Search:   Namespaces Discussions .NET v1.1 Feedback

Decompiler.NET reverse engineers your CLS compliant code Messages   Related Types This message was discovered on microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb. Responses highlighted in red are from those people who are likely to be able to contribute good, authoratitive information to this discussion. They include Microsoft employees, MVP's and others who IMHO contribute well to these kinds of discussions. Post a new message to this list... Vortex Soft http://www.junglecreatures.com/ Try it and tell me what's happenning in the Microsoft Corporation. Notes: VB, C# are CLS compliant You can also use managed code with C++ Using what they call obfuscator, will not help you for a long time. For each new obfuscator there will allways exist a new deobfuscator. Your source's Symbols are written unchanged in the exe or dll file. Looking to your Symbols, it's easy to understand your Source Code. A honest compiler does not expose any Symbols, unless you Export them. I like VB, it is an easy yet powerfull language, but it's good for nothing else but studying or playing. Reply to this message...        Brian Henry btw, I just ran this on a largly obsucated project we created in house, and the code came out no where close to what it looked like orignally. it's not even really understandable "Vortex Soft" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:%23hF4z%Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        William Stacey [MVP] (VIP) Try this. Obfuscate with XenoCode on conservative or high setting and with control flow obfuscations. Then run that dll or exe passed Jungle. In most cases, you can't make heads or tails from the resulting code (I just tried it.) once you get passed all the errors that are thrown. That said, looks like they put some work into the product. Cheers. -- William Stacey, MVP "Vortex Soft" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:#hF4z#Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        CJ Taylor > Try this. Obfuscate with XenoCode on conservative or high setting and with > control flow obfuscations. Then run that dll or exe passed Jungle. In most [Original message clipped] Debunk! =) [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        Brian Henry if VB.NET was good for nothing but studying and playing hows come some major corporations run applications they created in VB.NET? Because of the way IL is compiled symbols are going to be included... this happens with any IL language such as Java. and what is stoping you from reverse engineering C++ code? if you can understand assembly and have some time on your hands you can decompile it also in a sense "Vortex Soft" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:%23hF4z%Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        ErikS You need to get out more often: http://denisbauer.com/NETTools/FileDisassembler.aspx "Vortex Soft" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:%23hF4z%Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        Jonathan Pierce [Original message clipped] Thanks for the compliments regarding our Decompiler.NET product. The product includes a built-in obfuscation option that generates obfuscated source code that you can recompile that still runs like the original code. You may want to try this feature to see how readable the obfuscated code is. Our obfuscator encrypts string literals and replaces them with references. It also includes unique advanced features not provided by other available obfuscators like generating public stub methods and properties to avoid breaking public interfaces, but factoring their bodies and calls within the same assembly into obfuscated implementation methods. Our refactoring feature also includes an option for encapsulates fields with generated properties and tightens their scoping to private. You can read an article that compares our Decompiler to other available .NET decompilers in the August 2004 issue of .NET Developers Journal. You can view the article here: http://www.junglecreatures.com/press/DecompilerRoundUp_DNDJ_August_2004.pdf Jonathan Pierce President Jungle Creatures, Inc. http://www.junglecreatures.com/ Reply to this message...        Frans Bouma [C# MVP] (VIP) Jonathan Pierce wrote: [Original message clipped]     That's great, but frankly, obfuscating compiled VB.NET or C# code is not rocketscience. All you have to do is this a little grouping of methods with the same return value/access level and make them overloads, mangle names for internal/private/protected methods/parameters/members/properties and 99% of the code is impossible to read. Good thing is: these tables are documented by microsoft and any person with an afternoon of time can write an obfuscator for that.     