3 ms·
This seems like a really odd reason to care about multiple implementations: firstly because it's a steam hammer to crack a walnut (there are much more effective
by rcxdude 6y ago
This seems like a really odd reason to care about multiple implementations: firstly because it's a steam hammer to crack a walnut (there are much more effective and cheap ways to obfuscate code than just using a different compiler), and secondly because it's not very effective: compiler identification is fairly straightforward, both for experienced reverse engineers and the tools that they use.
- v8dev123 6y agoCompiler identification is not fairly straightforward when you remove all metadata that gives you hints. It gets worse when you fake the metadata. My opinion echoed by many top people in reverse engineering industry. Modern C++ is obfuscated by default due to templates, inlined functions and of course OOP. For example, Marcus Hutchins famously echoed Boost is a cluster fuck of sadness. My point is not about obfuscation anyway but it does helps obfuscation to some extent. It's about reverse engineering the optimized code and recover the original non-optimized code which can have a lot of use-cases. https://www.msreverseengineering.com https://www.msreverseengineering.com had a course on this subject. Experienced ones can reverse everything but my point is that it increase the barrier.