We Keep Coding

Is it safe obfuscating with opensource tools?

I am currently working on obfuscating my code and I will be using free tools to obfuscate my code.
The code is in java and I want to keep the code secure as I will be providing war file to the client.
My question is, whether it is safe to obfuscate using an opensource tool or is there any other way to obfuscate code or to secure war file.
The tool I will be using is :
yGuard
Need the best solution to secure my code, please let me know ways to secure war file.
Thanks

Obfuscation is security by obscurety; a way of securing that is frowned upon by security experts. Indeed as the commenters say, not shipping the code and keeping it behind a webservice is a better way of keeping the code private. I disagree that switching to an other language would help: a CPU will have to be able to execute your code, therefore with human effort your code canbe reverse engineered.
Obfuscated source or intermediated code can deter attackers that try to steal your code.
A code obfuscator can perform a varity of operations to obfuscate your target code. For most of these the obscurity of these does not have to come from obscurity of the obfuscator's code. Randomisation is a better way to make target code obscure.
An advantage of an opensource code obfuscator is that you can check that the obfuscator does what it is supposed to do.
Suppose you use a closed source (and ofcourse obfuscated) obfuscator from a source that you don't know or do not trust (or from a supposedly trustworthy source). How do you know that:
it doesn't install a backdoor into your software and turns it into Trojans?
it is written correctly and doesn't introduce subtle bugs or unintentionally expose your source?
it doesn't steal your unobfuscated code itself?
I know that the many eyes principle isn't as great in practise as some opensource advocates believe. But still its preferable to a proprietary obfuscator from an dubius supplier.

Decompiler Bytecode and Obfuscators

Can we completely reverse-engineer the source code from java bytecode ? Why this feature is allowed in Java and How successful are java decompilers against obfuscators.?

