Related
I am using tortoise SVN with Ankh. I really have spent too much time tweaking and cleaning mess from time to time and I lost hope in educating each every developer on how to use things properly. I am sorry but I am fed up and tired restoring the repository/reverting/fixing merges manually, sometimes even having to write some code again.
So here's my question : Is there a chimpanzee-friendly solution for source control privileging Simplicity over Flexibility ? Projects and teams are small and I figured out that we just need VERY simple and basic chekout/checkin mechanisms, with no flourish, and limited functionality and features. That would help me stop being paranoid about projects integrity.
I know that there is no easy way to do this and there is minimum techinicity and discipline required, but I ended up wondering if we Really needed all that in our case, as in the long run, it causes more trouble than it helps.
Your problem sounds like it has more to do with process and branching strategies than anything else.
If your developers know to always get the latest code before checking in and resolving conflicts locally, running all tests etc, you will already have a leg up.
Educate your developers instead of trying to use a dumbed down SCM (that in the future will probably not be adequate to your needs).
As for branching strategy - I had found that branch per feature is the most natural way to work and mostly avoids merge conflicts.
Changing SCMs will not help with your issues if you don't tackle process and branching.
First, I would suggest that you force developers to clean up their own messes, not do it for them. By doing it for them, you are only encouraging them to stay ignorant. By all mean, be a resource and provide help for them, but make them do it themselves. They will quickly learn what they have to.
Second, there are few options that have the kind of integration with VS that most developers would like. SVN is one of them. Team System is another (but a much more expensive and complciated solution). Visual Source Safe is also an option, but it's really an old, out of date system that hasn't been updated since 2005 (and even that, that was largely a patch job to a system that hadn't been updated in 7 years before it).
If you want free, there is nothing worth using that is simpler than Subversion. Everything else will be ancient technology (like CVS) that will have even more problems. There are several free SCM's that are more powerful, like git and Mercurial, but you would have even more problems. If you're willing to pay, then many third party tools have better merge and visualization tools. One I like is AccuRev.
There are also some better commercial SVN plug-ins for visual studio that may help as well. I've not used any of them, but they may improve the developers use of SVN.
Try the combination of Mercurial and Tortoisehg as GUI.
You can also use it from Visual Studio with VisualHG.
Every developer is free to clone and manage her own repository.
Once you reach an agreement you can push up to a colleague's repository or a central location.
To aid with adoption, you might convince others to watch the DVCS video on the FogCreek Kiln page.
See what-makes-merging-in-dvcs-easy and similar SO discussions regarding the relative ease of merging.
I would say that every developer that works in a team should have a strong understanding of source control principles. Maybe you should get better developers! :-)
To answer your question I have always found Team System wonderful and very flexible. With such good IDE integration, it can be configured to ensure best practice in source control. However, it is quite a big source control system so may be over the top for your purposes.
I believe the issues is more of process than product.
Strict written documentation and process might work
Keep it as simple as possible.
You might make adherence to the process a contractual obligation.
That said I have had very good luck with Visual SVN for Visual Studio.
It is easy to use and integrates well.
If that is too hard, might revert to TortoiseSVN which is pretty idiot proof.
As for an alternate super simple product I know not of such a product, but
if you really need something lightweight, then datestamped and named zip
files is a the poor and ignorants form of source control. Merging and
restoring is a bitch though.
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)
We have an in house winform application that is used by about 20 users in my company. It's a real pain having to send the users a new msi when the application has changed in scope and I would like to have the users prompted from the application as to whether they would like to update their copy. My thoughts are that the source of the application would be on our company server and that the application would look to a database to see if updates area available. Aside from that I don't know where to go from there. Has any one done anything similar to this or does any one have any recommendations on how I should implement this.
Here's an open-source solution I wrote to address specific needs we had for WinForms and WPF apps. The general idea is to have the greatest flexibility, at the lowest overhead possible.
So, integration is super-easy, and the library does pretty much everything for you, including synchronizing operations. It is also highly flexible, and lets you determine what tasks to execute and on what conditions - you make the rules (or use some that are there already). Last by not least is the support for any updates source (web, BitTorrent, etc) and any feed format - whatever is not implemented you can just write for yourself.
