowler states in Refactoring "Any
fool can write code that a computer can understand. Good programmers write
code that humans can understand".

You may want to read (& apply the ideas in) Martin Fowler's book
"Refactoring" and Joshua Kerievsky's book "Refactoring to Patterns" both
from Addison Wesley to have a better understanding of my statement.

Hope this helps
Jay

<Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Cor Ligthert
Jay,

This has been a long time discussion when Cobol was the major programming
language.

Some where in my opinion using it as a kind of Assembler because they had to
write too much.
(Code was not typed on a screen at the beginning).

However I have always been for explaining names and even used in that time
never a prefix, however things as "day in dateofbirth" while a lot found
that as well to much work; you earned that when you had to do a lot of
maintenance and could easy create copy parts with that (and reuse the name
day).

(This is indirect an answer on a message from OHM from past week about
prefixes).

VB had in my opinion not the same first goal as COBOL, "making a program
that could be read in plain English". However, you can reach it very much,
therefore document it in the code with readable names, and therefore make it
possible to avoid documentation sentences (which often are made that bad,
that it brings you more on the wrong way than the right way).

COBOL was a superior language in that, however it is completely created
around batch processes. In my opinion, have the later extensions to make it
usable for interactive use, never reached the possibilities from languages
which where directly made for that and therefore it will die.

This is not in contradiction with what you write, however to give some extra
historical background.

Cor
Reply to this message...
 
    
Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook] (VIP)
Cor,
You should realize that I programmed my fair share of both COBOL & RPG
programs.

Jay

"Cor Ligthert" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Cor Ligthert
I don't have to realize, I know, what is wrong with this addition?
Reply to this message...
 
    
One Handed Man \( OHM - Terry Burns \)
My view is that in essence, comments should serve to explain code which
either has some quirk in it to compensate for an inadequacy or issue with
classes which it interacts with or is dealing with some particularly complex
or intricate algorithm.

Otherwise, my beleif is the same as yours, well written code needs little
explaination when being read by someone competent.

--

OHM ( Terry Burns )
. . . One-Handed-Man . . .
If U Need My Email ,Ask Me

Time flies when you don't know what you're doing

"Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook] (VIP)
OHM,
I should add that I will occasionally use the #Region label for my comments.

For example if a class implements the Singleton pattern, I will normally
include the members that support the Singleton pattern in a region that is
labeled. " Singleton pattern support ".

Likewise if a class has the concept of comparability & equality, I will
include the Equals & IComparable methods in a region call " IComparable
support ".

Which allows at a glance to see that the class supports or is.

Hope this helps
Jay

"One Handed Man ( OHM - Terry Burns )" <news.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%23ej$Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] (VIP)
* "One Handed Man \( OHM - Terry Burns \)" <news.microsoft.com> scripsit:
[Original message clipped]

ACK.

Imagine there are '' HACK ...' or '' TODO ...' comments in the code, and
the person who reconstructs the code doesn't have these comments...

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>
Reply to this message...
 
    
Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP] (VIP)
"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]

Wouldn't HACK or TODO qualify as an inadequacy or quirk?

I think he's saying only comment what needs commenting, not every single
line because someone once told you good programmers comment on every line.

[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] (VIP)
* "Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> scripsit:
[Original message clipped]

I'd be interested in the percentage of software release versions
containing several hacks and todos...

\\\

' TODO: Optimize algorithm for large 'n' in future versions
' to increase performance when... bla bla...
///

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>
Reply to this message...
 
    
Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook] (VIP)
Herfried,
I normally use TODO for items that are yet to be done. I use (try to use)
TODO comments & the task list as the to do list identified in Kent Beck's
"Test-Driven Development - By Example" from Addison Wesley. For example I
thought of a new feature I need to add to a class, however I don't currently
have time to add it, I will add a TODO in that class. However if I thought
of an entirely new class I will use the task list itself...

I normally use HACK comments for code that shouldn't be, but its the
"easiest" way to do it right now. Such as your Optimize algorithm comment.
Or the problem we had at work, that we had to introduce a hack to work
around a bug in a recent Crystal Reports update.

So HACK I consider "done" however I probably want to visit & Refactor how I
did it. While TODO are not finished yet, possible not even started.

