Re: Does Microsoft want to join Open Source Group?

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance

From: Neo (neo_temp_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 06/16/04 

Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 17:24:55 -0700

Yes,I am wrong about Microsoft. Microsoft doesn't want to join Open Source
Group.
It lets us join that group. The code of disassembled IL are almost the same
as source code.

The obfuscator with VS2003 alwasys tells me "why only go halfway to protect
your applicaion.Really protect it ,and even improve it! Upgrate to the
professional Edition." every time I start it. So do you still believe that
the obfuscator with VS2003 can "really" protect our application?

The MS .NET framework classes are *not* obfuscated or protected either. Is
there a company that can copy MS or .NET framework classes to a new one? I
think SUN won't copy MS or disassemble .NET framework classes for Java.

Since Java has exactly the same issue, so is it inevitable for .net?

I would appreciate MS if it could provide an option to protect our
application more than halfway.

"Rob Teixeira [MVP]" <RobTeixeira@@msn.com> > Wrong.
> Wrong.
> Wrong.
>
> MS does ship an obfuscator with VS2003.
> MS isn't the only one, Java has exactly the same issue with decompilation
of
> bytecode. Almost all other interpreted languages are the same (not to
imply
> that IL itself is interpreted).
> The MS .NET framework classes are *not* obfuscated or protected either.
>
> Additionally, just because some code (doesn't matter who makes it) is
native
> instructions instead of IL, doesn't mean it's protected. Native code *can*
> be decompiled too.
>
> Finally, I fail to see how this has anything to do with Open Source.
>
> -Rob Teixeira [MVP]
>
> "Neo" <neo_temp@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uRU4G4xUEHA.3200@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > If not, why 100% IL can be disassembled to 90% readable code?
> > There are so many obfuscation tools in the market ,why doesn't MS make
one
> > himself and let us buy one?
> > Microsoft protected its source code well,and ignore others?
> >
> > It's some kind of funny.
> >
> >
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How to protect my source code from reverse engineering
    ... You protect it the same way every other company, including Microsoft, ... Bottom line is that reverse engineering ... If your definition of "open source" is simply that any code that can be ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: Check that out: THe Bottom Line: Software and copyright
    ... Undisclosed source code did NOT originate with Microsoft. ... to get Adobe Photoshop to work on Linux. ... Open source can be a misnomer, but in general, open source is a product of ... SCO can't be sold short ... ...
    (linux.redhat.misc)
  • Re: Check that out: THe Bottom Line: Software and copyright
    ... Undisclosed source code did NOT originate with Microsoft. ... to get Adobe Photoshop to work on Linux. ... Open source can be a misnomer, but in general, open source is a product of ... SCO can't be sold short ... ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Check that out: THe Bottom Line: Software and copyright
    ... quasi-monopoly enjoyed by Microsoft, Oracle, and Sun is highly ... the long run even more dangerous, threat to proprietary software: the "open source" ... this way, such as the operating system Linux, which might better be called "mixed ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: [Full-Disclosure] MS Anti Virus?
    ... customers about security, ... protect our customers'. ... seemingly relieve Microsoft of any such responsibility, ... means their network connection gets hosed or their OS is rendered ...
    (Full-Disclosure)