问题描述
我知道没有办法完全保护我们的代码.我也知道，如果用户想破解我们的应用程序，那么他或她就不会购买我们的应用程序.我也知道最好改进我们的应用程序......而不是害怕反破解技术.我也知道没有商业工具可以保护我们的应用程序....我也知道....
I know that there is no way to fully protect our code.I also know that if a user wants to crack our app, then he or she is not a user that would buy our app.I also know that it is better to improve our app.. instead of being afraid of anticracking techniques.I also know that there is no commercial tool that can protec our app....I also know that....
好的.足够的.我什么都听到了.我真的认为增加一点保护不会有什么坏处.
Ok. Enough. I've heard everything.I really think that adding a little protection won't hurt.
那么.... 你使用过 oreans 或 vmprotect 的代码虚拟化器吗?我听说它们有时会被某些防病毒软件检测为病毒.
So.... have you ever used code virtulizer from oreans or vmprotect?I've heard that they are sometimes detected as virus by some antivirus.
在购买之前我应该了解的任何体验.我知道它会创建一些虚拟机并对代码进行一些模糊处理，以便更难找到我们注册例程的弱点.
Any experiences that I should be aware of before buying it.I know it creates some virtual machines and obfuscates a little the code to make it harder to find the weaknesses of our registration routines.
有什么我应该知道的警告吗?
Is there any warning I should know?
谢谢.任何建议将不胜感激.
Thanks.Any advice would be appreciated.
锯齿
推荐答案
不幸的是，与传统打包软件相比，受 VM 保护的软件更容易受到误报的影响.其原因是，由于 AV 保护如此复杂，AV 软件通常无法分析受保护的代码，并且可能依赖于模式库或可能对受其无法分析的系统保护的任何文件发出通用警告.如果您的首要任务是消除误报，我建议您选择一种广泛使用的保护解决方案，例如AsProtect(尽管 Oreans 的产品也很受欢迎).
Unfortunately, VM-protected software is more likely to get affected by false positives than conventional packing software. The reason for that is that since AV protection is so complicated, AV software are often unable to analyze the protected code, and may rely on either pattern libraries or may issue generic warnings for any files protected by a system it can't analyze. If your priority is to eliminate false positives, I suggest picking a widely-used protection solution, e.g. AsProtect (although Oreans' products are becoming quite popular as well).
这篇关于您是否曾经使用过代码虚拟器或 vmprotect 来防止逆向工程?的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持！