free usable .Net Obfuscator

[Michael87]

When it comes to free .net obfuscators, there are a lot of crappy tools out there. After a longer research (~1h) I finally found something good & totally free:

eazfuscator
http://www.foss.kharkov.ua/g1/projec...t/Default.aspx

i guess it's anti-reversing strategies are not that good (i don't know any obfuscator for .Net which is good at that) - BUT - it completely wipes out plain strings like Class-/Function-/etc -names in your .exe file (many free ones even fail at this one)

This was perfectly what I've searched, cause I wanted to hide a public c# lib I'm using in my .exe to avoid anti-cheat detection.

So, maybe you can profit, too ^^

[c|p]

Well, this is obviously Java related, but some of the information here may still apply:
http://www.sable.mcgill.ca/JBCO/examples.html

I don't know much about the CLR, so I can't say if it will be lenient enough for some of the examples. Also, the CLR definitely does not have instructions Java does, and vice-versa. So, you might be able to find more instructions/patterns you can manipulate.

[XTZGZoReX]

So I'm assuming this breaks reflection?

[Xeno123]

It makes it harder to understand reflected code.

[Guy]

I've used it, but it doesn't work with mixed managed and unmanaged code -- lame!

Otherwise, from my own use on purely managed executables using CLR, it gets the job done.

[XTZGZoReX]

Kinda sucks, given that I *do* use unmanaged code (P/Invoke, mostly).

[ThaNatoS]

Hence the fucking .NET in the thread title.

[ozzeh]

Hence the fucking .NET in the thread title.

I'm sorry, but it seems that I am failing to understand the point of your post. Are you insinuating that to be called .NET it needs to be purely managed code? You do realize that doing almost anything memory/interprocess related requires the use of pinvoke?

[Guy]

I'm sorry, but it seems that I am failing to understand the point of your post. Are you insinuating that to be called .NET it needs to be purely managed code? You do realize that doing almost anything memory/interprocess related requires the use of pinvoke?

This - that was our entire point.

[XTZGZoReX]

.NET isn't limited to managed code, obviously. Why would there be System.Runtime.InteropServices.DllImportAttribute then?

[super_]

.NET isn't limited to managed code, obviously. Why would there be System.Runtime.InteropServices.DllImportAttribute then?

for .net to interface with unmanaged code? that's like saying java isn't limited to bytecode because of jni.

[XTZGZoReX]

Er... No?

The JNI requires that you declare your native methods specifically for use with Java, while .NET lets you run any method in an unmanaged module. The JNI is more of a "language extension" than a "feature" so-to-speak.

I don'r see why you're even comparing them.