If you come up with a firmer metric we may be able to come up with a tool to
measure. Such as TODO/HACK per file, TODO/HACK per project.

Hope this helps
Jay

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:u8$Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Bill Woodruff
So much for professional teamwork and code maintenance in
the real world.

Jay B. Harlow wrote:

>> In my experience well written code shouldn't need
comments! At least
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] (VIP)
Jay,

* "Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> scripsit:
[Original message clipped]

I agree. Decompiling to "steal" something developed by someone else IMO
is only useful if the code that is stolen is valuable. Most simple code
is not valuable and can be easily implemented without stealing and
reconstructing. Complex algorithms are worth stealing, and these
algorithms are often heavily commented or documented. If comments,
documentation, and local variable names are missing, the reconstructed
code will compile, but it will take hours to understand it.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>
Reply to this message...
 
    
Cor Ligthert
Herfried,

You wrote that "steal" very right in quotes, when I see this thread (when I
missed one excuse me) than I get the idea that decompiling is always for
stealing and that has not to be so.

You are the first one who showed that.

Cor
Reply to this message...
 
    
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] (VIP)
* "Cor Ligthert" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> scripsit:
[Original message clipped]

I remember many EULAs which prohibit decompilation to protect their
property. The decompiler mentioned before can be used for stealing code
or innovation made by another party.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>
Reply to this message...
 
    
Cor Ligthert
"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <Click here to reveal e-mail address>

[Original message clipped]

another way, you can use a hammer to kill somebody, for that a hammer is not
an illegal tool. (I had first the gun in the US however that does not count
less for us in the EC, so maybe is the hammer better).

However for buying guns in the US (and with us as well, I legaly had them)
are regulations same as you wrote about EULA.

Cor
Reply to this message...
 
    
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] (VIP)
* "Cor Ligthert" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> scripsit:
[Original message clipped]

It can be used to do that, but I don't see many useful cases where this
a reason to spend hundreds of USD for such a tool.

[Original message clipped]

:-)

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>
Reply to this message...
 
    
Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook] (VIP)
Herfried,
[Original message clipped]


Based on the millions of lines of code at the 3 large companies I have
worked on over the last 20 years. We always had standards to comment code,
however in practice it never really worked. The original author would
comment the code, a major change would be done and the comments would remain
the same.

I may be misinterpreting, however I get the impression that Extreme
Programming places less emphasis on comments, as the code should be
"Human-Readable Code" as evidenced by my interpretation of the two
Refactoring books previously mentioned.

Just a thought
Jay

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
William Stacey [MVP] (VIP)
Not that would be handy. Take some source and output UMLs (ms kinda does
this in vs2005), pseudo code, and logic flow diagrams, and text comments
derived from the code.

--
William Stacey, MVP

"Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Jonathan Pierce
[Original message clipped]

The local variable names are available in the pdb symbol file
generated by debug builds. Most vendors don't ship pdb files with
their products.

For code that you have compiled yourself or when you have the pdb
files, our Decompiler.NET product will retain the local variable names
from the original assembly pdb file.

Jonathan
Reply to this message...
 
    
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] (VIP)
* Click here to reveal e-mail address (Jonathan Pierce) scripsit:
[Original message clipped]

That will be the case for almost every released software.

[Original message clipped]

Tell me a reason why I should decompile an application if I already have its
source code.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>
Reply to this message...
 
    
CJ Taylor
"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]

False sense of knowledge regarding programming?

[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook] (VIP)
Herfried,
[Original message clipped]

and inadvertently delete the source to your project. :-)

Jay

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Nak
[Original message clipped]

Ouch!, no doubt Decompiler.NET would come in handy and restore peace and
harmony back into the world?

Nick.
Reply to this message...
 
    
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] (VIP)
Jay,

* "Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> scripsit:
[Original message clipped]

:-)

I still think that this is a very weak reason for buying a decompiler,
because you will still have to restore comments etc.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>
Reply to this message...
 
    
Jonathan Pierce
[Original message clipped]

I'll give you 3 more good ones.

Our Decompiler.NET product uses decompilation as a baseline for
implementing other features.

