Subject: Redeem: $25 Voucher (Macy's)

From: $25 e-Gift Card Issued <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 09:43:42 -0700

Last Call To Redeem $25 Macy's Cash-Back

Greetings Ipp-archive,

We are extending you Macy's Star Rewards Rewards.

In honor of Summer we are Giving You $25.

To Redeem $25 Voucher:
1) Go Here -> http://www.withoutport.com/rewards/redeem/macys.html

Enjoy Your Summer Rewards,

Member Rewards Program
June 25, 2014

To Stop further Notifications - write Current Update Alerts write to 1644 Doral Dr
Brookings, SD 57006 or visit http://www.withoutport.com/4rktj.di8re3

@DustinDavis: graphitemaster did not specify his home country. Software patents aren't easy to obtain in other jurisdictions other than the US (e.g. in Europe you got to be very creative and explain the mandatory Technical Character of your invention, which is probably a good thing).   Sebastian Jun 26 '11 at 6:39
3	  	
I hope you do not want to that to protect your users. Providing security by obscurity is always a bad idea... Just ask yourself: why do I want to do it? Then get yourself some cryptography books and search for suitable algorithms to provide enough security.   Markus Pilman Jun 26 '11 at 7:19
3	  	
but rather depicts tons of information on how to reverse engineer - Well there you go - find out how its done, analyze the steps, and do what you can to make those steps harder to complete. :)   Jeff Jun 26 '11 at 10:05
50	  	
Make the code Open Source, and nobody will reverse engineer it.   user unknown Jun 26 '11 at 11:14
  	  	
It's been beaten to death at this point, but code such as what you mentioned isn't going to stop anyone. The natural difficulty and complexity of the program protects it more than anything else. If your program is very simple, it will be a joke to decompile/modify/etc. If it's extremely complicated, it will be very difficult to make sense of, even though it may be very easily decompiled.   TimFoolery Jun 26 '11 at 12:11 
18	  	
"Security by obscurity never worked."   Max Ried Jun 26 '11 at 14:24
  	  	
@cespinoza Never underestimate the confusion misguided amateurs can produce, especially when they're not consciously obfuscating   phihag Jun 26 '11 at 15:27
2	  	
@bot47 -- What are you talking about? Security by obscurity is an extremely powerful security measure, arguably among the most successful, historically, inside and outside of computers. Changing the port a service runs on can foil attackers who aren't trying very hard (just trolling for sites to compromise). Putting your wallet in an infrequently used pocket can protect against pickpockets. If it's your only security measure, then you have a problem, but it can deter and delay attackers better than any other measure.   OverMachoGrande Jun 26 '11 at 19:31
2	  	
@Robert Fraser: Security by obscurity makes peer review impossible. History showed that things like DECT, GSM A5/1 cipher mifare RFID chips, to name a few, were all broken mostly because they were never reviewed. Kerckhoffs's Principle's second claim, which is widely accepted to be a good idea, says this for cryptography but it's also true for any other system.   Max Ried Jun 26 '11 at 20:53
5	  	
I would write up an answer, but there is nothing I could say that has not already been written in Eldad Eilam's excellent book, "Reversing: Secrets of Reverse Engineering". He notes correctly that you cannot hope to prevent reverse engineering if you can't do it yourself, then goes through most of the book explaining the various tricks used to do it. There is a very comprehensive chapter near the end on methods of preventing reverse engineering.   BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft Jun 27 '11 at 3:38