3 ms·
So I'm confused.. was author just not able to follow thru code path to find that the auth token was just spamming 1's? or was it a bit more cryptic than that?
by spydum 12y ago
So I'm confused.. was author just not able to follow thru code path to find that the auth token was just spamming 1's? or was it a bit more cryptic than that?
the real code in the APK for computing the auth_token was probably some developers some pride and joy, worked weeks on it.. but when it came time to ship, damn thing wouldnt work with the shipped hardware.. so they buried a small assignment which overwrote the original computed auth token just to make the thing work? where is THAT code, i'd like to see it! If so, that is one of those great snippets where you can visually see the developer gave up. We should have a name for that sort of thing (I'm guilty of the same.. in my.. older works).
- evilsocket 12y agoauthor here ... it's not THAT easy, that specific piece of code was highly obfuscated by proguard ( you know the a.class, b.class, c.class thing? XD ) and everything made me think about the "correct" algorithm, still I can't find where that 0xFF... is being set :P
- cordite 12y agoIn other words, obsfuscation was used instead of just applying good practice, and good practice is seemingly harder to debug for development than obsfuscation.
- evilsocket 12y agoEXACTLY :D