有人试过codemoth: http://www.sourceformat.com/code-obfuscator.htm吗? 或者Themida: http://www.oreans.com/themida_features.php ?

晚一点看起来更有希望。

传统的逆向工程技术依赖于智能代理使用反汇编程序回答关于代码的问题的能力。如果你想要更强的安全性，你必须做一些事情，可以证明阻止代理得到这样的答案。

您可以通过依赖停止程序(“程序X停止吗?”)来做到这一点，这通常是无法解决的。向程序中添加难以推理的程序，会使程序难以推理。构建这样的程序要比拆解它们容易。你也可以在程序中添加推理难度不同的代码;一个很好的候选程序是关于别名(“指针”)的推理程序。

Collberg等人有一篇论文(“制造廉价、弹性和隐形的不透明结构”)讨论了这些主题，并定义了各种“不透明”谓词，这些谓词会使对代码的推理变得非常困难:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.39.1946&rep=rep1&type=pdf

我还没有看到Collberg的具体方法应用于产品代码，尤其是C或c++源代码。

DashO Java混淆器似乎使用了类似的想法。 http://www.cs.arizona.edu/~collberg/Teaching/620/2008/Assignments/tools/DashO/

安布尔说的完全正确。你可以让逆向工程变得更难，但你永远无法阻止它。永远不要相信依赖于防止逆向工程的“安全性”。

That said, the best anti-reverse-engineering techniques that I've seen focused not on obfuscating the code, but instead on breaking the tools that people usually use to understand how code works. Finding creative ways to break disassemblers, debuggers, etc is both likely to be more effective and also more intellectually satisfying than just generating reams of horrible spaghetti code. This does nothing to block a determined attacker, but it does increase the likelihood that J Random Cracker will wander off and work on something easier instead.

安全网哨兵(原阿拉丁)。不过要注意的是——他们的API很烂，文档也很烂，但与他们的SDK工具相比，这两者都很棒。

I've used their hardware protection method (Sentinel HASP HL) for many years. It requires a proprietary USB key fob which acts as the 'license' for the software. Their SDK encrypts and obfuscates your executable & libraries, and allows you to tie different features in your application to features burned into the key. Without a USB key provided and activated by the licensor, the software can not decrypt and hence will not run. The Key even uses a customized USB communication protocol (outside my realm of knowledge, I'm not a device driver guy) to make it difficult to build a virtual key, or tamper with the communication between the runtime wrapper and key. Their SDK is not very developer friendly, and is quite painful to integrate adding protection with an automated build process (but possible).

Before we implemented the HASP HL protection, there were 7 known pirates who had stripped the dotfuscator 'protections' from the product. We added the HASP protection at the same time as a major update to the software, which performs some heavy calculation on video in real time. As best I can tell from profiling and benchmarking, the HASP HL protection only slowed the intensive calculations by about 3%. Since that software was released about 5 years ago, not one new pirate of the product has been found. The software which it protects is in high demand in it's market segment, and the client is aware of several competitors actively trying to reverse engineer (without success so far). We know they have tried to solicit help from a few groups in Russia which advertise a service to break software protection, as numerous posts on various newsgroups and forums have included the newer versions of the protected product.

最近，我们在一个较小的项目上尝试了他们的软件许可解决方案(HASP SL)，如果您已经熟悉HL产品，那么这个解决方案就足够简单了。它似乎有效;目前还没有关于盗版事件的报道，但这款产品的需求要低得多。

当然，没有什么保护措施是完美的。如果有人有足够的动机，并且有大量的现金可以烧，我相信HASP提供的保护是可以规避的。

正如很多人已经说过的:在一个普通的CPU上，你不能阻止它们，你只能延迟它们。就像我以前的密码学老师告诉我的那样:你不需要完美的加密，破解密码的代价肯定比获得的代价更大。你的困惑也是一样。

但还有3个注意事项:

It is possible to make reverse engineering impossible, BUT (and this is a very very big but), you cant do it on a conventional cpu. I did also much hardware development, and often FPGA are used. E.g. the Virtex 5 FX have a PowerPC CPU on them, and you can use the APU to implement own CPU opcodes in your hardware. You could use this facility to really decrypt incstuctions for the PowerPC, that is not accessible by the outside or other software, or even execute the command in the hardware. As the FPGA has builtin AES encryption for its configuration bitstream, you could not reverse engineer it (except someone manages to break AES, but then I guess we have other problems...). This ways vendors of hardware IP also protect their work. You speak from protocol. You dont say what kind of protocol it is, but when it is a network protocol you should at least protect it against network sniffing. This can you indeed do by encryption. But if you want to protect the en/decryption from an owner of the software, you are back to the obfuscation. Do make your programm undebuggable/unrunnable. Try to use some kind of detection of debugging and apply it e.g. in some formula oder adding a debug register content to a magic constant. It is much harder if your program looks in debug mode is if it where running normal, but makes a complete wrong computation, operation, or some other. E.g. I know some eco games, that had a really nasty copy-protection (I know you dont want copyprotection, but it is similar): The stolen version altered the mined resources after 30 mins of game play, and suddenly you got just a single resource. The pirate just cracked it (i.e. reverse engineered it) - checked if it run, and volia released it. Such slight behaviour changings are very hard to detect, esp. if they do not appear instantly to detection, but only delayed.

所以最后我想建议: 估算逆向工程人员的收益，将其转化为一些时间(例如，使用最便宜的印度工资)，并进行逆向工程，使时间成本更大。

使代码难以进行逆向工程称为代码混淆。

你提到的大多数技术都很容易解决。他们专注于添加一些无用的代码。但是无用的代码很容易被发现和删除，留下一个干净的程序。

为了有效地混淆，您需要使程序的行为依赖于正在执行的无用部分。例如，与其这样做:

a = useless_computation();
a = 42;

这样做:

a = complicated_computation_that_uses_many_inputs_but_always_returns_42();

或者不这样做:

if (running_under_a_debugger()) abort();
a = 42;

这样做(其中running_under_a_debugger不应该很容易被识别为测试代码是否在调试器下运行的函数-它应该将有用的计算与调试器检测混合在一起):

a = 42 - running_under_a_debugger();

有效的混淆并不是仅仅在编译阶段就能做到的。编译器能做的，反编译器也能做。当然，您可以增加反编译器的负担，但这不会有太大的帮助。有效的混淆技术，就其存在而言，包括从第一天开始编写混淆的源代码。让你的代码自修改。你的代码中充斥着从大量输入中得到的计算跳跃。例如，而不是简单的调用

some_function();

这样做，你碰巧知道some_data_structure中精确的位的预期布局:

goto (md5sum(&some_data_structure, 42) & 0xffffffff) + MAGIC_CONSTANT;

如果你认真对待混淆，那就在你的计划中增加几个月的时间;混淆视听代价不菲。请务必考虑到，到目前为止，避免人们对您的代码进行逆向工程的最好方法是使其无用，这样他们就不会费心了。这是一个简单的经济考虑:如果对他们来说价值大于成本，他们就会逆向工程;但提高他们的成本也会大大提高你的成本，所以尽量降低他们的价值。

既然我已经告诉过你，混淆是困难和昂贵的，我要告诉你，无论如何，它不适合你。你写

目前我正在研究的协议绝不能被检查或理解，为了各种人的安全

这是一个危险的信号。它是通过默默无闻来保证安全的，而默默无闻的记录非常糟糕。如果协议的安全性依赖于人们不知道协议，那么你已经输了。

推荐阅读:

安全圣经:Ross Anderson的《安全工程》 混淆的圣经:由Christian Collberg和Jasvir Nagra开发的Surreptitious软件