Ilan Finci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > on 11/13/2003 05:07 PM Matan Ziv-Av said the following: > > On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Ilan Finci wrote: > > > > >> The company I work with is creating executable code we give to > >> potential clients to test. > > >> > >> The code comes as either an executable or a shared library (with a > >> given API the client use to connect it to his application). > > >> > >> Is there a way to protect such executable/library, so it will be > >> hard to do reverse engineering and find out what the algorithms we > >> use? Of course, we protect ourself with patents, but we would like > >> something in the level of protecting the code itself. > > > This is off topic, as has already been said, but I must add that if > > the company tries to hide a patented algorithm, the best thing to do > > is to dissolve the company immediately. > > > > > Sorry if you see it off topic, I thought that's this list is also the > extend the use of linux in israel, not only about open source. My > question was intended to find out if there is a way to do something in > linux before my managers force us to switch to windows where they know > about things to do what I've asked about.
I don't see a connection, Ilan. My understanding is that you intend to deliver and executable and some shared libs in binary form to a potential client. There is nothing Linux-specific in this. You are apparently concerned that the client will be able to decompile or otherwise to reverse engineer the binaries and thus decypher your proprietary algorithms. This danger exists on any platform you choose - there is nothing specifically Linux- or Open-Source-related here (you won't open the sources, I gather, which is just fine with me - it's your choice as long as you don't violate any 3rd party licenses). So the posting does seem off-topic. If your managers think that on Windows things are somehow different, they probably don't know what they are talking about. Quit before the company goes under. Having said that, this list can be viewed as a very useful source of technical tips and ideas in general, and has been occasionally used as such. One condition for that that has been maintained consistently in the past is that you should do your homework before asking. The proper way to ask a question like yours is something like, "We intend to deliver an application in binary form, we have such and such concerns for such and such reasons, we would like to take additional steps against de-compilation / reverse engineering, we have explored methods A, B, C, and D, this is what we currently think of them, does anyone here have experience with and/or opinions on any of these or other methods?" Also, consider asking this on hackers-il (NB: NOT crackers-il), it will be much more appropriate there, and many of the linux-il crowd lurk on that list as well. Note that a valid answer to a question posed as described above will consist of arguments against your reasons to obfuscate your code beyond straightforward compilation. IANAP(atent)L, but I am generally of an opinion that algorithms should not be patentable, and even if they are, I don't see what the point of obfuscating an implementation is if - as I presume - the algorithm has to be disclosed in the patent application? I can understand that there are finer points in the implementation that are not a part of the patent disclosure. I seriously doubt that in any realistic setting those finer points will warrant the extra expense and effort needed to obfuscate your code beyond the compiler output. -- Oleg Goldshmidt | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
