> I want to sign the jar files at build-time and later verify them at run-time
> to ensure they haven't been altered. I want to do the verification as part
> of the launcher written in C because somebody could still modify the jar
> files and either leave them unsigned or resign them with his own self-signed
> certificate.
I don't follow why you want to do this. If the jar files can be altered,
why not C object code also? If the jar files are obtained from somewhere
else, why not have a local jar that does the signature verification?
Tom Hawtin
Paul J. Lucas - 12 Jan 2007 00:07 GMT
> > I want to sign the jar files at build-time and later verify them at run-time
> > to ensure they haven't been altered. I want to do the verification as part
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> I don't follow why you want to do this. If the jar files can be altered,
> why not C object code also?
It's much easier to obfuscate the object code produced by a C compiler than
it is to obfuscate the Java code.
- Paul
Tom Hawtin - 12 Jan 2007 13:12 GMT
>>> I want to sign the jar files at build-time and later verify them at run-time
>>> to ensure they haven't been altered. I want to do the verification as part
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> It's much easier to obfuscate the object code produced by a C compiler than
> it is to obfuscate the Java code.
So I just modify rt.jar to intercept classes as they are loaded. Your
system cracked in a tiny fraction of the time it took to write it.
Tom Hawtin
Paul J. Lucas - 14 Jan 2007 22:25 GMT
> > It's much easier to obfuscate the object code produced by a C compiler than
> > it is to obfuscate the Java code.
>
> So I just modify rt.jar to intercept classes as they are loaded. Your
> system cracked in a tiny fraction of the time it took to write it.
I don't see how altering rt.jar helps you. The C launcher checks that the
application's jars haven't been altered even before a JVM is constructed.
- Paul
Tom Hawtin - 14 Jan 2007 22:40 GMT
> I don't see how altering rt.jar helps you. The C launcher checks that the
> application's jars haven't been altered even before a JVM is constructed.
So a malicious cracker is free to inspect and doctor them after that...
Tom Hawtin
Paul J. Lucas - 15 Jan 2007 23:15 GMT
> > I don't see how altering rt.jar helps you. The C launcher checks that the
> > application's jars haven't been altered even before a JVM is constructed.
>
> So a malicious cracker is free to inspect and doctor them after that...
While the application is running?
- Paul