Xamarin Applications and Dotfuscator

August 14, 2015 11151 Views Michael Letterle

Note: this document is deprecated. Please see Obfuscating Xamarin Applications with Dotfuscator for up to date instructions on obfuscating Xamarin applications.

We are often asked if Dotfuscator supports protecting Xamarin applications. Given that Xamarin applications are based on Mono, a .NET compatible runtime, the answer is yes! However, applying obfuscation transformations to Mono assemblies is only one half of an effective obfuscation solution; the other half is making sure that the configuration and automation of the obfuscation process itself is straightforward and stable. We've been working hard to make Dotfuscator more Mono friendly lately, specifically with an eye towards improving Xamarin compatibility.

There are many different methods you could use to get your Xamarin assemblies processed by Dotfuscator and then packaged for deployment to devices. The steps outlined below should be the easiest to implement, while giving you a reasonable expectation of protection. Note that the below instructions are specifically for Android and iOS projects. For Windows Phone projects, we recommend building the store-ready XAP first and then running it through Dotfuscator as normal.

Obfuscating Xamarin Applications

The most consistent and secure method of obfuscating your Xamarin apps is to integrate Dotfuscator into the MSBuild pipeline. This allows you to obfuscate your project using standard build tools, and lets you test your obfuscation using Xamarin's built-in debugger workflow. In order for the obfuscated outputs to be processed properly by Xamarin, Dotfuscator's "Mono Compatible" global setting should be set to "Yes" and a project property of "controlflow.disabled_manglers" with a value of "ILSpyBreaker" should be added.

Xamarin's platform specific utilities use reflection heavily, so as a starting point it is recommended to simply exclude the input assemblies from renaming (while still allowing control-flow obfuscation). Once that is working, you can then enable renaming if desired, and take the time to determine the minimum amount of exclusions needed for your application.

In each Android or iOS csproj file you should then add a reference to the Dotfuscate task and a target for AfterBuild, like so:

<UsingTask TaskName="PreEmptive.Tasks.Dotfuscate" AssemblyFile="$(MSBuildExtensionsPath)\PreEmptive\Dotfuscator\4\PreEmptive.Dotfuscator.Tasks.dll" />

////SNIP////

<Target Name="AfterBuild">
    <PropertyGroup>
        <DotfuscatorProperties>
            <OutDir>$(OutDir)</OutDir>
            <OutputPath>$(OutputPath)</OutputPath>
        </DotfuscatorProperties>
    </PropertyGroup>
    <Dotfuscate ConfigPath="Obfuscate.Android.xml" Properties="$(DotfuscatorProperties)"/>
  </Target>

Notice that we are passing in certain properties from the build process to the Dotfuscator process. Specifically OutDir and OutPath. By using project properties with default values we can specify paths in the Dotfuscator project file to allow us to configure the project using the stand-alone Dotfuscator UI, while having the build process handle where they actually are at build time.

In order for the Xamarin platform specific build process to properly find the obfuscated assemblies, they have to be copied back into the original assembly locations after obfuscation. Android has an additional restriction in that the original obfuscated PCL must be copied back to its project specific location as well. The easiest way to accomplish this is to have a post-build event in the Dotfuscator project to do the copying:

Adding a "ObRelease" and/or "ObDebug" configuration can be useful to only obfuscate when explicitly needed and wanted. This can be accomplished by adding a Condition property to the Dotfuscate element in the csproj (for instance: Condition=" '$(Configuration)' == 'ObRelease' "). Note that when adding a new "Release" config for Android, one needs to disable "Use Shared Runtime" and "Enable developer instrumentation" in the Android Options under the Packaging tab.

Once these steps are complete, you should be able to see Dotfuscator's build output during your builds in either Visual Studio or Xamarin Studio:

This will produce output packages containing obfuscated assemblies ready for deployment and testing!

Example Dotfuscator File

This is a fully configured Dotfuscator file for an Android project as described in this post. Note especially the use of properties as well as the post-build event.


