CODEWITHSUNDEEP
c++compilationobfuscationdistributeprecompile
The Unknown
The Unknown

Reputation: 19704

Distribute a application to the public so they can compile, without revealing the source

I have a proprietary application I would like to hand out to a few people for testing, except we do not want to reveal the source to them. The application is written in C++ for Linux. It links against readily available packages on the Fedora/Ubuntu repos.

Is there any way to process the source to something intermediate... then distribute it, and have the users do a final compile which actually compiles and links the intermediate code to their native platform.

I am trying to see if there is any alternative to distributing precompiled binaries. Thanks.

Upvotes: 11

Views: 1021

Answers (8)

tomjen
tomjen

Reputation: 3889

The best solution I can come up with is to either limit the number of platforms you support and do your own compilations, or compile to a binary format that is hard to extract information from, but the user can compile this to their native format.

Personally I would go with option 1.

Upvotes: 1

hhafez
hhafez

Reputation: 39760

You could obfuscate your C/C++ code. See my question for C/C++ obfuscation tools

Upvotes: 1

Kirill V. Lyadvinsky
Kirill V. Lyadvinsky

Reputation: 99605

You could divide your application in two parts: first part will contain precompiled libraries with the OS independent functionality, and the second one will contain a little parts of sources that users would compile. In such way NVIDIA distributes their drivers.

Upvotes: 1

Bob Somers
Bob Somers

Reputation: 7316

In short, no. By definition if they can compile it then they have your source. The best you can do is increase the pain of them trying to understand it.

I agree with John. If you have a small number of clients and trust them, an NDA would be a better route.

Another thing I just thought about... what about just running the preprocessor and compiler, but not the assembler and the linker? You would need a copy for each specific architecture's assembly language, but I assume that would be painful enough to dissuade editing while easy enough to compile.

Upvotes: 1

Emil H
Emil H

Reputation: 40240

Just compile it to assembler. Can be done using the -S option.

helloworld.cpp:

#include <iostream>

using namespace std;

int main(void)
{
    cout << "Hello World" << endl;
    return 0;
}

And then do:

emil@lanfear /home/emil/dev/assemblertest $ g++ -S -o helloworld.s helloworld.cpp
emil@lanfear /home/emil/dev/assemblertest $ g++ -o helloworld helloworld.s
emil@lanfear /home/emil/dev/assemblertest $ ./helloworld
Hello World

Using this method you can distribute only the .s-files which will contain very hard to read assembler.

Upvotes: 7

John
John

Reputation: 1549

It's not a technical answer, but do you trust them enough to just ask for a signed NDA?

Upvotes: 5

bdonlan
bdonlan

Reputation: 231203

If it's C, you can use the clang compiler, then dump the LLVM intermediate representation. If it's C++, you might need to wait a while until clang's C++ support matures.

Upvotes: 0

Paul Sonier
Paul Sonier

Reputation: 39480

You can process the existing source code to "mangle" it; basically this consists of stripping out all comments, and changing variable names to be minimal and stripping out all source code formatting. The problem is, they can relatively easily change the variable names back and add formatting and comments; while they won't have the same level of information in the resultant source code as you do, they WILL have completely functional source code (because that's what you distributed to them). This is about the only way to do this sort of thing.

Upvotes: 4

Related Questions