Browse thread
Reverse-Engineering Bytecode: A Possible Commercial Objection To O'Caml
[
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: | Markus Mottl <mottl@m...> |
| 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 fear that there is probably no way to prevent this: as soon as you have a virtual machine that can (somehow) decode the byte code - it has to if it wants to execute anything useful - you know the internal structure of the code. Since all the sources of INRIA are open (i.e. also the protocols), everybody could "fake" a virtual machine that, instead of just executing the code, emits the decoded byte code. That's also the reason why you can (in theory) always break any kind of copy protection: as soon as a program runs on your machine, you can track any information about it you want. That may be lots of work (admittedly less work for byte code) - but it can be done. Regards, Markus Mottl -- Markus Mottl, mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at, http://miss.wu-wien.ac.at/~mottl