undefined | Better HN

0 pointsv8dev1235y ago0 comments

In that sense Democracy is also a bug then. In some ways it's a feature. It's a feature because it makes harder for reverse engineers to know which compiler generated the code. When they figure out the compiler, they can reverse the compiler logic.

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

rcxdude5y ago· 1 in thread

This seems like a really odd reason to care about multiple implementations: firstly because it's a steam hammer to crack a walnut (there are much more effective and cheap ways to obfuscate code than just using a different compiler), and secondly because it's not very effective: compiler identification is fairly straightforward, both for experienced reverse engineers and the tools that they use.

v8dev123OP5y ago

Compiler identification is not fairly straightforward when you remove all metadata that gives you hints. It gets worse when you fake the metadata.

My opinion echoed by many top people in reverse engineering industry.

Modern C++ is obfuscated by default due to templates, inlined functions and of course OOP.

For example, Marcus Hutchins famously echoed Boost is a cluster fuck of sadness.

My point is not about obfuscation anyway but it does helps obfuscation to some extent. It's about reverse engineering the optimized code and recover the original non-optimized code which can have a lot of use-cases.

https://www.msreverseengineering.com had a course on this subject. Experienced ones can reverse everything but my point is that it increase the barrier.

ben0x5395y ago· 1 in thread

Making the job of those engineers harder doesn't sound like a feature.

v8dev123OP5y ago

I don't want people even competitors to steal my intellectual property so making job of those reverse engineers harder is a feature not a bug.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse