Develop Reference

Preventing .NET reverse engineering/decompilation

Is there any way to stop .NET Reflector working at a program?
For example: I am developing a program that has confidential data (like gMail address and password), and I don't want to someone can see them.
How can I do this?

There are various tools that promise this, via different techniques.
For example, many commercial obfuscators will, in addition to encrypting strings and obfuscating the source, also introduce things into the IL that allow the program to run but which break (most/all) of the current reverse engineering tools like .NET Reflector.
That being said, keeping this type of data within the application will never be safe. The best a tool can do is make it more difficult to get the information, but never make it impossible.
A tool which "masked" it and breaks obfuscation tools is still not perfect - with enough time and energy, somebody can get that information out of your program. If the information is available to the runtime, it's available to somebody with enough determination and drive to find it. As such, important, private information like passwords should not be kept in the executable.

Yes, search for '.NET obfuscator'. There are several tools available.
However, you should never embed your email username / password in the code. This is just wrong. Putting security aside, what would you do if you need to change your email password? Can you upgrade all the copies of your software out there?

Obfuscators tend to offer little in defense of data such as what you are keeping in your application. They are mainly meant to protect the code and logic from being reverse engineered, not literals. A better way would be to have your client application talk to a server-side app that feeds it the data it needs instead of having your client negotiating with the secure servers directly. With this way, you can set up secure method of encryption between your server and client application.

.NET obfuscation of a DLL: how can I protect my code?

I'm in the process of exploring a partnership with a small company. The company is looking for an algorithm that can improve their profits and I have some prototype software that can help them. The core of my software is very confidential and if the company gets a hold of it, then they will certainly not need me. I'm definitely going to sign a contract with them and I will have legal protection, but I still want to put as many protective layers between them and my "trade secret" as possible.
I might have to work close with their developers to automate my algorithm and integrate it in their system, but I want to offer the core functionality in a DLL so I can protect my "trade secret", yet still have the ability to work with their developers. Is obfuscation worth it given my situation? Are there other reasonable alternatives?

I don't know if this is an option for you, but you might consider providing the algorithm as a web service using WCF or Xml-rpc or REST or something.
With HTTPS, of course.
That way they can use the algorithm, but they can never get at your code.
Should work as long as the algorithm doesn't require too many round trips or huge amounts of data being transfered. Which is to say, as long as the algorithm doesn't need to be used in real time with a responsiveness of < 100ms or so.

Option 1: Dotfuscator or a similar product
http://www.preemptive.com/products/dotfuscator/overview
Option 2: Use C or C++ for the sections covered by trade secrets.

Obfuscation will give you more sense of IP protection. Check this free tool out, it may be a good starting point http://www.ntcore.com/phoenix.php
I think what will really protect your IP is contract and law. Make sure you have it clearly define at the start of the engagement and have an agreement draw up that will protect your interest.

How can I protect my .NET assemblies from decompilation?

One if the first things I learned when I started with C# was the most important one. You can decompile any .NET assembly with Reflector or other tools. Many developers are not aware of this fact and most of them are shocked when I show them their source code.
Protection against decompilation is still a difficult task. I am still looking for a fast, easy and secure way to do it. I don't want to obfuscate my code so my method names will be a,b,c or so. Reflector or other tools should be unable to recognize my application as .NET assembly at all. I know about some tools already but they are very expensive. Is there any other way to protect my applications?
EDIT:
The reason for my question is not to prevent piracy. I only want to stop competitors from reading my code. I know they will and they already did. They even told me so.
Maybe I am a bit paranoid but business rivals reading my code doesn't make me feel good.

One thing to keep in mind is that you want to do this in a way that makes business sense. To do that, you need to define your goals. So, exactly what are your goals?
Preventing piracy? That goal is not achievable. Even native code can be decompiled or cracked; the multitude of warez available online (even for products like Windows and Photoshop) is proof a determined hacker can always gain access.
If you can't prevent piracy, then how about merely reducing it? This, too, is misguided. It only takes one person cracking your code for it to be available to everyone. You have to be lucky every time. The pirates only have to be lucky once.
I put it to you the goal should be to maximize profits. You appear to believe that stopping piracy is necessary to this endeavor. It is not. Profit is simply revenue minus costs. Stopping piracy increases costs. It takes effort, which means adding cost somewhere in the process, and so reduces that side of the equation. Protecting your product also fails to increase your revenue. I know you look at all those pirates and see all the money you could make if only they would pay your license fees instead, but the reality is this will never happen. There is some hyperbole here, but it generally holds that pirates who are unable to crack your security will either find a similar product they can crack or do without. They will never buy it instead, and therefore they do not represent lost sales.
Additionally, securing your product actually reduces revenue. There are two reasons for this. One is the small percentage of customers who have trouble with your activation or security, and therefore decide not to buy again or ask for their money back. The other is the small percentage of people who actually try a pirated version of software to make sure it works before buying. Limiting the pirated distribution of your product (if you are somehow able to succeed at this) prevents these people from ever trying your product, and so they will never buy it. Moreover, piracy can also help your product spread to a wider audience, thus reaching more people who will be willing to pay for it.
A better strategy is to assume that your product will be pirated, and think about ways to take advantage of the situation. A couple more links on the topic:
How do i prevent my code from being stolen?
Securing a .NET Application

At work here we use Dotfuscator from PreEmptive Solutions.
Although it's impossible to protect .NET assemblies 100% Dotfuscator makes it hard enough I think.
I comes with a lot of obfuscation techniques;
Cross Assembly Renaming
Renaming Schemes
Renaming Prefix
Enhanced Overload Induction
Incremental Obfuscation
HTML Renaming Report
Control Flow
String Encryption
And it turned out that they're not very expensive for small companies. They have a special pricing for small companies.
(No I'm not working for PreEmptive ;-))
There are freeware alternatives of course;

Host your service in any cloud service provider.

How to preventing decompilation of any C# application
Pretty much describes the entire situation.
At some point the code will have to be translated to VM bytecode, and the user can get at it then.
Machine code isn't that much different either. A good interactive disassembler/debugger like IDA Pro makes just about any native application transparent. The debugger is smart enough to use AI to identify common APIs, compiler optimizations, etc. it allows the user to meticuloulsy rebuild higher level constructs from the assembly generated from machine code.
And IDA Pro supports .Net to some extent too.
Honestly, after working on an reverse engineering ( for compatibility ) project for a few years, the main thing I got out of my experience is that I probably shouldn't worry too much about people stealing my code. If anyone wants it, it will never be very hard to get it no matter what scheme I implement.

No obsfuscator can protect your application, not even any one described here. See this link, it's an deobsfuscator which can deobsfuscate almost every obsfuscator out there.
https://github.com/0xd4d/de4dot
The best way which can help you (but remember that they are also not full prof) is to use mixed codes, code your important codes in unmanaged language and make a DLL like in C or C++ and then protect them either with Armageddon or Themida.
Themida is not for every cracker, it's one of the best protector in the market, it can also protect your .NET software.

I know you don't want to obfuscate, but maybe you should check out dotfuscator, it will take your compiled assemblies and obfuscate them for you. I think it can even encrypt them.

I've heard about some projects that directly compile IL into native code.
You can get some additional info from this post:
Is it possible to compile .NET IL code to machine code?

We use SmartAssembly for .NET protection of an enterprise level distributed application, and it has worked great for us.

If you want to fully protect your app from decompilation, look at Aladdin's Hasp. You can wrap your assemblies in an encrypted shell that can only be accessed by your application. Of course one wonders how they're able to do this but it works. I don't know however if they protect your app from runtime attachment/reflection which is what Crack.NET is able to do.
-- Edit
Also be careful of compiling to native code as a solution...there are decompilers for native code as well.

Do you API?
Instead of trying to protect your one ddl file in one of your products on all of your customers devices, why not create an API service for your precious product features? Let the actual product that is saved on a device consume that API to deliver the product as you want it.
I Think this way you are 100% sure that your code is not decompiled and you set your own limits in your API so that developers / hackers don't consume your API in a way you don't want it.
Sure is some more work, but in the end, you are in control.

