[erlang-questions] Re: reverse engineering beam files / obfuscation ?
Mon Feb 15 21:15:53 CET 2010
You need to be careful to turn off the Erlang trace facilities for your
code, which can otherwise reveal your algorithms. This isn't trivial to do
right, but neither is it impossible.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kay Kay" <>
Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: [erlang-questions] Re: reverse engineering beam files /
> Thanks everyone for replying to this thread. That comparison between the
> JVM bytecodes and erlang beam-s is definitely comforting. But I was just
> worried from an IP perspective entirely reverse engineered altogether.
> From a commercialization perspective , are there any licensing
> restrictions to be aware , if there were a commercial app on top of the
> Erlang system ?
> On 02/12/2010 05:25 PM, Steve Davis wrote:
>> Hi Kay,
>> Just offering the thought that an effective obfuscation would be one
>> where the effort required to decode it would be about equal to, or
>> greater than, the effort required to write the code from scratch.
>> Beam isn't easy if, as Chandru pointed out, you remove debug_info from
>> the compile. Your code would be, I believe, considerably "safer" in
>> Erlang than other bytecode-interpreted languages such as Java/C#.
>> However, a long discussion about the value of open source could follow
>> the above comments... but I digress.
>> On Feb 12, 2:18 am, Kay Kay<> wrote:
>>> If I were to release a commercial erlang based app , with compiled beam
>>> files, would it be possible to reverse engineer it . If that were the
>>> case - any possible suggestions to prevent / obfuscate the same.
>> erlang-questions (at) erlang.org mailing list.
>> See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
>> To unsubscribe; mailto:
> erlang-questions (at) erlang.org mailing list.
> See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
> To unsubscribe; mailto:
More information about the erlang-questions