3 ms·

I concede that LLVM bitcode can be obfuscated just like machine code ( with enough effort, and LLVM bugs aside ) . However, you're still losing the ability to s

I concede that LLVM bitcode can be obfuscated just like machine code ( with enough effort, and LLVM bugs aside ) . However, you're still losing the ability to self-checksum your code, which in turn means you can't protect against things like piracy or unwanted modification of your binary. I agree also that Apple probably made this change to better analyze programs being submitted to the app store. That and to recompile programs to use intrinsics more efficiently, as new intrinsics become available. And finally, while I would not be concerned about Apple reversing my code, certain companies are and have to undertake steps to make that as difficult as possible.

NateLawson 11y ago
Yes, self-checksumming becomes impossible [1]. If you are concerned about anyone reversing your code (Apple or otherwise), you must obfuscate it. Either you work at the ARM level or the bitcode level (watchOS for now), but the basic techniques are the same. Or, you can avoid changing tools by doing source-level transformation. One of the companies probably impacted by this change is Arxan or other obfuscators. They have to change both front and backend to be LLVM -> LLVM. [1] Except for the case I mentioned before, where you predict the generated code for known architectures and use that to generate your constants. This still breaks if Apple generates code for a new architecture without your help.