If someone has to steal your code, it likely means your business model is not working. What do I mean by that? For example, I buy your product and then I ask for support. You're too busy or believe my request is not valid and a waste of your time. I decode your product in order to support my relative business. Your product becomes more valuable to me and I prioritize my time in a way to resolve the business model for leveraging your product. I recode and re-brand your product and then go out and make the money that you decided to leave on the table. There are reasons for protecting code, but most likely you are looking at the problem from the wrong perspective. Of course you are. You're the "coder", and I'm the business man. ;-) Cheers!
ps. I'm also a developer. i.e. "coder"

I know this is old but, Themida is the most advanced anti-cracking software I've ever used.
It's not free, though.

Besides the third party products listed here, there is another one: NetLib Encryptionizer. However it works in a different way than the obfuscators. Obfuscators modify the assembly itself with a deobfuscation "engine" built into it. Encryptionizer encrypts the DLLs (Managed or Unmanaged) at the file level. So it does not modify the DLL except to encrypt it. The "engine" in this case is a kernel mode driver that sits between your application and the operating system. (Disclaimer: I am from NetLib Security)

Should you obfuscate a commercial .Net application?

I was thinking about obfuscating a commercial .Net application. But is it really worth the effort to select, buy and use such a tool? Are the obfuscated binaries really safe from reverse engineering?

You may not have to buy a tool - Visual Studio.NET comes with a community version of Dotfuscator. Other free obfuscation tools are listed here, and they may meet your needs.
It's possible that the obfuscated binaries aren't safe from reverse engineering, just like it's possible that your bike lock might be breakable/pickable. However, it's often the case that a small inconvenience is enough to deter would be code/bicycle thieves.
Also, if ever it comes time to assert your rights to a piece of code in court, having been seen to make an effort to protect it (by obfuscating it) may give you extra points. :-)
You do have to consider the downsides, though - it can be more difficult to use reflection with obfuscated code, and if you're using something like log4net to generate parts of log lines based on the name of the class involved, these messages can become much more difficult to interpret.

Remember that obfuscation is only a barrier to the casual examiner of your code. If someone is serious about figuring out what you wrote, you will have a very hard time stopping them.
If you have secrets in your code (like passwords), you're doing it wrong.
If you worried someone might produce your own software with your ideas, you'll have more luck in the marketplace by providing new versions that your customers want, with technical support, and by being a partner to them. Good business wins.

At our company we evaluated several different obfuscation technologies, but they all had problems. The biggest problem was that we rely a lot on reflection, e.g. to dynamically create grids based upon property names.
So all of the obfuscators rename things, you can disable it of course, but then you lose a lot of the benefit of obfuscation.
Also, in our code we have a lot of NUnit tests which rely on a lot more of the methods and properties being public, this prevented some of the obfuscators from being able to obfuscate those classes.
In the end we settled on a product called .NET Reactor
It works very well, and we don't have any of the problems associated with the other products.
"In contrast to obfuscators .NET Reactor completely stops any decompiling by mixing any pure .NET assembly (written in C#, VB.NET, Delphi.NET, J#, MSIL...) with native machine code. In detail, .NET Reactor builds a native wall between potential hackers and your .NET code. The result is a standard Windows based, not MSIL compatible, file. The original .NET code remains intact, well protected by native code and invisible for prying eyes. The original .NET code is not copied on harddisk at any time. There is no tool which is able to decompile .NET Reactor protected assemblies."

The fact that you actually can reverse engineer it does not make obfuscation useless. It does raise the bar significantly.
An unobfuscated .NET assembly will show you all the source, highlighted and all just by downloading the .NET Reflector. Add obfuscation to that and you'll reduce very significatively the amount of people who'll be able to modify the code.
It depends on you are you protecting yourself from. If you'll ship it unobfuscated, you might as well open source the application and benefit from marketing. Shipping it obfuscated will only allow people to relatively easily generate modified binaries through patches instead of being able to steal your code and create a direct competitor. Getting the actual source from obfuscated code is very hard, depending on the obfuscator, of course.

