• More of my philosophy about copyrights and about patents and about ,rev

    From World-News2100@21:1/5 to All on Fri Mar 25 19:35:51 2022
    Hello,



    More of my philosophy about copyrights and about patents and about
    reverse engineering and more..

    I am a white arab from Morocco, and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..


    I am really smart, and i will talk more about reverse engineering, so i
    think that the creative ways to break disassemblers or debuggers or by
    using source code Obfuscation are not so efficient against reverse
    engineering, so i will give you my smart way of doing it, first as i
    have just told you, that you have to protect your value-added of your
    code that you want to sell by for example using more difficult or
    difficult algorithms in a smart way that are more difficult or difficult
    to understand with assembler code from machine code, and after that you
    have to use copyright in a smart way, for example i will use like the
    following service from a company in Canada that provides a copyright
    filled and certified by a public notary that is valid for 172 countries,
    you can read about it here:

    http://en.scopyright.ca/

    But you have to be smart, since the "patent" that protect algorithm is
    not valid in so many countries such as India etc., so the best way is to
    use a copyright as i am doing it, so that this kind of copyright allows
    you to fill a lawsuit against binary code that is stolen from you by
    asking the one that has stolen from you to show his source code in
    a legal lawsuit.

    Read my previous thoughts:

    I think i am really smart, and i think that the problem with reverse engineering of binary software programs or dynamic or shared libraries
    is that even if you use artificial intelligence or sophisticated tools
    of reverse engineering, the main hard problem for reverse engineering is
    how to understand the "meaning" of the algorithm, since if the
    algorithms is difficult , it can be so difficult to understand it with assembler code, this is the main big weakness of reverse engineering,
    but of course with reverse engineering you can obtain the assembler from
    the machine code, so you can then crack the binary code since it is
    much less difficult than understanding a difficult algorithm , and after
    that you can give the binary code that is cracked, but with this kind of
    way of doing you have to be aware that the cracked binary code can
    contain a virus, this is why a "trusthworthy" relationship between a
    software developer or developers and the customers is so important. And
    it is my way of doing that is creating a trusthworthy relationship
    with my customers and with you here in those newsgroups forums and such.

    And read my following previous thoughts:

    More of my philosophy about reverse engineering..

    Simply pulling a piece of software through a decompiler does not
    directly yield easily readable code for several reasons.

    First of all, names of variables and functions are not kept through the compilation process, so the decompiler will assign generic names. It is
    much harder to read code that looks like "f8s6ex2(i37zc, sk1eo)" than it
    is to read "CalculatePrice(articleId, amount)".

    Secondly, a compiler has a variety of optimization tricks that it will
    use during compilation to make the code more efficient. A decompiler
    will return this "optimized" code, which will look a lot less readable
    than the original.

    Just compiling the Delphi mode of freepascal source code with
    optimizations (-O2 and up) and stripping all debug and profile
    information, and apply smartlinking, will make it almost
    un-decompilable. Not only FPC, but also Delphi.

    The level of software reverse complexity is different according to
    different program languages. generally speaking, compiled language
    reverse engineering is more difficult than interpreted language. in
    compiled languages, I think that C++ or the Delphi mode of Freepascal
    reverse engineering is the most difficult job. why? because it is very
    hard to transform assembly language into high level language(C++) or to
    Delphi mode of freepascal as i am also explaining above.

    So in reverse engineering there is almost no way to re-create the Delphi
    mode of freepascal or Delphi source code from the binary.


    Thank you,
    Amine Moulay Ramdane.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)