Repository navigation
Implement a whitelist for deobfuscation - #2040
Conversation
|
@nitram84 thanks for PR!
I like the second option, but it requires a bit of refactoring. |
Sure PRs are welcome And LibChecker rules looks good, I definitly needs to check them, thanks 🙂 |
|
Ok, I merged PR and my refactoring commit. @nitram84 along with small fixes to your PR, I changed separator symbol to space for deobfuscation whitelist option, this way it is closer to similar options: |
|
You were right: having modular deobfucation conditions is/was definitively the better choice. Sorry for the work you had due to my PR. I'll soon fix the translations with the new separator symbol and propose more whitelist entries. |
The deobfucator of jadx usually obfuscates packages or classes like
android.support.v4.*
android.support.v7.*
android.support.v4.os.*
android.support.annotation.Px
androidx.core.os.*
androidx.annotation.Px
Reproducible with any app (obfuscated or not) which uses support libraries.
Of course those names could be renamed again, but wouldn't it be easier with a configurable whitelist for deobfucation and reasonable defaults of well known classes and packages?
My default list may not be complete and if the list gets much longer in the future it could be better to switch to a file based whitelist.
This PR is a duplicate of #765 which was rejected, because jadx can't identify libraries and marked as duplicate of #66. In my opinion the opposite is now true: With this PR jadx would be able to identify more libraries correctly when deobfuscation is enabled:
And library detection might be a first step towards automatic dependency detection as a precondition of #66.
Off topic question: Do you also accept also sample scripts as PR?