Hi all,

online there's the third episode of the very nice Java series from ThunderPwr. This time he approaches a nice program, PersonalBrain, which has some interesting obfuscation and encryption mechanisms to avoid reversing of its java code.

Here's what the abstract says


usual place: tutorials.accessroot.com

Have phun,
Shub

And thanks again here also Shub, for your continued sharing of this information with our readers.

Regards,

Here, I fixed the first bit for you:

Java is nearly a complete bi-directional-platform now -- there's not much that can't be reversed, and the "obfuscation" is a joke (reversers are used to memory addresses, so renaming everything won't do much).

What level of reverser do you intend these tutorials to be read by? Part 3 was quite straightforward compared to 1 and 2.

which type of readers? Probably those who will learn something from this issue or already enjoyed the previous two.
LLXX one thing is just commenting another is doing.

Thanks as always Shub, keep 'em coming.

I have been lurking for a while and have seen some things lately that seem cheap and petty but this tops it all.

Ban me if you want, I can still come back with a fresh IP.

Correcting someones spelling is a psych problem that defies explanation.
Why does llxx feel the need to correct shub spelling?
llxx needs to find something better to do with his spare time.

Please dont kill me JMI.

Hehe, funny you should mention that... We've actually very recently told LLXX to keep this kind of negative and self-absorbed comments to herself, but she's quite convinced that noone else than me/us does anything but love them... Just ignore them anyway, you won't see many more of them from now on.

I mean the "intended audience".
What would you think if e.g. your daily paper was filled with errors like this?

I know I should've went through the whole thing (maybe I will if I have the time), but I'm just giving a preliminary hint at improvement.

LLXX, what you may have failed to notice is that:

A) This is not a daily newspaper.
B) This site is not called IsMyTutorialHotOrNot.com.
C) Noone, including the person submitting the tutorial appreciates your comments and "feedback" at all.

So, for the love of god just give it up and keep your self-absorbed comments to yourself (as also previously thoroughly discussed in private).

And LLXX Dear:

If you intend to presume to publicly correct other people's "English grammer," please make sure that you actually have a firm grasp of the "Rules" of proper use of the English "past participle."

I'm sure you understand that "the past participle" is a form of past tense that "tends to show completion" of some kind of action. For example, "He sang a song" is simple past. "He sung a song" is the past participle.

The most abused instance of the past participle is the verb go. How many times have you heard someone saying, "I should have went there"? (Or your own contraction: "I know I should've went through the whole thing..."

It is astonishing to see English speaking and educated teachers, journalists, even politicians make that mistake repeatedly.

The flaw with "should have went," is that the speaker/writer obviously means to imply some kind of completion, but that does not come across because went is the simple past of go. Gone is the past participle. Therefore by saying should have went you're not conveying the entire meaning of your statement.

If this whole simple past and past participle thing is beyond you, then, perhaps you shouldn't be criticizing other, non-English speaking and/or trained writers about the "correct" usage of the language. Just remember never to use the simple past tense rather than the past participle as the main verb in a verb phrase (i.e. the last verb in the phrase). At the least, remember not to say or write, "I should have went" or "I could have went." It's always, "I should have gone" and "I could have gone".


Regards,