I know this question is old but I kept looking for a reliable answer until I found nothing.
So in this post I summarize some of my effort to obfuscate a J2EE JAR.
It seems , that by year 2014 (time of writing) there are not many options out there.
If you read this review later then things may have changed or fixed.
When I think why , I start to sense that the whole obfuscation effort gives a false sense of security. Don't get me wrong. It does add a level of security, but not as much as I would hope.
I will try to give a preview of what I found to explain myself. My recommendation are personal , others may disagree with it.
So to begin with: obfuscation in Java is the process of taking bytecode and making it less readable (using a decompiler of course) while maintaining its original functionality.What can we do, Java ,working as an interperter, must keep its bytecode exposed. You run the obfuscator as a measure of security in case the class file falls into the wrong hands. The result of the obfuscation is a reverse-mapping files and a JAR with the obfuscated classes. The reverse mapping file is used of-course to perform stack trace reading (a.k.a re-trace) or to revert the bytecode to its original shape. The runtime performance hit of an obfuscated class should not pass the 10% (but this really depends on what you do in your code).
But there is a big “but” . Obfuscation will scramble your code but it won’t make it hacker-proof. Bare in mind you only buy time and a determined hacker will find a way to reverse engineer your bytecode into its pure algorithm.
IMHO: the best way to hide a sensitive piece of code is to drown it in some huge pile of meaningless code.
Some of the hackers will try to modify your bytecode (by code injection) to help them achieve their goals. Some obfuscators offer additional level of JAR hardening , making it harder to modify.
De-obfuscators and de-compilers: my favourite Java decompiler is JD-GUI . However, when it comes to de-obfuscators I found the market pretty empty. Most of the tools ask you for a hint (what obfuscation tool was used to encrypt the source JAR) , yet none of them really deliver results (some of them even crash when trying to de-cipher the JAR). They are open source projects with low maintenance. I couldn’t even find a paid application to do a decent de-obfuscation. so enlighten me if you know something.
Free solutions
There are open source , free obfuscators which usually simply rename the classes/methods names, making it one letter method (i.e. from printUsage(String params) to a(String p) ).
They might ,as hinted here , even strip debugging information to make it a bit more difficult. (debugging information is kept at the end of every Java method bytecode and contains: line numbers, variables names ,etc.).
Its a nice effort , but an experience Java developer with a debugger can very easily deduce the purpose of each parameter while doing few live runs.
One of the nice open source obfuscators is ProGuard but there are several more tools.
Nevertheless , if you truly security fanatic you will probably want something stronger. Stronger demands more features (and more money) which leads us to the next bullet:
Paid solutions
While free products may only change classes method names , paid product will usually offer more features:
code/flow obfuscation: this will change the method code and inject empty loops/dead code/confusing switch tables and alike. Some of them may even scramble the exception table content. the obfuscation strength usually determine the output size.
Note: regarding code obfuscation: I deliberately avoided the details in my review. Some of the bytecode I saw and analyzed expose their obfuscation methods, and I wish to protect their IP. I do have an opinion about who uses better algorithms. contact me if you wish to know.
classes/method renaming : well this is the obvious , we discussed it in the free obfuscation. Some of the product will rename the class name and then recursively search for reflection usage of that class and fix those too. Paid products may even rename Spring /Wink configuration files for the same purpose (renaming in reflection).
String encryption: for every string “like this” in the code, it will encrypt it to some level and keep the key somewhere (in the class constant table/static blocks/a new method or any other mean).
debug information : stripping parts or scrambling.many of them will remove the line numbers info.
class
hardening: all kinds of methods like injecting some signing scheme into the beginning of the class/method, making sure an outsider won’t be able to easily modify the JAR and run it. Less important for Android or applets as most of them are digitally signed anyhow. some will combine hardening with water-marking to track pirated copies. But we all know anti-pirating methods by software are doomed to be hacked. Game industry suffered from it for decades until network based subscriptions arrived.
Since most products here deal with Java , some of them provides Android integration. It means it will not only obfuscate the Java (dalvik) code , but also manipulates the Android's manifest file and resources. Some offer anti debugging: remove the debug flag in android apps.
Nice GUI app to configure the various options and maybe do a re-trance on a given log file. The UI is usually used to generate a config file. with such file you can later re-play the obfuscation many times, even from command line.
Incremental build support - this is useful for large groups who release product updates/fixes frequently. You can tell the obfuscator to preserve old “obfuscation” result and randomly obfuscate only “new” code flows. this way you can be sure minimal impact on your methods signature. Without this flag , each obfuscation cycle on a JAR would yield a different output as most good tools use some level of randomness in their algorithms.
CLI and distributed builds. When you work alone then running an obfuscator is not a big issue. you need to configure the obfuscator to your relevant options and run it.However, in enterprise , when integrating obfuscator into the the build script things are a bit different. There is another level of complexity: build engine tasks (like ant/maven) and license management. The good news that all obfuscator I tested have command line API. In distributed build environment there are cluster/pool of build machines to support concurrent demand of builds. The cluster is dynamic and virtual, machines are going up or down, depending on various conditions. Some obfuscation products are based on cpuID license file or hostname. This can create quite a challenge for the build teams to integrate. Some prefer a local floating license server. Some may require public license server (but then: not all build farms have access to the public internet). Some offer multi-site license (which in my opinion is the best).
Some offer code optimizations - algebric equivalence and dropping of dead code. Its nice, but I believe that today's JDK do good job in optimizing bytecode. Its true that dead code makes you downloadable bigger, but with today's bandwidth its less than a problem. I also want to believe that in software today 20:80 thumb rule still applies. in any application 20% is probably a dead code anyway.
So who are the players I tried ?
KlassMaster by Zelix.com - one of the oldest in the industry. Yet they deliver a solid product with 3-4 releases per year. This been going for decades (since 1997). Zelix provides good email support and answered all my emails in a timely manner. They have a nice GUI client to either obfuscate a JAR or create a config file for future obfuscation. It simple and slick. nothing special here. They provided simple to read on-line documentation for all their flags. they support both “exclude” and “include” regular expressions for what the engine should obfuscate. The thing I liked about their process most is that it also adds “noise” to the exception table. It makes it a bit more confusing regarding the method exception handling. Their flow obfuscator strength is quite good and can be configured between 3 possible levels (light,medium and aggressive). Another feature I liked is the fine tuning they provide for debug info stripping (online line numbers, or online local variables or both). Klass Master doesn’t provide any
dedicated Android flags or anti-tamper methods. Their licensing model is quite simple: a text file to be placed near the KlassMaster main JAR. They also support incremental obfuscation.
JFuscator from secureTeam.net : While secureTeam also has a .Net tool , I focus on their Java tool capabilities. Their (Swing based) GUI tool seems nice but it crash when trying the simplest obfuscation task. the error was always the same: Error reading '/opt/sun-jdk1.7.0_55/jre\lib\rt.jar'. Reason: ''/opt/sun-jdk1.7.0_55/jre\lib\rt.jar': no such file or directory' . Now of course I have my Java installed in /opt/sun-jdk1.7.0_55/jre. You can image that they simply didn’t expect linux back slash structure. I contacted secureTeam.net support by email with the minor “path” problem. They asked if I am a linux user and after I replied I am , they never answered my email. I also tried their web site on-line chat : no response. So there I stopped testing. Without further results, I couldn’t examine the obfuscated bytecode quality. From their web site it seems they have anti-tamper method , String manipulation, method renaming and few other features.
GuartIt4J (by Arxan.com) : Arxan is fairly solid player in the mobile environment and as such they offer Android obfuscator which of course works well for Java. They have one of the most flexible engines.They provide code obfuscation,string encryption and alike You can define the complexity of code obfuscation. it is simply an integer. the higher - the longer your method turns out. ofcourse, you must be carefull not to exceed the JVM 64KB limit per class… As I said before one of the best strategies to hide a sensitive code is not to encrypt it , but to inject it into huge pile of garbage. This is exactly what GuardIt does. It can also explode in the same way the methods exception table. I managed to create a method with 100 exceptions in its exception table (pre-obfuscator it was 5). what they miss: their re-trace program is not part of the supplied main JAR. Nevertheless, they were kind enough to send me a sample Java program that performs re-trace given the reverse mapping file and the log. They don’t support incremental obfuscation and no flexibility regarding debug information. Debug information stripping is either all or nothing. watching the output JAR you will tons of conditions and jumps that were injected. Bare in mind , exploding the class size has its performance hit. In some methods I measured almost 50% performance hit when applying long obfuscation (no I/O in those methods). so extrapolating the code comes with a price.(from a 400 opcodes - I went up to 2200 opcodes after obfuscation). JD-GUI , my de-compiler failed to open such classes and crashed (IndexOutOfBoundException). They also supply complete class encryption . Meaning the class is encrypted with some symetrical key which demands a special (or custom written) class loader to open it in memory. This is an anti-tamper mechanism as well as hiding code. Just remember that a JVM can’t run that class without the class loader help. Its a nice feature, but the secret key and the bootstrap loader JAR are probably there. If he got the encrypted JAR the hacker will eventually get his hands and decrypt the classes. Yet this another level of obstacle the common hacker will need to pass. What I didn’t like here is the license file policy: is bounded to CPUid or need to install a floating license server.
SecureIt (by Allatori.com) : SecureIt offers all the general code obfuscation, string encryption ,renaming and such. On top of the standard obfuscation methods they also offer some kind of water-marking which is an anti-tamper/pirating method. They support Android and JavaME (who uses ME these days?!). They support incremental obfuscation. The one thing to note about configuring SecureIt: it is all command line. No GUI tool this time. Personally , I don’t mind command line tools as long as they come with good documentation. Luckily they have a very good documentation and a rich API with many flags to tune if you wish. you can re-trace with they tool (also a command line ) . They can’t obfuscate the exception table. I didn’t check their licensing mechanism.
DashO (by Preemptive.com) : DashO obfuscator will be remembered probably as the best UI tool you can get (to create your configuration). Like SecureIt they lake the exception table obfuscation but they have all the rest of the required features (as well as CLI, Spring framework and gradle/ant integration, and even an eclipse plugin) . Well, they do document a try-catch obfuscator (which is same as exception table obfuscator) , but it is only a recommendation to the engine. When I tried it , it had nil effect on the exception table. As I said , the GUI tool is superb and has a re-trace embedded into it. they also offer some kind of application signing and water-marking as an anti-tamper/pirating mechanism. DashO provides superb Android integration and also combine in their product a door for analytics uploads. You can actually track your application. Injecting crash log uploaders and reporting code to your JAR. Nevertheless that’s not the scope of obfuscation - that’s a whole different code injection product. They have a very good support. both online and by phone. Their licensing scheme is based on monthly subscription or one time purchase payment. A bit different than others. They are using a floating license server to support large environments.
I hope this helps a bit..

