Browse thread
Re: Reverse-Engineering Bytecode: A Possible Commercial Objection To O'Caml
- Michael Donat
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Michael Donat <donat@i...> |
| Subject: | Re: Reverse-Engineering Bytecode: A Possible Commercial Objection To O'Caml |
>How can companies protect their bytecode, at least their modules, from reverse >engineering? I believe that if someone has the desire to reverse engineer OCaml bytecode someone will also have these other capabilities: 1) Be able to reverse engineer native code. 2) Be able to run the OCaml bytecode system in a debugger, stop after your bytecode was decrypted, and reverse engineer it from there. I don't see a benefit in having an OCaml module encryption system. If you want to encrypt important portions of your app, you might consider producing your own bytecode system. The main benefit of this approach is that your bytecode is private, thus dramatically intensifying the effort required to reverse engineer. I think this would be a much more effective use of time than implementing an OCaml module encryption system. Michael Donat