[VB].Net or VB, which has less chance of being decompiled?

Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Joe Black replied

26 September 2006, 18:04
Seconded.

Been looking at this for a few years now and the only option I've ever seen suggested which might provide the same protection is the Remotesoft Salamander native code thing.

Unfortunately there's no trial, and the up-front cost is circa $1200.

Anyone here actually used this and can comment?
Leave a comment:
MarillionFan replied

26 September 2006, 09:04
Which is what I thought.
Leave a comment:
DimPrawn replied

26 September 2006, 08:28
You cannot decode VB6 compiled to native code easily. If it is compiled to p-code it is much easier.

Anyone who says they can recover the source (in anything approaching the original) of a compiled (to native) VB6 program is talking bollox.
Leave a comment:
MarillionFan replied

26 September 2006, 08:17
I always thought you couldnt decode very easily. Couple of good links to prove me wrong please (for VB that is)
Leave a comment:
TheMonkey replied

25 September 2006, 22:58
Originally posted by thunderlizard

VB6 I'd have thought. Any dotnetter worthy of the name will be able to read IL, then simultaneously translate it into VB with his left hand and C# with his right.

Or just download reflector to do it for you ....
Leave a comment:
thunderlizard replied

25 September 2006, 21:53
VB6 I'd have thought. Any dotnetter worthy of the name will be able to read IL, then simultaneously translate it into VB with his left hand and C# with his right.
Leave a comment:
TheMonkey replied

25 September 2006, 20:57
Google google google....

http://upx.sourceforge.net/
Leave a comment:
DimPrawn replied

25 September 2006, 20:40
No, because I have no idea what you are talking about.
Leave a comment:
TheMonkey replied

25 September 2006, 20:35
I always wondered if you could pack an EXE in MSIL using UPX. Anyone tried that?
Leave a comment:
DimPrawn replied

25 September 2006, 20:24
VB6 compiled to native code is far harder to decompile than VB.NET (or any .NET language)

Obfuscation of VB.NET assemblies can help. Please see http://www.howtoselectguides.com/dotnet/obfuscators/ and choose a good one.

A VB6 exe/dll compiled to native code is still at least 10x harder to decompile than even the most obfuscated .NET assembly.

Last edited by DimPrawn; 25 September 2006, 20:28.
Leave a comment:
mcquiggd replied

25 September 2006, 20:23
Depends who wrote it. If it was offshored, you could have the source and still not make any sense of it.
Leave a comment:
Joe Black started a topic [VB].Net or VB, which has less chance of being decompiled?

25 September 2006, 19:04
[VB].Net or VB, which has less chance of being decompiled?

The question says it all...
Tags: None