If competition requires improvements and evolution, perhaps obfuscation is sufficient for programs that are already complicated pre-obfuscation.
Remux vs obfucate code#
This does exactly the same thing while cutting the file size in half (97 bytes to 50). Safety from unauthorized use of a 'cracked' copy is not the same as safety from reverse engineering to extract code for a competitive product. I could "minify" this by hand, just by removing anything that's unnecessary - blank lines, comments, long variable names, etc. Let's just consider JavaScript, though these concepts could apply to any language.
Remux vs obfucate download#
Minifying your code means reducing its size to make it faster - download faster, parse faster, maybe even run faster. Keep in mind though that it mostly comes down to intent - one is for the user's benefit the other is for the developer's. This is because re-encoding involves compressing and decompressing the video and audio streams which takes longer to process than just changing the container format. There's a few different concepts packed in there, so let's break it down. Faster Processing Time Remuxing is generally a faster process than re-encoding because it only involves changing the container format. Techniques used here include reducing the length of variable and function names or removing whitespaces, comments and other redundant syntax elements." With minification, the intent is to reduce the file size of the code. "Not all code that is difficult to read is obfuscated, and we specifically allow minified code to be submitted along with. A commonly used tool is JavaScript Obfuscator, and there are a number of other tools that can conceal code functionality." "Code is considered obfuscated if the logic and meaning is transformed in a way intended to make it difficult for a human to understand or reverse-engineer. Extensions using obfuscated code are in violation of our Add-on Policy and are subject to being blocked." This is good news for anyone who uses browser extensions in Firefox, since such code is (intentionally) nearly impossible to understand, and could easily (but not necessarily, as I'll explain later) be malicious.įrom their source code submission guidelines: "Extensions using obfuscated code are not permitted, regardless of whether they are hosted on (AMO) or not. 1 0 3.2 Rust llvm-string-obfuscator VS detour-sys Obfuscate-759 2.4 C++ llvm-string-obfuscator VS Obfuscate Guaranteed compile-time string literal obfuscation header-only library for C++14.
Mozilla recently announced that they'll no longer accept extensions with obfuscated code. 1,183 0.0 C++ llvm-string-obfuscator VS lazyimporter library for importing functions from dlls in a hidden, reverse engineer unfriendly way.
0 kommentar(er)
