Harden applications against hostile and compromised environments – not just simple attacks.
Once a mobile device or an on-premises server or a PC… is known to be compromised or in hostile hands (detected, for example, when someone attaches a debugger to an app in what is a strictly production setting), doesn’t it make sense to be able to alter your app’s runtime behavior in real time? …and not just at the time of discovery – but also into the future – and for as long as the runtime environment remains suspect?
Pokefan Alert - augmented reality apps like Pokemon Go are rooted in the REAL WORLD (not a virtual one) – a real world with a host of very real dangers.
Pokemon Go players are walking into traffic, being lured into remote locations to be robbed, and last (but in no way least) they’re being duped into using counterfeit (tampered) Pokemon Go apps.
Code obfuscation and the doctrine of “contributory negligence”
On May 11, 2016, President Obama signed the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016.
Enjoying unprecedented bipartisan support (Senate 87-0 and the House 410-2), this bill expands trade secret protection across the US and substantially increases penalties for criminal misconduct – and what could go wrong with that?
At Microsoft Build 2016, we introduced a new feature for Dotfuscator Community Edition (CE): command line support. This will allow you to integrate Dotfuscator into your automated build process, so that your builds and releases can automatically use Dotfuscator for obfuscation, tamper protection, usage tracking, and expiration. To help you get started, this post will walk through how to use the command line interface (CLI), as well as how to integrate it into MSBuild and Visual Studio for automated builds.
As of its 4.20 release, Dotfuscator Professional supports protecting Universal Windows Platform (UWP) applications.
There are two recommended ways to incorporate Dotfuscator into your UWP application build process: (1) integrate Dotfuscator into the MSBuild pipeline or (2) use Dotfuscator directly on your appx packages. These methods differ in their ease-of-use and in the level of protection they provide.
An app control that both Microsoft and Google can get behind? What about Xamarin?
First - Congratulations Xamarin (and Microsoft) - as someone who has used Xamarin personally and worked with the people professionally, I see this as a win-win-win (for Xamarin, Microsoft, and, last but not least, developers!).
To the topic at hand... One might argue that the phrase "GooglePlay security recommendations" is a contradiction in terms or even oxymoronic - but I take a different view. If (EVEN) Google recommends a security practice to protect your apps - then it must REALLY be a basic requirement - one that should not be ignored.
Question: True or False, Seat belts are to Driver Safety as Obfuscation is to Application Risk Management
The correct answer is FALSE!
The equivalence fails because a seat belt is a device and obfuscation is a control. Why might you (or the application stakeholders) be in danger? First, read through the key descriptors of these two controls.