Talk:Code morphing

Reverted Haakon vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.238.112.163 (talk • contribs)

The "vandalism" in question was my removal of his strongbit linkspam. Please do not edit Wikipedia for promotional purposes. --Haakon 11:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This time you delete our link again. I understand that generally external links to product pages are spam. But in this case there was a link to just Code Morphing Wikipedia article author and author of Code Morphing in app protection at all. Also we would add that Code Morphing in Win32 software protection is or own scientific research result used in a product.

Yes this page is one of the execryptor site but this is not a Product Page this is a page of original article. So I can assume we have the right to post link to our Article that we written and posted on wikipedia later that has been approved. We are not going to post our links to any other page and spam wikipedia but just only to our own article. So please stop the vanadalism. Regards, StrongBit Team

This is a product link and does not belong in Wikipedia, which is not a link directory. Also, you should normally not add links to sites you own. Please see WP:EL for more on Wikipedia's guidelines on external linking. --Haakon 12:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please describe an example

After reading the article, I still don't understand code morphing. How does a clear set of instructions become undecipherable as a result of the process of code morphing? If the CPU is able to understand the instructions at the time of execution, why couldn't a person do the same thing (albeit more slowly)? I understand (some) code obfuscation techniques but these are all solvable; some just might take more time than others. Could someone provide a really simple example? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.70.175 (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that this article is more or less only a promo for some security company, nothing is unbreakable. /Jem

Code Morphing = Obfucation?

I dont think code morphing is the the same as obfucation, especially when used to describe Transmeta technology. Code morphing is a reordering or aggregation of machine instructions into constructs that can be more efficiently executed. In the Transmeta case, x86 instructions would be used to produce a VLIW instruction that would be executed by the Tranmeta processor at a power savings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.44.215.194 (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CORRECT: code morphing is not used primarily for obfuscation, but for performance. This entry requires significant change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snirmarc (talk • contribs) 20:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]