Execution flow mangling is indeed more complex, however often this is done by simply pre-jitting code to native x86 assembler and place the routines as native code inside the assembly. This confuses decompilers, but also makes the JIT functionality of the CLR pretty much useless in a lot of occasions. Take into account that it is very hard to get this right when you take into account complex event handling with 3rd party controls (e.g. a grid control) and most developers will opt for the lowest possible obfuscation option possible to avoid problems. You see, it takes extra testing work to test the obfuscated executable through and through, as the code can work differently when obfuscated. Oh, your obfuscator obviously produces 100% reliable code, I'm sure, but I don't live in dreamland.         Frans. -- Get LLBLGen Pro, productive O/R mapping for .NET: http://www.llblgen.com My .NET Blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma Microsoft C# MVP Reply to this message...        Jonathan Pierce "Frans Bouma [C# MVP]" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:<Click here to reveal e-mail address>... [Original message clipped] Yes it does. You should try it before you make assumptions about it. Our obfuscator generates equivalent obfuscated source code with refactored public members and encrypted literals that you recompile. Each version of Decompiler.NET that we release is decompiled and obfuscated with itself, and then recompiled to produce the version that ships. Most bugs introduced by decompilation or obfuscation would cause the recompiled version of our product to not work correctly, so we would detect them before even releasing the build. Go ahead and try it out and feel free to identify any specific code generation issues that you feel are bugs. Unless you can provide examples of incorrect behavior, there is no reason to assume that our product has issues just because you have had bad experiences with other tools or your own attempts to implement an obfuscation tool. Jonathan Pierce President Jungle Creatures, Inc. http://www.junglecreatures.com/ Reply to this message...        Frans Bouma [C# MVP] (VIP) Jonathan Pierce wrote: [Original message clipped]     It would be the first obfuscator being able to do so. [Original message clipped]     No pre-jitted x86 code? No reshuffled code ? you have to if you want to do the more advanced obfuscation that you claim to be able to do. [Original message clipped]     That's not the point. The point is: can reshuffling, prejitting be safe for 100%? Every obfuscator I tried (on .NET and java) have the same issues: code obfuscated is sometimes failing in weird situations, often related to 3rd party controls in combination with events.     Unless theoretic proof is provided that the code is 100% compatible with non-obfuscated code, every vendor obfuscating their work will be required to retest the obfuscated executable from start to finish.         FB -- Get LLBLGen Pro, productive O/R mapping for .NET: http://www.llblgen.com My .NET Blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma Microsoft C# MVP Reply to this message...        Vortex Soft Jonathan Pierce wrote: [Original message clipped] it's weakness and allow us to protect owselfs since Microsoft doesn't [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        CJ Taylor [Original message clipped] you are a f#(*@#($* moron... Get off your knees, I think you've satisified Jon's ego enough... [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        Vortex Soft CJ Taylor wrote: [Original message clipped] So many people became really upset because the .net programmers who read this thread will be more careful. The dog's barking can be heard miles away. What kind of people is interestered in hidding critical security information? Nick258 Reply to this message...        CJ Taylor No.. it has nothing to do with being more careful. But you think you've come across this amazing revalation that none of us knew about. Microsoft told us of the "security concerns" of reverse engineering with ..NET all the way back in Beta 2 days... Sun did the same thing with Java. And many many more companies that developed compilers. Don't make such a big deal about it. If you continue to read about .NET you'll learn there are many tools. Don't forget, nothing will every protect everything 100%, that's just how life is. "Vortex Soft" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:%Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        Jochen Kalmbach FULL ACK. (why is this subject discussed every 4 weeks !?) -- Greetings Jochen My blog about Win32 and .NET http://blog.kalmbachnet.de/ Reply to this message...        Vortex Soft CJ Taylor wrote: [Original message clipped] And I have to insist, why doesn't the CLS compiler work the same way as the old C or ASM (machine language using mnemonics) compiler: Exported Symbols are visible, non Exported Symbols are not accessible??? Why does an .exe file contain ALL original Symbols????? [Original message clipped] software? And the enums can't be changed!!! _hjsd8889 Reply to this message...        Brian Henry why are you trying to write a program to do something when you don't even understand the basic concepts of .NET and assembled programs alone?! seems a little bit idiotic. btw MS has stated and you can even look it up on MSDN all the info about how it works and the warrnings around it. "Vortex Soft" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        CJ Taylor "Vortex Soft" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] RTFM. Yes they did.. you chose to ignore it. Obviously many other people here saw it... Call up Balmer and tell him you want a copy of every memo so you can make sure your "up to speed" with Microsoft product. [Original message clipped] It's a Consipiracy against just you... Or it could be the fact that .NET != C AND .NET != ASM. By making that statement you FURTHER prove you have not gone beyond the first paragraph of Understanding .NET. Again, and for the last time .NET is an IL based language, which means it is not compiled to run on a particular platform. It uses a CLR to interpret IL code and run that on the host processor. So, you have the same paradigm you did with Java. Same code, different interpreters. Not interpretted like VBS or JScript or another JITted language like that, but compiled code "simliar" to machine level code (or asm). Again... RTFM. [Original message clipped] Exactly $4.32 [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        Vortex Soft CJ Taylor wrote: [Original message clipped] Well, I found that you are one of the many Obfuscators used to hide evidence. No more chit chat Reply to this message...        CJ Taylor [Original message clipped] I'm an obfusicator? What on earth does this mean and what does it have to do with obfusication of code or the fact you have no clue how the framework operates? [Original message clipped] Because your wrong? Reply to this message...        One Handed Man \( OHM - Terry Burns \) LOL, I like a good fight ! -- OHM ( Terry Burns ) . . . One-Handed-Man . . . If U Need My Email ,Ask Me Time flies when you don't know what you're doing "CJ Taylor" <[cege] at [tavayn] dit commmmm> wrote in message news:%23m%Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        CJ Taylor Been awhile hasn't it? =) Time to stir one up! =) "One Handed Man ( OHM - Terry Burns )" <news.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:e%Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        Jonathan Pierce [Original message clipped] You are correct that enum values can't directly be obfuscated since they are implemented as public literal fields. Since they are literal, references to their values can substituted at compile time. On obfuscator can replace them with a corresponding class definitition with const fields that can be obfuscated. For example: private enum Direction { North = 0, South = 1, East = 2, West = 3, }         } can be replaced with:              private struct a              { internal const int a1 = 0; internal const int a2 = 1; internal const int a3 = 2; internal const int a4 = 3; } Reply to this message...        Jon Skeet [C# MVP] (VIP) Jonathan Pierce <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote: [Original message clipped] Presumably an obfuscator which was given sufficient licence by the user could still obfuscate the enum though? If the user said, "I really don't care what effects it has on anything else, my application is entirely self-contained and I never use Enum.Parse/ToString" I don't see why it couldn't be obfuscated. Surely just replacing Foo.XXX with Foo.YYY everywhere in the code would work, wouldn't it? -- Jon Skeet - <Click here to reveal e-mail address> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet If replying to the group, please do not mail me too Reply to this message...        Jonathan Pierce "Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:<Click here to reveal e-mail address>... > Jonathan Pierce <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote: > > > And the enums can't be changed!!! > > > > You are correct that enum values can't directly be obfuscated since > > they are implemented as public literal fields. Since they are literal, > > references to their values can substituted at compile time. > > Presumably an obfuscator which was given sufficient licence by the user > could still obfuscate the enum though? If the user said, "I really > don't care what effects it has on anything else, my application is > entirely self-contained and I never use Enum.Parse/ToString" I don't > see why it couldn't be obfuscated. Surely just replacing Foo.XXX with > Foo.YYY everywhere in the code would work, wouldn't it? > Hi Jon, I must have been extremely tired when I thought about the enum value issue. Thank you for keeping me sane. You are correct that obfuscators can just rename the enum field names for internal and private types like any other class or struct. There was a bug in my obfuscator implementation that caused it to not obfuscate field names for public fields on internal and private types, enums or not. When I saw the fields not obfuscated, I was half asleep and decided to implement replacing them with structs, instead of thinking about why they weren't obfuscated. This just proves that I am able to code while not fully awake, but should avoid it. Thanks again for questioning my implementation and the supportive posts that you have made to this thread. Jonathan Reply to this message...        Brian Henry did you ever study intermediate languages ever? you obviosly have no clue what you are talknig about. It's not just MS, it is ANY language that is writen in any type of IL, java included "Vortex Soft" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:%Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        Jonathan Pierce "Brian Henry" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:<Click here to reveal e-mail address>... [Original message clipped] I want to make it clear that the statement you were commenting about was written by Vortex Soft and not by me. My name appears because he was replying to my reply to his original message. Jonatban Pierce President Jungle Creatures, Inc. http://www.junglecreatures.com/ Reply to this message...        Nak F&U*C(KING TW^ATS!!! Stop your damn blatant advertising and get a life! Noone here is going to rush off and buy your product because of your little play! "Thanks for the compliments regarding our Decompiler.NET product." plebule! Nick. "Vortex Soft" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:%Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        ErikS Guess why he posted the PDF version of that compasion article and not the online version: http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=45917&DE=1 Hint: Read the comment section. "Nak" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:OVl$Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        Brian Henry ha! "ErikS" <nospam.com> wrote in message news:Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        One Handed Man \( OHM - Terry Burns \) You really dont know what you are talking about do you ! -- OHM ( Terry Burns ) . . . One-Handed-Man . . . If U Need My Email ,Ask Me Time flies when you don't know what you're doing "Vortex Soft" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:%23hF4z%Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        CJ Taylor You know... RSA encryption can be cracked too... but most times, it's just not worth the hassle... "One Handed Man ( OHM - Terry Burns )" <news.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:e%Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        Nak Whoah! "RSA encryption can be cracked too" How much time do you have on your hands?? Nick. Reply to this message...        CJ Taylor There was more to that sentence... that being, is it *really* worth the effort? "Nak" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        Nak Aaah, fair enough, I thought you were going to shatter my illusions of RSA for a moment then! HAHAHAHA........ :-( Sorry, just spending quite a considerably ammount of time making a software licensing application that uses RSA. Anyways yeah... Long time? Nick. "CJ Taylor" <[cege] at [tavayn] dit commmmm> wrote in message news:Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        Vortex Soft If you try the Decompiler.NET, you will get the full source code. All Class, Function, Variable names are shown as in the original source! CJ Taylor wrote: [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP] (VIP) "Vortex Soft" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] Then try obfusticating the release mode dll and then decompiling it again. Tell us what you see. [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        Vortex Soft Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP] wrote: [Original message clipped] Thanks for your suggestion. Every thing that can be encrypted can also be decrypted. By design, the enumerations' element names are accessible in the wun time, so they are exposed to the reverse engineering engine. May be more that enumerations are exposed, I don't know. It's the compiler task to avoid exposing non exportable symbols. Do you agree? _abc2389 Reply to this message...        Jon Skeet [C# MVP] (VIP) Vortex Soft <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote: [Original message clipped] Did you follow it? > Every thing that can be encrypted can also be decrypted. I think you've missed what obfuscators do. They map existing names to "nonsense" names, and only give the developer the map. Stack traces etc can then be "decrypted" - but only someone with the map. If you think that everything encrypted can be decrypted without the private (secret) part, I suggest you read up on one-time pads as a simple counter example. You could also tell me what this message says: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A. Anyone with the appropriate text file would be able to work out what that meant, but I don't think you'll be able to, somehow. A good obfuscator will completely remove all information that can be removed, as far as anyone without the nonsense->original map is concerned. You may still be able to understand the code, but it's a *lot* harder to do so. -- Jon Skeet - <Click here to reveal e-mail address> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet If replying to the group, please do not mail me too Reply to this message...        