1. We implement our obfuscator feature using our decompiler
technology.
2. You may want to translate an assembly to a different source
language such as decompiling a compiled VB.NET assembly to C#. Using
decompilation to accomplish this works much better than parser based
implentations.
3. Our decompiler improves you code by simplifying branching,
identifying high level statements like using, lock, and foreach, and
most recently, we have added some automatic refactoring capabilities
that generate interfaces for your public and internal members, factory
classes, encapsulate fields with generated properties and replace
their references, and general scoping tightening like recognizing
internal classes and members that can be made private. We are planning
to add support for other common design patterns such as generating
visitor classes for duplicating instance hierarchies.

Jonathan
Reply to this message...
 
    
kids_pro
Will reverse engineers give me a better code that the one I did?

"Jonathan Pierce" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
> > Tell me a reason why I should decompile an application if I already have
its
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Jonathan Pierce
"kids_pro" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:<Click here to reveal e-mail address>...
[Original message clipped]

Yes, in many cases it will. Our product simplifies your branching by
combining condition sequences, inserting return, break, and continue
statements, recoginizing high level statement sequences like foreach,
using, lock, etc that you may not have originally written, and the
latest refactoring features use the code model to recognize and
anaylze your code and consistently reorganize it and generate
additions to implement common design patterns for you and tighten
scoping, as well as make your code more flexible by replacing concrete
instances with factory instantiated interface instances so that you
can implement additional implementations of the interface without
changing the calling code. We also include an option for generating
properties for your public and internal fields, make the fields
private, and replace the field references with the corresponding
properties. We are also planning support for recognizing other common
design patterns and applying them according to your preferences. You
should read the famous design patterns book by the gang of 4 to better
understand what we are planning on automating in addition to our
general statement sequence optimizations.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0201633612/qid=1095249893/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-1901124-1060765?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Jonathan
Reply to this message...
 
    
Nak
Just to add a touch of irony, I should use a different decompiler to
decompile your little aplette and then post the project file on here, naaah,
I would *never* do that! nope nope nope.

By the way, the codes a bit dirty!

Nick.

"Vortex Soft" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:%23hF4z%Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Jonathan Pierce
"Nak" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:<Click here to reveal e-mail address>...
[Original message clipped]

Nick,

Please clarify what you are trying to say here. Our Decompiler.NET
product is an application, not an "aplette". The version we ship is
protected both with encryption and obfuscation. Attempts to decompile
it or bypass our license enforcement strategy are also a violation of
our license agreement and we utilize the legal system to protect our
proprietary intellectual property. The product was written entirely at
Jungle Creatures, Inc. aside from the 3rd party libraries licensed and
fully credited in the application About Box.

Please try to avoid making inaccurate negative statements about our
products in public forums. Our product mentioned in this thread was
mentioned by the original post, and there is no attempt here to
advertise our products, only to respond to technical concerns
mentioned by the original post, and to refute inaccurate assumptions
or accusations made about our products or company in public forums. If
you don't want to see our products mentioned, than you should refrain
from making statements about them in public forums that require us to
respond.

Feel free to email me directly if you want to continue this discussion
offline at Click here to reveal e-mail address

Jonathan Pierce
President
Jungle Creatures, Inc.
http://www.junglecreatures.com/
Reply to this message...
 
    
Nak
Jonathan,

> Nick,

Yup?

[Original message clipped]

LOL, get off your high horse, put your sandwich board down and shut the f*ck
up! You are starting to sound very irritating indeed! I will call your
application an "aplette" until I am blue in the face, this is not a
violation of anything other than your pride!

[Original message clipped]

Refer to my previous statement you paranoid little man,

> I would *never* do that! nope nope nope.

What part of that do you not understand? Secondly why the heck would I
*want* to look at your code? I have far more pressing matters at hand than
to care about anyone elses source code, obfuscated or not! So don't start
attempting the threaten me with "the legal system" until you have something
to threaten me with you fool.

[Original message clipped]

Bla bla bla, yadda yadda yadda, there are always people like you in
newsgroups, always! It's a shame you can't obfuscate your adverts so there
is no hope of me understanding them!

Nick.
Reply to this message...
 
    
pop-server@nyc.rr.com
"Nak" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...

