Flash 8 Security??

[adit_ya_sharma]

I have'nt really seen any links about how secure is flash 8 .swf files will be against decompilers? Anyone has any news?

[erixon]

I think its no difference really, same format and its still open-source.

I tested the free ASO Lite obfuscator on one of my games recently and it stopped working so wasn't impressed. I would be happy enough if at least local variables and functions could be obfuscated.

[Mr.smith]

Has anyone tried secureSWF? I downloadded their free version, but i still haven't tried it yet, guess i'll give it a try right after i finish this thing am working on.

[Mr.smith]

WOW, this freeware does much more than ASO's ever has done to any of my SWFs, I am thinking seriously of buying another version they got, they say that it will defend all decompilers n some stuff in it has irreversable technics.
I would leave to know if anyone tried the paid version before i buy it, their website is www.kindisoft.net

[tonypa]

The free Lite version does rename some variables and functions, but not much more.

Bad things:
*you need MS .NET to run it
*preview crashes the program
*does not work with Flash5 swf
*while it claims to "Prevent recompiling and code reuse", it does nothing more beside renaming
*does not find many variables

But good things are:
*it works
*its free
*very easy to use
*support was fast and helpful when I failed to get download mail

[Pugger]

I tried to open an external web page from the flash 8 player. Flash 8 complained about it being a security risk and wanting the user to change settings to allow for the page to be opened.

*Sigh* got some changes to make when Flash8 is out.

[0vidiu]

I tried to open an external web page from the flash 8 player. Flash 8 complained about it being a security risk and wanting the user to change settings to allow for the page to be opened.

same thing to me also...

[Mr.smith]

The free Lite version does rename some variables and functions, but not much more.

Bad things:
*you need MS .NET to run it
*preview crashes the program
*does not work with Flash5 swf
*while it claims to "Prevent recompiling and code reuse", it does nothing more beside renaming
*does not find many variables

I asked them about the same things and more before I bought their personal edition (which is btw amazing and more advanced than the free one) , and their reply included the following:

*.NET is free and a must have with XP SP2
*They sent me the new build which fixes these stuff even before it was publically released :)
*Of course it prevents recompiling, the compiler doesn't accept neither unprinted characters, symbols nor numbers as variable names, I tried recompiling some of my games after obfuscating them and couldn't.
*Some variables (or identifiers as they prefer to call them) shouldn't be obfuscatted coz to the sensitivity of actionScript, it even showed variables in my games but didnt allow me to change them coz they no it will crash my swf, I don no how they measure that but I prefer having a functional obfuscated swf with one or two idintifiers that has the same original name than having a totally obfuscated game that doesn't work :cool:

[tonypa]

I asked them about the same things and more before I bought their personal edition (which is btw amazing and more advanced than the free one) , and their reply included the following:

*.NET is free and a must have with XP SP2
*They sent me the new build which fixes these stuff even before it was publically released :)
*Of course it prevents recompiling, the compiler doesn't accept neither unprinted characters, symbols nor numbers as variable names, I tried recompiling some of my games after obfuscating them and couldn't.

Yes, I received new version too, very nice of them to improve it.

However I cant see where you take the idea that "the compiler doesn't accept neither unprinted characters, symbols nor numbers as variable names". I have also tested obfuscated swf files with decompilers and they all are quite happy with the code like:

eval ("?")(eval ("¶").eval ("}"), eval ("\x19"), eval ("]"), eval ("¶").eval ("\x0B"));
eval ("]")++;
+(¶ );
?(¶ ["}"], \x19, ], ¶ ["\xb"]);

So, I dont really see the protection here other then making it harder for person trying to change the code understanding what the code does and what the variables/functions are suppose to do. I could do mostly same thing myself with running "find and replace" at my as code.

Maybe decompiler fails with your file because you use paid version which is suppose to have more functions. I have only tried free lite version.

[Mr.smith]

The free version didn't protect my files from decompiling, it protected it from recompiling, I imagine the pain someone would take to start replacing unprinted characters (which aren't easy to be differentiated) with names the compiler would accept and than try copy-paste them into their work :) .

The paid version is wonderful, the ******* decompiler totally crashed when I tried it on my "Dynamic Code Wrapped" file, and ASV couldn't find anything at all.

Yesterday I asked them some stuff about the pro version, and they said that I can upgrade to it when its available and have a discount equal to the 65 $ I paid to get the personal, which adds more value to it.

Think that I am finally happy about a software, which is something I never felt long long time ago :)