![]() In that way our IP will be sightly better protected! ( although no system is 100% secure, of course ). It’s very hard to debug a kernel driver, plus the difficulty to crack a private/public asymetric 1024-bits algorithm would make the system more secure. The OpenCL driver would use those keys to decrypt internally the kernel’s code. On the other hand, you could write a simple tool to encrypt the OpenCL source code using a private key ( for example: “ATI rocks” ) and a closed-unknown algorithm or keys (like the DCC, DVD or Bluray). For example:Įach card has an hexadecimal identifier. 28a, an obfuscator embeds bogus code protected by opaque predicates within three statements of a real program. If you could use a private/public system would be much more secure. In particular, the code to be protected calls and is called by functions/m files that cannot be obfuscated/protected (they are part of another library that. Would be possible to add a private/public key encrypt mechanism inside the the OpenCL driver? A reverse engineer could easily watch my precious OpenCL IP algorithms just creating a fake opencl.dll. JSFuck is a way to convert JS code into esoteric style that resembles the infamous Brainfuck programming language. I have a security problem… Call me paranoid but: This isn’t much of obfuscation technique by itself, but minification - removing indentation, newlines and whitespace from the code is often done as part of obfuscation process, in combination with other techniques. Browsing the ATI’s OpenCL forums I found this post, which can be interesting:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |