Comments
Sort by recent activity
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.
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...
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...
No, I am not marking either the project that is being logged to the database or the projects that aren't as released builds. I am currently just using the UI to perform the build.
It might be worth noting that I initially installed SA as a trial and modified the SA settings file to use a different database connection string. I then created the project that is currently working and built that a few times. I then activated my SA licence and tried creating some new projects but these are not being added to the 'Projects' table of the database and builds are not being placed in the 'Builds' table. I can however still build the original working project fine and see entries going into the 'Builds' table for that project. / comments
No, I am not marking either the project that is being logged to the database or the projects that aren't as released builds. I am currently just using the UI to perform the build.
It might be worth...