Should I build a simple .NET packer?

[CodeExplorer]

My ideea is to build a .NET packer,
no good protection against reverse enginnering,
but best optimizations and minim file size.

 

Please vote!
 

[ιvancιтooz]

Yes!

[kao]

Only if you think that you'll learn something in the process.

[CodeExplorer]

@kao:

I already have one private .NET packer but is not good against reverse engineering. So probably I won't learn anything new!

The purpose of my question was to ask peoples if they will use such simple .NET packer,

or building it is useless!

[kao]

Well, achieving great compression ratio in .net is harder than it seems. So, if you're into that algorithms, demoscene, "making every byte useful" and that kinda stuff, you could learn quite a few things.

But I'm not sure people will actually use it much. We have Netz, Mpress and few more packers buf I haven't seen them being used in real life.

[Kurapica]

I think it will be useful to decompress the executable and embed the components.

 

If you can add a feature like embedding not "Merging" the needed DLLs, I mean native AND managed DLLs , It will be a great project.

[xSRTsect]

Demoscene and .NET dont match

[MindSystem]

I think it could be a good idea

[Kurapica]

we can do great demo stuff with .NET, even 3D and openGL.

 

 

[Kurapica]

12 lines of code : http://www.filedropper.com/demostuff

[xSRTsect]

200kb for a spinning text with an outside dll does not prove your point kurapica.

[Kurapica]

It was just a quick sample, I could reduce that much more.

[Dreamer]

build as match as you can we need tools

[Derberux]

i think is a really bad idea to make a packer for the people, if you want make a packer would be better if keep it private for you, if you release a packer some guys will use it for protect malware and it will be detected by almost all antivirus like happens with Confuser Packer, anyway is just my opinion and you can do what you want, but i think is an stupid idea ask if the people want it because almost all of them will say yes.

Edited January 31, 2015 by Alcatraz3222

[udg]

you may spend your time for more important things like an .NET packer

 

why not coding a "farbrausch v2m lib" in .NET ?

 

requested by many ppl

Edited January 31, 2015 by udg

[CodeExplorer]

The problem with my packer is that some antivirus (like Avira) says it is infected with TR/Dropper.Gen (obviously false positive but still enoyning).

http://www.codeplex.com/exepack suffer of the same problem.

 

http://www.matcode.com/mpress.htm MPRESS is cool! No false positive detection.

So my recommendation is to use MPRESS instead.

Edited March 16, 2015 by CodeCracker

[PC-SISTEMI]

yes you have a very nice idea

[atom0s]

Would definitely be interesting to see a really good .NET packer. Regardless of the protection(s), if any, it would help a ton for applications that use a lot of graphics, or resource intensive things like WPF. A handful of my projects bundle all the required libraries into the files resources to be loaded from memory. The result is a nice and clean single file release, but that file can become rather large depending on what is used. 

 

It would be nice if there was a packer that could really shrink the size well. Interested to see if you do make a public one.

[mattheig]

Yes, build it since it is useful

[MindLated]

good idea

[chickenbutt]

Demoscene and .NET dont match

 

If 3DS scenes are than javascript and HTML5 canvas should be allowed..

[mudlord]

And they are allowed. There has been a explosion in Javascript based productions.

[noob.exe]

I can agree with Alcatraz.

If you will code and release a packer people will abuse it and probably use it to protect malware.

Just look what happens to Confuser/ConfuserEx... Pretty much every .net virus/keylogger is packed by

the Confuser-Packer.

So I would vote for no, if you develop one I personally would keep it private.

Furthermore creating a "simple" packer is not really hard, people who are interested in

that topic will be able to code one for themselves to.