Cold updates (requiring an application restart) is also supported, and done automatically unless "hot-swap" is specified for the task.
This boild down to one DLL, less than 70kb in size.
More details at http://www.code972.com/blog/2010/08/nappupdate-application-auto-update-framework-for-dotnet/
Code is at http://github.com/synhershko/NAppUpdate (Licensed under the Apache 2.0 license)
ClickOnce.
If it's a fairly simple program (not many dependencies) consider keeping the program on a network share have have users run from there.
The most popular solutions with graphical update prompts are AutoUpdater.NET and WinSparkle. For a more powerful solution, take a look at Google Omaha.
Squirrel is definitely worth a look
It seems like there are an inordinate number of really intelligent people here, so I thought it was the best place to ask a couple involved questions (shameless flattery). Your feedback on any item would be so appreciated.
I am about to develop a very large web based operations, inventory, sales management system. I had intended on C#/MsSql/Reporting, but am now leaning towards Php/MySql.
Multiple facility support. I
would love to have it all run from a
single place, but I need for each
facility to be able to run
autonomously from each other in case
of internet connectivity loss.
Servers could reside in each
facility and replicate to a central
one. MS Replication will hang the
DB for large databases. MS
recommendation to restructure the
database into smaller
segments…thanks. MySql seems to
have very solid replicability
features. Thoughts on this issue?
Distribution: Eventually this could be marketable
to other companies in the industry.
Using the method above I would have
to distribute the system to my
server in the customer’s facility.
With C# I can distribute compiled
code. With PHP any intellectual
property is vulnerable.
Reporting. Will I be able to print labels and
really specifically configured
reports with PHP? Pdf export is a must. MsSql has the
reporting service, but it has issues
with PDF font embedment, the
flexibility is very time consuming
and I am thinking that building it
all by hand might be faster. MS
print control also seems problematic.
Cost. Load would probably not ever exceed 100
simultaneous hits. Full Ms server
licensing is cost prohibitive.
Would sql express support this load?
MySql cost structure is very
appealing.
Thanks in advance for your insight. Sorry for the book.
As with most software, the biggest cost factor is almost certain to be developer time.
That in mind, you should go with whatever your team can get up and running in the fastest. Both of the stacks you are suggesting can get the job done.
(although I'm sure someone will be along in a minute to slate PHP and suggest you use C#/the MS Stack)
To answer the other points from a PHP perspective, which is what I know best:
Replication in mysql will do what you want, but make sure you set up something to let you know if there are problems.
You can use Zend_Guard to compile PHP, it costs though. PHP 5.3 is due for release soon and includes Phar archives - a shameless copy of java's jar archives so that you can distribute an app as a single file.
PHP can do PDF via fPDF. Never used the MS options, so not sure how it compares here.
I think sql server express could do that load, and mysql could too.
Adding point 2 with point 4 if you're intending to sell, you should think that, although in your company it won't exceed 100 simultaneous hits, in the companies your going to sell to it can exceed 10000 hits. So you should think about scalability now
As it is an application with massive size for what you say, you should expect in the future to have someone wanting to communicate with it, excluding php, for jsp or c# so you can make web services if needed.
PHP won't also allow so much distribution as C# or JSP.
3 - Reporting You can do that with any of those languages.
I think in the end is pretty much up to what you know to handle better. I would go for a language i already know instead of hitting a new one. That way you'll minimize deployment time, which is probably very important also.
For database i think you can get mysql or posgresql as they are both free, and will lower your costs.
Hope it helps :)
"I am about to develop a very large web based operations, inventory, sales management system." - this is a very ambitious undertaking. Are you doing this for fun, education, or profit? Do you intend to sell or open source this?
You realize, of course, that there are a lot of alternatives already in the marketplace. What advantage will yours have over the others?
Sounds like a classic buy versus build choice. Have you considered the buy before building?
It sounds like you prefer C# and MySQL. MySQL has several articles on using .NET with MySQL and the Connector/NET driver.
Unfortunately, I know very little about reporting with MySQL.
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.