I think that it depends on the type of your product. If it is directed to be used by developers - obfuscation will hurt your customers. We've been using the ArcGIS products at work, and all the DLLs are obfuscated. It's making our job a lot harder, since we can't use Reflector to decipher weird behaviors. And we're buying customers who paid thousands of dollars for the product.
So please, don't obfuscate unless you really have to.

Things you should take into account:
Obfuscation does not protect your code or logic. It just makes it harder to read and understand.
Obfuscation does no one stop from reverse engineering. It just slows the process down.
Your intellectual property is protected by law in most countries. So if an competitor uses your code or specific implementation, you can sue him.
The one and only problem obfuscation can solve is that someone creates a 1:1 (or close to 1:1) copy of your specific implementation.
Also in an ideal world reverse engineering of an obfuscated application is economical unattractive.
But back to reality:
There exists no tool on this planet that stops someone from copying user interfaces, behaviors or results any application provide or produce. Obfuscation is in this situations 100% useless
The best obfuscator on the market cannot stop one from using some kind of disassembler or hex editor and for some geeks this is pretty good to look into the heart of an application. It's just harder than on an unobfuscated code.
So the reality is that you can make it harder and more time consuming to look into your application but you won't really get any reliable protection. Regardless if you use a free or an commercial product.
Advanced technologies like control flow obfuscation or code virtualization may help to make understanding of logic sometimes really hard but they can also cause a lot of funny and hard to debug or solve problems. So they are sometimes more like an additional problem than a solution.
From my point of view obfuscation is not worth the money some companies charge for their products. If you want to nag casual developers, open source obfuscators are good enough. If you want to make it as hard as possible to look into the heart of your applications, you need to use cryptographic containers with virtual execution environments and virtual filesystems but they also provide attack vectors and may also be a source for a bag full of problems.
Your intellectual property and your products are in most countries protected by law. So if there's one competitor analyzing and copying your code, you can sue him. If a bad guy or and hacker or cracker takes your application you are pranked - but an obfuscator does not make a difference.
So you should first think about your targets, your market and what you want to achieve with an obfuscator. As you can read here (and at other places) obfuscation does not really solve the problem of reverse engineering. It only makes it harder and more time consuming. But if this is what you want, you may have a look to open source obfuscators like e.g. sharpObfuscator or obfuscar which may be good enough to nag casual coders (a List can be found here: List of .NET Obfuscators on Wikipedia).
If it is possible in your scenario you might also be interested in SaaS-Concepts. This means that you provide access to your software but not the software itself. So the customer normally has no access to your assemblies. But depending on service level, security and user base it can be expensive, complex and difficult to realize a reliable, confident and performant SaaS-Service.

No, obfuscation has been proven that it does not prevent someone from being able to decipher the compiled code. It makes it more difficult to do so but not impossible.

I am very confortable reading x86 assembly code, what about people that is working with assembly for more than 20 years ?
You will always find someone that only need a minute to see what your c# or c code is doing...

Just a note to anyone else reading this years later - I just skimmed through the Dotfuscator Community Edition (that comes with VS2008) license a few hours ago, and I believe that you cannot use this version to distribute a commercial product, or to obfuscate code from a project that involves any developers other than yourself. So for commercial app developers, it's really just a trial version.

...snip...
these messages can become much more
difficult to interpret
Yes, but the free community edition that comes with Visual Studio has a map functionality.
With that you can back track the obfuscated method names to the original names.

I've had success putting the output from one free obfuscator into a different obfuscator. In Dotfuscator CE, only some of the obfuscation tricks are included, so using a second obfuscator that has different tricks makes it more obfuscated.

It's quite simple to reverse engineer a .net app using .net reflector - since the app will generate VB, VC and C# code straight from the MSIL, and it's possible to pull out all kinds of useful gems.
Code obfuscators hide code quite well from most reverse engineering hacks, and would be a good idea to use on proprietary and competitive code that adds value to your app.
There's a pretty good article on obfuscation and it's workings here

This post and the surrounding question have some discussion which might be of value. It isn't a yes-or-no issue.