Vortex Soft Jon Skeet [C# MVP] wrote: [Original message clipped] version 1.1.... that comes with the .NET Visual Studio. I am not able to use that. (Am I missing something?) [Original message clipped] I discovered that most Symbols can be obfuscated, but I need to insist on the enums: [Enum].GetName(...) returns the Symbol used in the enum as a string so, the original Symbol is stored in the exe or dll, it can be decrypted. Everyone that is not Obfuscating the evidence knows that it can be decrypted or deobfuscated (whatever you name it). I noticed that you are an MPV, I don't know you, it is the first time I see your nick name, so you should not understand the following question as any sort of attack to you. Can you explain as clear as the post I read from you, what checks does Microsoft do when nomeating MVPs? Being more clear: is Microsoft ready to put its hand on Bible to say that each of MVPs are not hackers or malware people? (I am not talking about you, I repeat to avoid misunderstandings) _obs7366 Reply to this message...        Jon Skeet [C# MVP] (VIP) Vortex Soft <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote: [Original message clipped] I'm talking about following the suggestion of obfuscating the release mode dll and then decompiling. You can do that with any obfuscator - there are lots of them around, and most have demo versions. [Original message clipped] That depends on the obfuscator. I would imagine some obfuscators *could* obfuscate the enum values, if you really wanted it to and if you were sure you didn't need to use Enum.Parse etc. How many security or IPR-sensitive enum values do you normally run across, out of interest? I can't remember the last time I saw one... If no obfuscators currently on the market do this, I suspect it's because there's no perceived need for it. [Original message clipped] No - it clearly doesn't have the time or energy to investigate people to a huge extent. If someone is revealed to be a software pirate or anything similar, however, I believe they would be kicked out of the programme immediately. -- Jon Skeet - <Click here to reveal e-mail address> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet If replying to the group, please do not mail me too Reply to this message...        Jonathan Pierce [Original message clipped] I've never seen a request for this before, but now that it has been mentioned, I went ahead and added the feature to the next version of our built-in obfuscator capability in Decompiler.NET. Since enums fields compile to public static literal fields, the implementation instead replaces internal or private enums with structs and their fields with internal const fields and substitutes their references with the enum's underlying type. Enums types that are declared pubic are left unmodified to retain their public interface for external calling assemblies. Jonathan Reply to this message...        Nak [Original message clipped] Ooooohhh!!!!!! Hisssss, booooooo!!! ..... Reply to this message...        CJ Taylor "Nak" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] Hey... Celebrity Allstar... All of us here.... hackers... MVP's..... hackers.... which is the reason they became MVP's... I believe the word your looking for is "cracker" or "a$$ bandit" [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        Nak LOL > I believe the word your looking for is "cracker" or "a$$ bandit" I would be careful, he might threaten you with legal action! Nick. Reply to this message...        William Stacey [MVP] (VIP) LOL. -- William Stacey, MVP ... > I believe the word your looking for is "cracker" or "a$$ bandit" ... Reply to this message...        One Handed Man \( OHM - Terry Burns \) Thats right, its all about what risk is acceptable, how hostile is the environment in which you put your valuables at risk. Given enough time most codes can be cracked eventually, the question is at what cost in time and resources it takes to do this. For example, securing a novel with 128 BIT RSA encryption would be good enough for me as an Author if I was convinced I had written a bestseller, however, If I wrote an Autbiography ( being me ), then simply asking for a clear password would be good enough. -- OHM ( Terry Burns ) . . . One-Handed-Man . . . If U Need My Email ,Ask Me Time flies when you don't know what you're doing "Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        CJ Taylor "One Handed Man ( OHM - Terry Burns )" <news.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:%Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] Ha! Clear Text huh? I would not even send the password, just *hope* someone adds something interesting... Mine would be 3 pages, and mainly consist of TLA's. As far as the obfusication argument goes, I think that has been covered. As we keep repeating the same thing over and over, it just so happens Vortex Soft has his opinion which we will refer to as "the wrong one" and then there is what the rest of the world's opinion which we will call "fact" As I stated with RSA. Yeah it can be decrypted. But going back to a familar theory "Time is relative". Now, if you feel good taking 10 years to crack someone's credit card number. So be it. =) Same thing with taking 10 years to crack someones obfusicated code. You could have just spent the 2 weeks rewriting it yourself. =) Terry said it best, "acceptable risk". That's how all of its done.. The likleyhood of it being cracked in a "reasonable" amount of time is slim to none. One day will it? Of course. One day we will cure cancer, vacation to the moon, and have those cool little replicators from Star Trek so I can have Gino's Pizza Rolls whenever I want... We should have all those *relativly* soon... =) [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        One Handed Man \( OHM - Terry Burns \) I dont care about replicators, I just want my own personal HoloDeck. -- OHM ( Terry Burns ) . . . One-Handed-Man . . . If U Need My Email ,Ask Me Time flies when you don't know what you're doing "CJ Taylor" <[cege] at [tavayn] dit commmmm> wrote in message news:Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        CJ Taylor That comes with a program of Dr. Crusher. Or that one time Erika Eliniak dated Data... I would take her too in there. =) "One Handed Man ( OHM - Terry Burns )" <news.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        Vortex Soft CJ Taylor wrote: [Original message clipped] I see that you are an honest person with a wide knowledge. Could you help the ignorant people like me and millions others to protect their work in a satisfactory way? _iiioias8883 Reply to this message...        Nak LOL [Original message clipped] Go away! You are so obviously in league with jungle creatures, your probably one of his colleagues! You put on a little play and advertise his crap overpriced product and now try a different tactic in an attempt to save face! Well sir, you have no face! Nick. Reply to this message...        Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP] (VIP) "Nak" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] While I appreciate that you are rather fervent about this, you are really starting to push the point here. Up to this point I have seen no behaviour by Jungle Creatures outside of supporting their product(and suggesting it when people ask about decompilers). Your comments on this thread have been inappropriate, as have several others(CJ Taylor and Brian Henry come to mind), and you comprise what I would consider those who should go away, atleast from this thread. The original poster is frustrating, to be sure, but you are being just as bad. This is not a forum for conspiracy theories or for bashing other people, even if they make a product you don't care for. Reply to this message...        Nak Hi Daniel, [Original message clipped] Not that I ever denied that, I just absolutly hate that method of advertising and that is what I percieved it to be. That isn't what the newsgroup was intended for. If by any chance it wasn't a sales push then as mr "Vortex" is a possible client or end user of JungleCreatures / Decompiler.NET, they should conduct their chit chat elsewhere. This isn't a forum for JungleCreatues to offer support on their products is it? [Original message clipped] Yup, my comments can be *very* inappropriate at times, but I am not leaving this newsgroup, I've been here long enough now and respect many of the hard working participants. Just because I am not an MVP, or CJ or Brian, that is the only reason you are making this statement, which personally I believe to be unfair. But expected from an MVP, no offence but sometimes they can get a little too authorative, the status doesnt come with a uniform does it? Believe it or not, I am a regular of this group and do not always get irate by this kind of thing, but sometimes I do. If *you* don't like what you read, put it in your "block list". [Original message clipped] Oh well, pots and kettles, but you are not the referee, so there is no need to start blowing your whistle. At the moment "mate" *I* don't even make products I care for, it's been one of those days! Nick. Reply to this message...        Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP] (VIP) "Nak" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] Not per se, however it *is* a forum for support and discussion of the framework, and in some cases supporting a tool related to the framework is appropriate. Mr. Pierce, in my experiance, has not posted outside of that particular set of rules. [Original message clipped] No, there is no uniform. There are nifty lapel pins and an ID card though. Actually, authoritarian behaviour isn't uncommon among MVP's, however it is not because they *are* mvps, but because before becoming mvp's they were highly community minded, including trying to contain the spread of falsehoods. Most are a little less heavy handed than I am, however. Also, for the record, I'll bring this up with anyone who behaves like this. You aren't the first, and I doubt the last, who I will call out for such behavior. An MVP label(or even an MSFT one) isn't going to deter me from that. MVP's tend *not* to start these kind of issues, but they are certainly not immune. I personally think your behaviour has been rank and that you don't deserve a terrible amount of respect from your posts. They are inflamatory, uncalled for, and intolerably rude. [Original message clipped] I am well aware you are a regular, but that doesn't excuse you from behaving badly. And, for what its worth, I don't use a block list. Everyone has a right to have their say and to deal with the feedback from it. You are welcome to continue with your harrasement, I certainly can't stop you, but I certainly am not going to bow out while you act up. I will say, when I feel it is appropriate, my thoughts on your posts. [Original message clipped] Nor is there a need for you to harrass people. Live with it. Reply to this message...        Cor Ligthert Daniel, And I find Nick so extremly nice writing at the moment, I was in doubt if it was Nick, however now he wrote he is Nick Patterman, it should be him. You should have seen his post previous year that was really top flaming especialy when he did it with his mate. :-) Cor Reply to this message...        Nak [Original message clipped] Perhaps Nick's true identity was exposed by someone who wanted to make him accountable for his inappropriate posts where he attempted to conceal his true identity. His postings this year seem to be consistent with your observations regarding his style of flaming and overall disposition. Nak Reply to this message...        Nak Ladies and gentlemen, we have ourselves a Troll!, oh deary me! Nick. "Nak" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:TrY1d.118406$Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        Nak Hi Cor, [Original message clipped] I haven't been 100% nice in this thread, and have no intention of starting. Yes that is my email address and web site, but I'm unsure as to *why* it has been posted. Obviously someone with allot of spare time on their hands, "as if I don't know who". [Original message clipped] I have strong views just the same as everyone else, and last year their were some heated discussions being has as I was developing software 24/7. It gets to you at times when your not having much luck with whatever your currently working on. Also, I have posted a complaint to Click here to reveal e-mail address, if that's the correct address. Apparently these groups are moderated by MVP's, so if any of them were half decent they would have that post removed for me. And believe me, I would be greatly appreciative, I would never go on a mission to do that to anyone else, why do that to me? Pah, very sad! Anyways. Nick. Reply to this message...        Nak "Nak" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:Click here to reveal e-mail address... Nick, It may not be in your best interest to request that moderators review your posts since many of them are inappropriate and often inconsistent with their posting guidelines. [Original message clipped] I doubt that moderators are interested in assisting you in concealing your identity so that you can continue to make inappropriate posts inconsistent with their posting guidelines. If you have strong opinions, you should be willing to stand behind them by identifying yourself rather than making unsupported claims that you do not wish to be held accountable for. Nak Reply to this message...        Nak Yes John! "Nak" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:%AY1d.118407$Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        Steve McLellan Guys, maybe you want to take this offline? I was actually interested in this thread, but I'm giving up trying to monitor it as you two seem to have nothing better to do than sling ineffectual insults around and it's become mindlessly tedious to try to find the posts with some actual content. Steve Reply to this message...        Jonathan Pierce Steve, Thanks for attempting to inject some sanity back into this group. This is a technical forum and many users are interested in discussing the issues associated with .NET decompilation and obfuscation. Since the title of this thread mentions our product directly, I am particularly interested in keeping the discussions on a technical level and relevant to the interst of readers in this group. I appreciate your attempts to monitor this thread and ensure that discussions here remain technical and relevant in nature. I will continue to monitor the thread as well and answer technical issues related to decompilation, obfuscation, refactoring, or directly related to our product mentioned here. Readers are also free to contact me directly at Click here to reveal e-mail address Jonathan Pierce President Jungle Creatures, Inc. http://www.junglecreatures.com/ "Steve McLellan" <sjm.NOSPAM AT fixerlabs DOT com> wrote in message news:%Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        Nak Hey! I had left the thread until I noticed my personal details appear!!!, sheesh! But yes, I agree, it's childish, and I would also like my email address removed, I don't mind giving it in an "obfuscated" way, but not clear text in this group. Not that it will get removed! Nick. "Steve McLellan" <sjm.NOSPAM AT fixerlabs DOT com> wrote in message news:%Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        Jon Skeet [C# MVP] (VIP) Nak <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote: [Original message clipped] This group is effectively unmoderated - it's certainly not moderated by MVPs. If a particular post warrants removal, I believe anyone can make a complaint. (It may be dealt with more swiftly if the person complaining is an MVP, but that's about it.) Daniel wasn't moderating the group - he was expressing his opinions about some posts, as have other people on the thread. -- Jon Skeet - <Click here to reveal e-mail address> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet If replying to the group, please do not mail me too Reply to this message...        CJ Taylor Anyone else confused? "Nak" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        Nak CJ, LOL!, not really, I know who it is, I can do simple maths. Nick. "CJ Taylor" <[cege] at [tavayn] dit commmmm> wrote in message news:Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        Nak Daniel, If you are interested in contacting Nick Pateman directly, his personal web page is here: http://members.lycos.co.uk/nickpatemanpwp/ and his direct email address is: Click here to reveal e-mail address You can also IM him on AIM at: furkinfedup Aside from attempting to post to newsgroups anonymously, he describes himself as a 22 year old currently living on the South Coast of England "Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        Nak LOL! And, your point is? Nick. "Nak" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:s2Y1d.37485$Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        Nak Nick, I understand the reasoning behind using a false email address to avoid receiving spam, but there is no point in attempting to hide your identity when making inappropriate comments as Daniel described since often relatively easy to ascertain the true identity of the author of posted messages by users using an alias to conceal their true identity. Posting anonymously also detracts from your credibility for usets who read the contents of your posts. Nak "Nak" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped] Reply to this message...        Nak Excuse me ?, [Original message clipped] I am *not* hiding my identity and never have, I have no need for my email address in here, I have posted my web address in here many times and if anyone wanted to find out about me they need only go visit it. I don't believe you have the right to post my details, do you? But whatever, you have done it now anyway, and that is far worse than any flaming I have done in this newsgroup. It not only violates the data protections act but it is also a very sly thing to do. But you're obviously a very sly person because your consealing your identity far more than *I* ever have, or have any desire to. By the way, I don't post for credability, I post for resolving problems, and sometimes to help others if I see that they are stick with something that I can help with. But I have no intention of building up "credit" so that I can apply for MVP status, that is something I do not care for. Nick. Reply to this message...        CJ Taylor Big ol' Ack! MVP's do tend to get a bit of an authority complex with their fancy title. Do I do a bit of mud slinging, yep. I don't deny that. I tried being nice, I tried explaining it. And like I do with many others in this group, especially newbies I take the time to try to explain it. The OP was convinced, and would not have it any other way that none of us had ever heard of obfusiciation. Even after we told him so... Arguing exports and symbols and a few other buzz words. As for Jonathan. I don't know, there seemed to be a lot of promotion. You can't expect us to sit here and read the same tired crap over and over though. We use the news groups as well, therefore allowed to voice our opinion. In whatever manner it may be. Am I an MVP? Nope. Do I care that I am? No... I like developing, scratch that.. I love developing.. I love to learn.. I love to see others learn... I don't need a flashy title with a virtual badge to go with it so I can tell people what they can talk about on a public forum. "Nak" <Click here to reveal e-mail address> wrote in message news:Click here to reveal e-mail address... [Original message clipped]