Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncementsWhite Papers
Discussion GroupsFirst AidDatabasesJavaBeansGUIJava 3DVirtual MachineCORBASecurityToolsGeneral
Java DirectoryOpen Source ProjectsSample Book ChaptersUser GroupsWeb Resources
Related Topics
Databases.NETMore Topics ...

Java Forum / General / December 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Proprietary codes protection in Java

Thread view: 
howa - 02 Dec 2006 17:01 GMT
since the java byte code can be de-compiled, and even the code was
obfuscated, it was lacking a sense of complete protection...

do you think that puting the core module as binary form, and java
front-end execute them via JNI is a good solution?
Arne Vajhøj - 02 Dec 2006 19:24 GMT
> since the java byte code can be de-compiled, and even the code was
> obfuscated, it was lacking a sense of complete protection...
>
> do you think that puting the core module as binary form, and java
> front-end execute them via JNI is a good solution?

Only for very special algorithm protection.

Not as general source code protection.

Arne
Simon Brooke - 02 Dec 2006 22:55 GMT
> since the java byte code can be de-compiled, and even the code was
> obfuscated, it was lacking a sense of complete protection...

What does it matter? Do you think your code is so clever that a reasonably
competent person could not reverse engineer it?

Any program, compiled into object code for any processor, can be decompiled
into something a competent person can usefully understand. Yes, Java is a
bit easier than some. But when you want to reverse engineer something you
don't usually start by decompiling it anyway; you usually treat it as a
black box and look at its inputs and outputs.

There's nothing you can write which is so clever that it needs special
protection.

> do you think that puting the core module as binary form, and java
> front-end execute them via JNI is a good solution?

No, I think it's puerile and stupid.

Signature

simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

                                       ;; part time troll.

Chris Uppal - 03 Dec 2006 16:28 GMT
> since the java byte code can be de-compiled, and even the code was
> obfuscated, it was lacking a sense of complete protection...
>
> do you think that puting the core module as binary form, and java
> front-end execute them via JNI is a good solution?

I wouldn't say so myself.  Not unless there is some other benefit from writing
the core in a different language.  (For instance, you may need a more
expressive language than Java, or you might need a class of optimisations that
aren't available in Java, or need OS-specific code, or you may want to package
and sell your code as ActiveX components as well as Java components).

Perhaps compiling and delivering with Excelsior JET would fit your
requirements.

   -- chris


Free Magazines

Get these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...

Oracle MagazineNetwork ComputingComputer WorldBio-IT WorldeWeekInformation WeekInfosecurity
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.