<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="no"?>
<!DOCTYPE dotfuscator SYSTEM "https://www.preemptive.com/dotfuscator/dtd/dotfuscator_v2.3.dtd">
<dotfuscator version="2.3">
  <propertylist>
    <property name="controlflow.disabled_manglers" value="ILSpyBreaker" />
    <property name="OutDir" value="C:\Users\ObfuscationUser\Documents\Visual Studio 2015\Projects\ObXFormsP\ObXFormsP\ObXFormsP.Droid\bin\Release" />
    <property name="OutputPath" value="\bin\Release" />
  </propertylist>
  <global>
    <option>monocompat</option>
    <option>verbose</option>
  </global>
  <input>
    <loadpaths />
    <asmlist>
      <inputassembly refid="52f75f71-2d9e-4e8a-911b-a24e252f60c6">
        <option>honoroas</option>
        <option>stripoa</option>
        <option>transformxaml</option>
        <file dir="${OutDir}" name="ObXFormsP.dll" />
      </inputassembly>
      <inputassembly refid="840c659d-7536-4ad6-9040-2f9c520a8968">
        <option>honoroas</option>
        <option>stripoa</option>
        <option>transformxaml</option>
        <file dir="${OutDir}" name="ObXFormsP.Droid.dll" />
      </inputassembly>
    </asmlist>
  </input>
  <output>
    <file dir="${configdir}\Dotfuscated" />
  </output>
  <renaming>
    <option>xmlserialization</option>
    <excludelist>
      <assembly>
        <file dir="${OutDir}" name="ObXFormsP.Droid.dll" />
      </assembly>
      <type name="ObXFormsP.App" />
    </excludelist>
    <mapping>
      <mapoutput overwrite="false">
        <file dir="${configdir}\Dotfuscated" name="Map.xml" />
      </mapoutput>
    </mapping>
    <referencerulelist>
      <referencerule rulekey="{6655B10A-FD58-462d-8D4F-5B1316DFF0FF}" />
      <referencerule rulekey="{7D9C8B02-2383-420f-8740-A9760394C2C1}" />
      <referencerule rulekey="{229FD6F8-5BCC-427b-8F72-A7A413ECDF1A}" />
      <referencerule rulekey="{2B7E7C8C-A39A-4db8-9DFC-6AFD38509061}" />
      <referencerule rulekey="{494EA3BA-B947-44B5-BEE8-A11CC85AAF9B}" />
      <referencerule rulekey="{89769974-93E9-4e71-8D92-BE70E855ACFC}" />
      <referencerule rulekey="{4D81E604-A545-4631-8B6D-C3735F793F80}" />
    </referencerulelist>
  </renaming>
  <controlflow level="high" />
  <eventlist>
    <event type="postbuild">
      <option>buildsuccessful</option>
      <program>
        <file dir="c:\windows\system32" name="cmd.exe" />
        <environment commandline="/c copy /y &quot;${configdir}\Dotfuscated\*.dll&quot; &quot;${OutDir}&quot; &amp; copy /y &quot;${configdir}\Dotfuscated\ObxFormsP.dll&quot; &quot;${configdir}\..\ObXFormsP\${OutputPath}&quot;" workingdir="" />
      </program>
    </event>
  </eventlist>
  <sos mergeruntime="true">
    <option>version:v4</option>
    <option>dontsendtamper</option>
  </sos>
  <smartobfuscation>
    <smartobfuscationreport verbosity="all" overwrite="false" />
  </smartobfuscation>
</dotfuscator>

Latest Blog Posts

Protecting C# Applications That Use Dynamic Types

The dynamic type in C# provides flexibility that is not available in other statically-typed languages. Since its introduction in C# 4.0 (.NET 4.5), we have worked with customers who wanted to know more about how dynamic types are impacted by the obfuscation process.

Malicious actors — like any thieves — live by a simple rule: If the front door is locked, break the window.

It’s why threats like fileless malware and crypto-jacking have seen substantial gains over last few years. It’s why — despite increasing employee education and IT training — hackers are still hooking phish by developing more sophisticated and authentic-looking email spoofs. Cybercriminal communities, meanwhile, continue to grow on the dark web, allowing attackers to share info, purchase exploit kits and identify potential targets.

What does this mean for CISOs? That typical defense efforts are being outpaced as familiar attack vectors are replaced with non-traditional threats. But it’s not all bad news; here are three questions every CISO needs to ask to help close the doors, bolt the windows and leave hackers out in the cold.

Gabriel, you have been in the security industry for over 2 decades. You have seen many different tools and services. Why create a company around something as specific as obfuscation and in-app protection?

Our customers build a lot of really innovative apps that enable their users and customers to do new and cool things. These apps frequently run on untrusted client computers/devices and they control access to customer’s sensitive data or critical devices.

And after all the effort of designing, building, debugging, and deploying their applications, the last thing they want is for an attacker to steal their work or use it to look for vulnerabilities to break into their system.

Long ago, we built a Java code optimizer, but it became clear to us that our customer cared more about the obfuscation effects of the optimization than the actual performance improvement. That is when we really began to focus on app protection. First with Java, then .NET, Android, iOS, Xamarin, JavaScript, etc.

Gartner calls In-App Protection “crucial” in their July 2019 Market Guide for In-App Protection In-App Protection. The guide’s summary advises security and risk management leaders to “take due care in protecting their application clients” in order to avoid “security failure.”

This raises the question – what constitutes “due care?” Obviously, no development organization looks to recklessly expose their applications or sensitive data to attack or compromise. On the other hand, over-engineered (or poorly engineered) security controls can quickly lead to excessive development costs, performance and quality issues, and, ultimately, unacceptable user experiences. While terms and terminology may vary, there is broad consensus on how to best define “due care” for any given application/user scenario.

If you don’t follow application security closely, you might think of application obfuscation and symbol renaming as being synonymous – and with good reason. Many platforms and languages, like .NET, Java, and JavaScript have popular obfuscators that do little else--our own Dotfuscator Community Edition for .NET and ProGuard for Java are good examples. However, obfuscation is far more than symbol renaming – and in-app protection is far more than obfuscation. Much of this expansion has been driven by new security requirements, shifting attack vectors, the rise of mobile and IoT computing and, lastly, the growing recognition inside regulations and legislation of the exposure that can result from inadequately protected software.

Xamarin Applications and Dotfuscator

Obfuscating Xamarin Applications

Example Dotfuscator File

Protecting C# Applications That Use Dynamic Types

Non-Traditional Attack Vectors: Three Questions Every CISO Needs to Ask

Q&A With PreEmptive CEO Gabriel Torok

Gabriel, you have been in the security industry for over 2 decades. You have seen many different tools and services. Why create a company around something as specific as obfuscation and in-app protection?

The Secret to Effective In-App Protection

Symbol Renaming: App Security’s Maginot Line?

Latest Blog Posts

Protecting C# Applications That Use Dynamic Types

Non-Traditional Attack Vectors: Three Questions Every CISO Needs to Ask

Q&A With PreEmptive CEO Gabriel Torok

The Secret to Effective In-App Protection

Symbol Renaming: App Security’s Maginot Line?

Twitter