Yes you definitely should. Not to protect it from a determined person, but to get some profit and have customers. By the way, if you reach a point here someone tries to crack your software, that means you sell a popular software.
The problem is what tool to choose for the job. Check out my experience with commercial obfuscators: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/337134/what-is-the-best-net-obfuscator-on-the-market/2356575#2356575

Yes, we do. We use BitHelmet obfuscator. It's new, but it works really well.

But is it really worth the effort to select, buy and use such a tool?
I found Eazfuscator cheap (free), and easy to use: took about a day.
I already had extensive automated tests (good coverage), so I reckon I could find any bugs that are/were introduced by obfuscation.

Java and C# interoperability

I have two programs. One is in C# and another one in Java.
Those programs will, most probably, always run on the same machine.
What would be the best way to let them talk to each other?
So, to clarify the problem:
This is a personal project (so professional/costly libraries are a no go).
The message volume is low, there will be about 1 to 2 messages per second.
The messages are small, a few primitive types should do the trick.
I would like to keep the complexity low.
The java application is deployed as a single jar as a plugin for another application. So the less external libraries I have to merge, the better.
I have total control over the C# application.
As said earlier, both application have to run on the same computer.
Right now, my solution would be to use sockets with some sort of csv-like format.

I am author of jni4net, open source interprocess bridge between JVM and CLR. It's build on top of JNI and PInvoke. No C/C++ code needed. I hope it will help you.

Kyle has the right approach in asking about the interaction. There is no "correct" answer without knowing what the usage patterns are likely to be.
Any architectural decision -- especially at this level -- is a trade-off.
You must ask yourself:
What kind of messages need to be passed between the systems?
What types of data need to be shared?
Is there an important requirement to support complex model objects or will primitives + arrays do?
what is the volume of the data?
How frequently will the interactions occur?
What is the acceptable communication latency?
Until you have an understanding of the answers, or potential answers, to those questions, it will be difficult to choose an implementation architecture. Once we know which factors are important, it will be far easier to choose the more suitable implementation candidates that reflect the requirements of the running system.

I've heard good things about IKVM, the JVM that's made with .NET.

Ice from ZeroC is a really high performance "enterprisey" interop layer that supports Java and .net amongst others. I think of it as an updated Corba - it even has its own object oriented interface definition language called Slice (like Corba's IDL, but actually quite readable).
The feature set is extensive, with far more on offer than web services, but clearly it isn't an open standard, so not a decision to make lightly. The generated code it spits out is somewhat ugly too...

I realize you're talking about programs on the same machine, but I've always liked the idea of passing messages in XML over HTTP.
Your server could be a web server that's ready to accept an XML payload. Your client can send HTTP messages with XML in the body, and receive an HTTP response with XML in it.
One reason I like this is that HTTP is such a widely used protocol that it's easy to accept or create HTTP POST or GET requests in any language (in the event that you decide to change either the client or server language in the future). HTTP and XML have been around for a while, so I think they're here to stay.
Another reason I like it is that your server could be used by other clients, too, as long as they know HTTP and XML.

I used JNBridge (http://www.jnbridge.com/jnbpro.htm) on a relatively simple project where we had a .NET client app using a relatively significant jar file full of business object logic that we didn't want to port. It worked quite nicely, but I wouldn't say we fully exercised the capabilities of JNBridge.

I am a big fan of Thrift an interoperability stack from Facebook. You said they code will probably run on the same machine so it could be overkill but you can still use it.

If they are separate programs and running as independent applications,you may use sockets. I know it's bit complex to define communication protocol but it'll be quite straight-forward.
However if you have just two separate programs but want to run them as single application, then I guess IKVM is a better approach as suggested by marxidad.

It appears a very similar question has been asked before here on stack overflow (I was searching Google for java windows shared memory):
Efficient data transfer from Java to C++ on windows
From the answer I would suggest you to investigate:
"Your fastest solution will be memory
mapping a shared segment of memory,
and them implementing a ring-buffer or
other message passing mechanism. In
C++ this is straight forward, and in
Java you have the FileChannel.map
method which makes it possible."