obfuscation

问题 Given the following script: É = -~-~[], ó = -~É, Ë = É << É, þ = Ë + ~[]; Ì = (ó - ó)[Û = ('' + {})[É + ó] + ('' + {})[ó - É] + ([].ó + '')[ó - É] + (!!'' + '')[ó] + ({} + '')[ó + ó] + (!'' + '')[ó - É] + (!'' + '')[É] + ('' + {})[É + ó] + ({} + '')[ó + ó] + ('' + {})[ó - É] + (!'' + '')[ó - É]][Û]; Ì(Ì((!'' + '')[ó - É] + (!'' + '')[ó] + (!'' + '')[ó - ó] + (!'' + '')[É] + ((!'' + ''))[ó - É] + ([].$ + '')[ó - É] + '\'' + '' + '\\' + (ó - É) + (É + É) + (ó - É) + '\\' + (þ) + (É + ó) + '\\'

问题 This question already has answers here : Closed 10 years ago . Possible Duplicate: Best Java obfuscator ? Well, I'm planning on releasing a Jar into the world but would prefer if the code was not readably available to anyone with a Java Decompiler as I want to control access to the program with usernames / auth codes etc. After some Googling I haven't found any software to do this for me, so I was wondering what steps to take from here; if anyone can point me at any software or information on

问题 Is obfuscation only about garbling the names of non-public variables/members? If so, would it not be possible to write an application that would at least change these names more readible ones like "variable1", etc, and then extract the whole code that can still be compiled? 回答1: No, it is about a lot more, especially with more sophisticated obfuscators. They can produce IL that cannot be expressed in most languages, and where the logic flow is horribly tangled to befuddle the best of tools.

问题 Is obfuscation only about garbling the names of non-public variables/members? If so, would it not be possible to write an application that would at least change these names more readible ones like "variable1", etc, and then extract the whole code that can still be compiled? 回答1: No, it is about a lot more, especially with more sophisticated obfuscators. They can produce IL that cannot be expressed in most languages, and where the logic flow is horribly tangled to befuddle the best of tools.

问题 I got a stacktrace from the crashreporting system and it is obfuscated, like ... Failed resolution of: Lru/test/c/b/a; ... I have a mapping file. How to deobfuscate this stacktrace using mapping.txt? 回答1: Get deobfuscated crash stacktrace from your app page Upload your mapping.txt to your app PlayStore page with the following steps: Sign in to your Play Console. Select an app. On the left menu, click Android vitals > Deobfuscation files. Next to a version of your app, click Upload. Upload the

问题 I got a stacktrace from the crashreporting system and it is obfuscated, like ... Failed resolution of: Lru/test/c/b/a; ... I have a mapping file. How to deobfuscate this stacktrace using mapping.txt? 回答1: Get deobfuscated crash stacktrace from your app page Upload your mapping.txt to your app PlayStore page with the following steps: Sign in to your Play Console. Select an app. On the left menu, click Android vitals > Deobfuscation files. Next to a version of your app, click Upload. Upload the

问题 Typically, excluding a class with -keep prevents the class from being obfuscated However it also prevents it from being shrunk. Is it possible to define a proguard-project.txt that will shrink all classes except those that are excluded with -keep, but also obfuscate only a specific subset of the classes? The aim is to use proguard to keep below the android 65k method limit, while also obfuscating first party code ONLY within the APK. Thanks 回答1: Yes, you can add the modifier allowshrinking to

问题 Typically, excluding a class with -keep prevents the class from being obfuscated However it also prevents it from being shrunk. Is it possible to define a proguard-project.txt that will shrink all classes except those that are excluded with -keep, but also obfuscate only a specific subset of the classes? The aim is to use proguard to keep below the android 65k method limit, while also obfuscating first party code ONLY within the APK. Thanks 回答1: Yes, you can add the modifier allowshrinking to

问题 Typically, excluding a class with -keep prevents the class from being obfuscated However it also prevents it from being shrunk. Is it possible to define a proguard-project.txt that will shrink all classes except those that are excluded with -keep, but also obfuscate only a specific subset of the classes? The aim is to use proguard to keep below the android 65k method limit, while also obfuscating first party code ONLY within the APK. Thanks 回答1: Yes, you can add the modifier allowshrinking to

问题 I've seen a couple questions regarding this issue, but they are for older versions of Netty. I have tried their answers, switching org.jboss.netty out with io.netty, but the same error occurs. I'm trying to compile an Android app that uses Netty 5.0.0Alpha2 (build #16) with Proguard enabled. Without Proguard, the app runs fine. As soon as I enable Proguard, I get this exception when it tries to use Netty: java.lang.IllegalStateException: unknown type parameter 'I': class io.netty.channel