I tried decompiling apkfile with apktool. But it said unaccessable. I think this is not obfuscated. How to make an APK file unaccessable to decompile and make it accessable to decompile?
Bad for bad English.
Here is an APK file.
http://www.mediafire.com/download/k16i71dmwpureta/manastone.ms2.Google.apk
In short no. You can craft a file that breaks specific tools, but there's no way to prevent reverse engineering in general.
That being said, I don't see anything wrong with the apk you posted. I was able to decompile it just fine.
Related
i made a python script with tkinter, python and i turned it into a program folder with .exe file that woks correctly using auto py to exe .
I m asking if there is a similar solution to turn this exe folder into an apk file and thanks
I think I understand the substance of your question.
I am not too much in the style of putting -1 on questions because I believe that no question is good or bad.
Be aware that there is no miracle method to transform your script into an android application. There are solutions to do things with python and android (notably Kivy) but not with Tkinter ...
Happy development!
See you soon
Actually there are ways of changing exe files to apk, but some controls (touch, scoll) doesn't always work as you might expect it to.
You can find how to do this here although I wouldn't exactly recommend it
I've been tasked with adding features to an existing hyperledger system. But all I've been given is the .bna file. I can clearly see it contains javascript source as well as models, but is this really enough to develop from? All my experience is going from .cto and .js files and configs to building the .bna archive. How do I go about doing that in reverse? Am I likely to run into problems because I'm missing something necessary not normally packaged in the .bna? Should I insist on getting the actual source tree that was used to build the .bna file? I already asked specifically for that and NOT the .bna file, but was ignored. Am I the ignorant one here?
The BNA file contains everything the networks needs to execute. The only things you are missing is things like build scripts, unit and system tests, documentation. So, I would keep trying to get the original source if you can, if you can't you do have enough to get going.
I'm using BartyCrouch to maintain an up-to-date localized project. My project is currently translated in 4 different languages, and I'm going to add some new languages. My issue is that my base Localizable.strings file has about 200-300 resources, even though there are probably less than 100 currently used in the project.
I'm looking for the best way to remove the un-referenced localized strings in the project, all while keeping the currently localized values.
Is there any native solution or do I have to use a third party? And if so, is there anything automatic?
Well, I definitely didn't look hard enough. I think it's worth posting an answer instead of deleting the question because I don't think the answer is on Stackoverflow yet.
https://github.com/ijoshsmith/abandoned-strings
This little gem will do exactly this. Easy to use. Simply download the zip file, use the Terminal to go into the "AbandonedStrings" folder containing a single "main.swift" file.
Then, on the terminal, enter: ./main.swift /the/path/to/your/project
This will display a list of all the unused ressources.
Then, if you also want the script to delete them, simply add "write" at the end of the command.
Watch out though: it will delete all the Storyboard localized ressources, so commit your project before and simply discard the changes.
I am writing an app using applescriptobjc in xcode, and while making the archive I see the source code is still inside the package, is there a way to hide it or transform it completely to binary code?
Thanks
I may be a year late to the discussion but I asked the same question around the same time as you did last year and hope that the answer I got will satisfy your own question. Here is an extract answer from
my own question:
When you save the AppleScript file you have the option of checking "Run Only" - in that case the script is compiled into a new form that can be run exactly as the original script, but it is not meant for further editing/development.
It doesn't mean that the run-only file is complete protected or non-readable, but parts of your code, comments, etc. are not included or not easily readable.
If you want to do more you'll need a code obfuscator if you still want to use AppleScript - however I'm not sure if one exists on the market, or you need to develop your own.
As you can see, a simple way to do this is:
Open your final AppDelegate.applescript file in Script Editor on the mac.
Select: File > Export...
2.1. Don't change the file name but override the archive file
2.2. BEFORE SAVING: Choose Run-only checkbox from the save options but leave the File Format as Script
Now your file cannot be opened in plain text as it is set to Run-only. Please remember that it is not a 100% read-proof solution, but works great for small projects (provided you are not rushing the final export and don't forget to perform the above mentioned steps before handing it over to the customer).
I hope you can make the most of this answer and still deem it useful. Let me know how you get on or whether you have any more questions. Perhaps you have since found a far better solution (or just an alternative), if so, I am still looking for the next best thing in source code protection.
In Xcode 9.2. (and maybe earlier versions) you can find under Build Settings the item OSACompile and can choose to compile to an executable only directly from Xcode.
Have made quite a bit of progress in my quest to figuring out the Mozilla extension platform, but am still struggling with a few issues.. Hoping someone here can point me in the right direction once again :)
Ok, so here is the issue... I have been messing around with the online addon builder app here: https://builder.addons.mozilla.org/
Great, this seems to be working ok for testing simple addons. But it includes so much extra junk - stuff I am not using and don't need there.
Now when I download the .xpi file, rename it to .zip, and extract it to work on the files, when I repackage it to a zip -> xpi, Firefox tells me the package is corrupt when I try to install.
I have deduced that this is because the package is "signed" or something, and when I repackage it myself this is not happening.
Whatever. This is getting ridiculous...
So I want to use the SDK to work locally, and then just include the SDK in the directory somehow. But it looks like I need to install python and run something in order to generate some files first blah blah blah.... are you joking me? I can't just code my app, then include the SDK files?
QUESTION:
How can I create my basic addon/extension with the online Addon Builder, then edit the files locally, repackage it, and use it?
Add-ons created with the SDK currently aren't signed (see bug 613618). There are a bunch of SHA256 checksums in the package manifest but nothing is verifying them (maybe they are meant for verification by external tools, I don't know). So this is not the problem you are experiencing.
Most likely issue is that when you repacked the ZIP file you didn't keep the directory structure. The install.rdf file needs to be at the top level of the package, not in some subdirectory. You can check it with the unzip -l mypackage.xpi - it should list install.rdf without any directory name.
Generally, I would advise against manipulating the XPI files. By removing unused modules you might be able to save 100 kB in download size, most likely less - somebody installing your add-on will not even notice the difference in download size. Modules that aren't used have zero impact on performance of your add-on. But you risk removing something that is actually used, maybe in a non-obvious way. And once AMO starts repacking SDK add-ons automatically they will replace your add-on by the standard package anyway.