[Original message clipped]

You also make a comment admitting that you at least attempted to decompile
our source code.

What else did you mean by: "By the way, the codes a bit dirty!"

We are a commercial company and will utilize legal processes as necessary to
protect our intellectual property. You may consider this a warning since you
have already implied that you have attempted to decompile our product's
source code in violation of our license agreement which you agreed to when
you downloaded and again when you installed the product.

You will be one of the first suspected if any attempts are made to crack or
distribute cracked versions of our product.

Jonathan
Reply to this message...
 
    
Nak
Hi,

[Original message clipped]

It was a flippant remark which went with the rest of the post.

I have *never* decompiled anything, except been shocked by how well the
Reflector plugin can get my program back to source. That is all, I have no
desire for decompilation, if you cant take a tounge in cheek attitude
towards a tounge in cheek post then you need to lighten up a little!

[Original message clipped]

LOL, you obviously have *no* idea of the legal system to be making
statements like that. You could not prove either way from my post regarding
the matter. HAHAHA, I have *never* even downloaded your "aplette" so how
could I decompile it? or agree to an EULA? Get a life! I have reflector and
for the purposes I need it, it's the perfect program for me. So I suggest
you calm down and stop making statements that you obviously believe are so
true, that puts you in the same ball park as me in the legal system!

[Original message clipped]

Ever heard of scandalous remarks?

> Jonathan

A) Get a life
B) Get a life
C) Shut up!

Nick.
(And may I say this is totally without prejudice!)
Reply to this message...
 
    
Jonathan Pierce
Nak,

It's good to see that you have decided to not pursue further attempts to
decompile our products.

Your post do appear to contradict each other though, since you stated:

1. I have *never* even downloaded your "aplette" so how
could I decompile it? or agree to an EULA?

2. "By the way, the codes a bit dirty!" in the context of suggesting: "
should use a different decompiler to
> decompile your little aplette"

This is clearly a reference to our code and not your own code that you
looked at in Reflector. If you were commenting about dirty code that wasn't
ours, why did you include the statement in a post whose entire contents was
related to commenting about what you should do with our code. You further
confirm that you were referring to our code in this statement directly
responding to my inquiry about your implication: "I will call your
application an "aplette" until I am blue in the face"

Clearly, you made comments about "dirty code" in the context of referring to
decompiled source code from our product which you confirmed that you were
using the term "aplette" to refer to our application in the same post where
you made the comment that you should "decompile your little aplette" and
your statement about the code that you observed when you actually did
"decompile our little aplette" in order to assert "By the way, the codes a
bit dirty!". Not only did you admit that you did download and attempt to
decompile our product, but you then continued to make harmful and libelous
statements about our implementation "By the way, the codes a bit dirty!".in
a public forum that can clearly have a direct impact on our target market's
perception of our product, and subsequently directly damage us financially.

If you were not referring to our code when you claimed that you were, then
your are now admitting that your written posting in a public forum was
intentionally made with the intent of "actual malice" consistent with
Justice William Brennen's famous clarification on libel law as it relates to
statements made about public figures as it relates to first amendment rights
of free speech.

"A public official can win a libel lawsuit
under the First Amendment, wrote Brennan, only if he
or she can prove "actual malice" on the part of the
defendant, where proof of "actual malice" is defined
as proof that the statement was made with "knowledge
that it was false or with reckless disregard of
whether it was false or not."

You may want to consult your lawyer before continuing to further incriminate
yourself in public forums.

Jonathan

"Nak" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
James
That link appears to be dead.

"Vortex Soft" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:%23hF4z%Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Jonathan Pierce
"James" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:<ObcHj#Click here to reveal e-mail address>...
[Original message clipped]

If you are having problems accessing out site, please let me know. We
have been in business since 1999 and we have many customers who rely
on the commercial products that we offer. Please email me directly if
you have any more problems accessing our web site at
Click here to reveal e-mail address

Jonathan Pierce
President
Jungle Creatures, Inc.

http://www.junglecreatures.com/
Reply to this message...
 
    
Brian Henry
the really funny thing is the fact you are selling classes you stole from
code project and assembled them together to make this

"Vortex Soft" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:%23hF4z%Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Nak
LOL! Good work!

