Activity overview
Latest activity by CSXPJC
Great, thanks.
We've done as suggested and evrything appears to be working fine. / comments
Great, thanks.
We've done as suggested and evrything appears to be working fine.
.NET framework targeting
We have a build server with .NET 4.6.1 installed on which we build a .NET 4.6.1 targeted application (server 'A'). We also have a build server on which is installed .NET 4.6.2 where we build a .NET...
That link doesn't work for me (ERR_CONNECTION_REFUSED).
Also, if 6.10 exists why is it not readily available in the SA download list? 6.9 is the most recent version I can find by browsing your site.
Thanks,
Paul / comments
That link doesn't work for me (ERR_CONNECTION_REFUSED).
Also, if 6.10 exists why is it not readily available in the SA download list? 6.9 is the most recent version I can find by browsing your site...
We are also getting out of memory exceptions on occasion. We are trying to find the 64bit version of SmartAssembly to download but the link at the top of this thread doesn't work. I also see a post in this thread referring to SA 6.10, but we can't find this either, only 6.9 and earlier. / comments
We are also getting out of memory exceptions on occasion. We are trying to find the 64bit version of SmartAssembly to download but the link at the top of this thread doesn't work. I also see a post...
The 'breaking' of the header information appears to not be related to my problem of the assembly failing to load and the CLR complaining about it not being a valid program. [image]
My problem seems to have been solved by turning off the 'manage memory' option. By doing so I can also enable 'control flow obfuscation' at maximum strength whereas before having 'control flow obfuscation' enabled at all on the main assembly cased SmartAssembly to fail to obfuscate the assembly. / comments
The 'breaking' of the header information appears to not be related to my problem of the assembly failing to load and the CLR complaining about it not being a valid program.
My problem seems to ha...
'Generate debugging information' breaks file header
I have a .NET 3.5 assembly that I am obfuscating with SA 6.8. If I enable the "generate debugging information" feature the header of the resulting assembly is invalid.
After obfuscation the header ...
We use the SmartAssembly.com commandline version to perform obfuscation and have found that this seems to be working ok with .NET 4.5 assemblies even though the UI refuses to work.
Is the problem only in the UI or is it also in the command line version - i.e. should be be concerned about the .NET 4.5 assemblies that we have obfuscated using the command line? / comments
We use the SmartAssembly.com commandline version to perform obfuscation and have found that this seems to be working ok with .NET 4.5 assemblies even though the UI refuses to work.
Is the problem o...
I encounter this error when turning on "Control Flow Obfuscation" for my main assembly and setting it to any value other than "None".
In the instance where I see this I am trying to obfuscate an assembly which references two others; one I am merging and the other I am embedding. I can turn on "Control Flow Obfuscation" for the embedded assembly and set it to maximum strength but, as mentioned above, if I turn it on for the main assembly I get an ArgumentOutOfRangeException.
I have used the "send error report" feature in SmartAssembly to submit the error I have encountered.
I am using SA 6.8.0.121 Professional. / comments
I encounter this error when turning on "Control Flow Obfuscation" for my main assembly and setting it to any value other than "None".
In the instance where I see this I am trying to obfuscate an as...
Strong name signing with a .pfx file fails
I've signed my assemblies with a strong name using a .pfx file. I have pointed my SA project to the pfx file and enabled the option to re-sign after obfuscation.
However, when I run the obfuscation...
Symbol server for obfuscated applications
I am in the process of setting up a symbol and source server for my project. Setting these up is pretty straight forward, but I'm unclear whether obfuscation will impact the use of this facility.
M...