Can we completely reverse-engineer the source code from java bytecode ?
Not completely, because some aspects of source code, such as whitespace, local variable names, and comments, are not preserved in bytecode. Otherwise, yes -- while you can't get the exact same source code out, you can almost always get something that can at least be compiled back to the same bytecode.
Why this feature is allowed in Java
It's not so much "allowed" as it is "not prevented". And it's not prevented because doing so is impossible -- the code must be runnable to be useful; if the code is runnable, then it is analyzable; if it is analyzable, then with sufficient analysis it can be converted back to source.
How successful are java decompilers against obfuscators?
Not very. Most obfuscators I've seen (esp. ProGuard) are primarily effective in removing meaningful function and class names; obfuscating the logic itself is not typically attempted.

you can get source code from binary these days. Although the source code obtained by Java's bytecode is more readable, obfuscating will make it slightly unreadable. Its not that only Java can be reverse engineered to code. Even C/C++ these days (with Hexrays plugin for IDA Pro) can be decompiled to source. Obfuscaters will make it hard to read but not impossible. There is nothing that can save your program from an intelligent and capable reverse engineer. :).
Good luck.

Can we completely reverse-engineer the source code from java bytecode
?
The java class file is based on a spec so anyone can read into it. A tool like JD-GUI will tear into your source code easily. It is not a 'feature' per se. While 100% reverse-engineering is not possible, most of your code can be reverse engineered.
How successful are java decompilers against obfuscators?
Depends. The point of the obfuscator is to remove any meaningful names and try to introduce confusion in the code without impacting performance. Most developers are great at obfuscating code themselves :) Pro-guard is pretty good at obfuscation.