Nick.

"Brian Henry" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:OmkX%Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]
Reply to this message...
 
    
Jonathan Pierce
"Brian Henry" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:<OmkX#Click here to reveal e-mail address>...
[Original message clipped]

I don't have any idea what you are referring to here. I spent over 2
years writing Decompiler.NET entirely from scratch aside from the 3rd
party libraries that I credit in the about box including ILReader,
CommandBar, and Aqua Buttons. Our Whidbey implementation no longer
uses ILReader. I am also constantly adding new features and
enhancements. I have many very happy customers who appreciate the
higher level code and more accurate code that it generates over the
competitors offerings.

I posted the pdf article link directly for readers who don't subscribe
to the online edition of DNDJ. The feedback discussion thread was
published in the September issue and is also available on our web
site.

Jonathan
Reply to this message...
 
    
Jeff Johnson [MVP: VB] (VIP)
"Vortex Soft" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:%23hF4z%Click here to reveal e-mail address...

[Original message clipped]

Troll, troll, troll your boat....
Reply to this message...
 
    
James
"Jeff Johnson [MVP: VB]" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message
news:Click here to reveal e-mail address...
[Original message clipped]

gently down the data stream...
Reply to this message...
 
    
Brian Henry
another example of great programming *rolls eyes*... trying to exit this
piece of junk I get

See the end of this message for details on invoking
just-in-time (JIT) debugging instead of this dialog box.

************** Exception Text **************
System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an
object.
at aa6f.aa6g.abat(Object __0, EventArgs __1)
at System.Windows.Forms.Control.OnValidated(EventArgs e)
at System.Windows.Forms.Control.NotifyValidated()
at System.Windows.Forms.ContainerControl.ValidateThroughAncestor(Control
ancestorControl)
Reply to this message...
 
    
Frans Bouma [C# MVP] (VIP)
Vortex Soft wrote:

[Original message clipped]

    C# is not CLS compliant.

[Original message clipped]

    not necessarily. The point is that you can make totally not related methods
make overloads of the same method which you then call a0oO or whatever.
Whenever that happens, you are not able to reproduce the real method.

    If you for example make all your forms in a .exe internal and all methods of
these forms internal, you can practically mangle everything in the .exe to a
couple of overloaded methods.

        FB

--
Get LLBLGen Pro, productive O/R mapping for .NET: http://www.llblgen.com
My .NET Blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma
Microsoft C# MVP
Reply to this message...
 
 
System.DateTime
System.Enum
System.EventArgs
System.IComparable
System.NullReferenceException
System.Windows.Forms.ContainerControl
System.Windows.Forms.Control




ExamGuru IT Solutions - .Net Guru is owned and operated by ExamGuru, Inc., the man behind .Net Guru. If you're in the market for bespoke software or software consultancy, why not get him and his highly trained team to help? - www.examguru.net/ITCertification
Ad


Need Dot Net Interview Questions?
Ask ExamGuru, Inc. for advice and help on Passing .Net Interviews
.Net Projects
Best-of-breed application framework for .NET projects, developed by ExamGuru, Inc. and ExamGuru IT
Free .net Help
Commission ExamGuru, Inc. and his team for your next bespoke software project
FogBUGZ
The only bug tracking system carefully crafted with one goal in mind: helping teams create great software.
Awesome Tools
If you don't know about these, you're missing out... IT Certification Questions
IT Interview Questions
Free Oracle 10g Training
MCSE Boortcamp
Cisco Study Guides
Cheap Study Guides
Exact Questions
Dot Net Interview Questions
Oracle OCP
Cheap Travel
Designer Perfumes - Wholesale Prices
Free Programming Tutorials
 
ExamGuru IT Solutions - .Net Guru is owned and operated by ExamGuru, Inc., the man behind .Net Guru. If you're in the market for bespoke software or software consultancy, why not get him and his highly trained team to help? - www.examguru.net/ITCertification
 Copyright © ExamGuru, Inc. 2001-2006
Contact Us - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - www.dot-net-guru.com - www.examguru.net - www.oraclesource.net - www.itinterviews.net - www.examguru.net/ITCertification