Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

On the (Im)possibility of Obfuscating Programs

Posted by timothy on from the bold-words dept.

sl956 writes: "We all know that anybody using the words 'tamper resistant' to describe a software-based solution is incompetent at best. But some of the big players in the DRM field are believing in software-only protection schemes (see Cloakware, Hitachi, IBM or Intel). A mostly unnoticed paper presented to CRYPTO'01 (Santa Barbara, CA, August 19-23, 2001, LNCS vol.2139) *proved* the impossibility of efficiently obfuscating programs. It is the mathematical proof of the impossibility of a software-only DRM system on an untrusted client such as a PC. There are also a lot of interesting theoretical side-effects. You can read the html abstract here, or the postcript full paper here." The paper is from last year, but that doesn't make its conclusion less interesting. (Of course, even hardware isn't always all that secure, either.)

9 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. I don't know about you... by quantaman · · Score: 3, Funny

    but I found the paper sufficiently obfuscated!!

    --
    I stole this Sig
  2. proofs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    i have a mathematical proof that shows the impossibility of mathematical proofs, but i can't get it past the lameness filter.

  3. Are you sure? by phagstrom · · Score: 2, Funny

    *proved* the impossibility of efficiently obfuscating programs.

    Obviously they have never heard of IOCCC :-)
  4. Talk about publication delay! by Mike+Connell · · Score: 3, Funny

    If you look at the abstract page, you'll see that it hasn't been updated since 1970. It took 31 years to get it accepted for a conference? Wow, that sure makes me feel better about academia ;-)

    --
    Tales from behind the Lagom Curtain
  5. hardware too ! by mirko · · Score: 3, Funny

    NT is built upo an HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) which makes it actually seen as software so, it is obvious DRM hardware can't be 100% secure !?

    Now, if they promote brain-implants, then they might have the users DRM'ed which will be quite different to bypass...

    Unless one finds enough red pills.

    --
    Trolling using another account since 2005.
  6. Re:Yes, this is actually a problem... by Alsee · · Score: 4, Funny

    XORing it with the number 0x42

    The correct value should be 0xDEADBEEF.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  7. its really easy if you think about it.... by The_Fire_Horse · · Score: 0, Funny

    Sotware protection is not, and will never be completely safe from cracking. When, oh when; will the dipshits realise this!

    The only way to make your code tamper proof for ever is to write the code, print it out, drop the PC into a live volcano, then get the printout and jam it fair up your ass. Then go and put on a good old fashioned chastity belt. Lock it up, and smash the key to bits (do NOT eat a curry before doing this). The final step for total security is for you to jump into a live volcano.

    Your code is now secure.

  8. I wish they hadn't published this thing by 0xA · · Score: 3, Funny
    It is the mathematical proof of the impossibility of a software-only DRM system on an untrusted client such as a PC.

    Okay look guys, I know this, you all know this but let's not tell the suits okay.

    I like watching them fuck it up

  9. A better obfuscation by Latent+Heat · · Score: 2, Funny

    My SOURCE codes are copy protected because they are written in Object Pascal. The unwashed masses can't crack 'em because they don't program while persons savy enough to make sense of the code will sniff that anything not in C/C++/Java/Perl/CLisp is not worth bothering to read.