Does compiling Java to native code protect the source code?

Now, I know that...
Anything can be reverse engineered, given enough time and resources.
However, would compiling your Java code to native code with a tool like GCJ make it more difficult to decompile? I mean, given a few minutes, I can decompile a .jar using JD-GUI, and it is relatively accurate. Most of the "Java to EXE" converters are just .exe launchers for the JVM, and while there are many benefits to the JVM, I have been led to believe that security of the source code is not one of them.
Bottom line: Can you use something like GCJ to compile your Java source (or .class) files to native machine code, and if so, will that protect it from decompiling?
EDIT: Ideally, it would be something more than just obfuscation. The specific project is a commercial game, so what we are looking for is a way to make it more difficult to get to the source code to begin with, not just understand it. Also, I'm not sure that Steam accepts .jars, and we are planning on submitting it to the new Green Light project.

I wouldn't choose that approach just for source-security.
Check out some Obfuscator tools out there like ProGuard
If you want to see what those tools do to your source code, just try read the decompiled Minecraft jar if you have one on hand.
A downside to using this is, that if your code depends on using reflection, you'll have to configure the tools to ignore those functions/classes/whatever, as those will not be found at runtime otherwise.

Technically, yes. Using something like GCJ will make it harder to decompile, however keep in mind that you are losing some major benefits of using Java if you do this. Namely, you lose the ability to write cross-platform applications.
You could use an obfuscator to make the code harder to decompile AND still keep the benefits of using Java.

a Source code obfuscator like
this , this and this
makes your variables, functions, etc... unreadable by other(has no logical meaning). You should read here too!

How to prevent my class to be decompiled

I don't want my class to be decompiled.
I have gone through some of the articles and found a patent site
Zelix KlassMaster
Is there any free tools available in the market which works in the similar way..

As far as I know there are no free tools with the same set of functions.
In my opinion the mix between ProGuard and Stringer Java Obfuscator is the best and also most cheap way to protect Java and Android applications.
N.B. I'm CEO at Licel LLC. Developer of Stringer Java Obfuscator.

Proguard is the best available free and open source obfuscator. Obfuscators jumble your class, field and method names so that it becomes difficult to make sense out of the decompiled code.
Zelix Klassmaster is a commercial obfuscator and is one of the best in the commercial space. Also, it has some additional feature to encrypt the string constants to that the strings arent visible when decompiled. There are also some other commercial tools like yguard, DashO-pro, Allatori and Smokescreen etc.

You can obfuscate your code, so that when it de compiles it isn't easy to read (for programmer)

You can't specifically stop it being decompiled. After all, a decompiler only has to be able to read the byte code to turn it into source code, and reading the byte code is also what the JVM has to do. So if you were to come up with some way to prevent programs from reading the byte code, the JVM wouldn't be able to run your class.
As others have pointed out, obfuscation is the way to go if you REALLY need to do this, but I would question whether you really do need to. It's also worth pointing out that if you do use obfuscation, finding bugs will be much harder because stack traces will also be obfuscated.

Obfuscation is certainly a way to protect your code. Also, there are other tools which encrypt your classes and provide a custom classloader which can decrypt and load your class at runtime. This is not a very foolproof way but yes there are tools doing that.

You can't prevent a java class from beeing decompiled. However, you can make the life of someone who will try to understand your code very very hard. This is the task of a so called obfuscator, like KlassMaster.
Please see this list for Open Source obfuscators.
Please see also one of my questions: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1872170/how-to-protect-intellectual-property-in-java-app

Unfortunately in Java like in JavaScript getting to the source code is easy.
Understanding it is another thing.
If you try hard enough and send date through dozens of functions each doing a small part and passing it along then obfuscating it and maybe add some fake functions you might just give enough head eke to those with ill intentions enough of a head eke that they will quit before succeeding.

I'm using Zelix Klassmaster for my app Visual Watermark for about two years now. No new program "cracks" were released since then. So, it seems a good option for protecting Java apps.

Obfuscating one package in a java program

Is it possible to obfuscate only one package in a Java app? I am working on converting a large free app to a licensed one. As part of that I have added a new licensing module. I want to obfuscate this code to make it harder for people to crack it. It is a relatively small module and should not be too tough to obfuscate. The entire app is however large and complex and obfuscating it will result in a lot of testing effort.

Yes it is possible to do that. Any half decent obfuscator will allow you to choose what parts of your application are obfuscated. Of course, details of how you do it will depend on the obfuscator that you are using.
Standard caveats about obfuscation apply: no obfuscation scheme will protect your IP against someone who has the motivation and a modicum of hacker skills.

You could try Proguard (http://proguard.sourceforge.net/) and simply set the --injars option to point to the directory(package) that you are trying to obfuscate