Prerequisites for Yudun VMP Assessment

Conclusions and decision conditions

Do not submit merely an installer with the same name; you must record its source, version, file digest, signing plan, and intended distribution channels.
Do not simply request 'maximum strength'; specify which logic, if reverse-engineered or modified, would cause specific business losses.
The tech stack must cover languages, build systems, minimum OS versions, ABIs, Native components, dynamic loading, cross-platform frameworks, and third-party SDKs.
Define success, failure, uncovered scope, stop, and rollback conditions before the PoC to avoid mistaking a successful launch for release readiness.

Provide a Uniquely Identifiable Release Candidate First

The release candidate serves as the common object for subsequent configuration, testing, and conclusions. At minimum, provide the package name or Bundle ID, version, build source, file SHA-256, current signing status, target signing plan, and intended distribution channels. If file delivery is temporarily impossible, clearly state whether the project is in the architecture, development, integration, or release preparation phase.

Files with the same name do not represent the same artifact. Rebuilding, re-signing, modifying channel resources, or replacing dependencies generates a new identity. For every change, specify which validations must be re-run; do not apply pass conclusions from old candidates directly to new files.

When involving proprietary code or user data, submit via the controlled project workflow on the central Yudun platform. Public topic sites provide only methods and entry points; they do not accept accounts, installers, certificates, or project secrets.

Minimum Fields for Release Candidate Submission
Field	Example Content	Purpose	Common Gaps
Application Identity	Package Name or Bundle ID, Version	Maps to release, upgrade, and test scope	Only store name provided
File Identity	SHA-256 and Generation Time	Ensures all evidence points to the same file	Overwriting old files with same name
Build Source	Branch, Commit, CI Job, or Release Record	Issue traceback and rebuilding	Unable to specify source
Signing Plan	Current Status, Final Certificate, and Signing Steps	Validates upgrade and release identity	Arbitrary re-signing after PoC
Distribution Scope	Store, Enterprise, or Private Channels	Determines integrity signals and delivery checks	Assuming all channels are identical

Define Business Loss for Code Requiring Protection

'Maximum strength,' 'full protection,' and 'anti-cracking' are not executable requirements. List core algorithms, authorization checks, protocol handling, content rights, models, or critical local decisions, and explain the specific loss incurred if they are understood, copied, modified, or bypassed.

Simultaneously explain why this logic must remain on the client side. High-risk authorizations that can be handled server-side should be decided by the server first; client-side protection should be evaluated only for paths requiring offline capability, low latency, or platform-native features. This ensures VMP is reserved for code that truly requires altered execution representation.

Each asset must also have an owner, invocation entry point, execution frequency, thread context, input/output definitions, dependencies, and failure fallback. Assets without independent acceptance paths must have test conditions added first, regardless of their value.

Examples of Business Asset Descriptions
Asset Type	Loss to Describe	Client-Side Necessity	Suggested Acceptance Prep
Authorization & Rights	Resources accessible if local branches are bypassed	Offline capability or fast local judgment	Normal, expired, tampered, and server re-verification states
Core Algorithms	Commercial value lost if copied	On-device performance, privacy, or offline needs	Input/output consistency, performance, and boundary data
Protocol & Key Usage	Consequences of replay, forgery, or bulk abuse	Device binding or local communication	Error handling, replay detection, rotation, and server limits
On-Device Models or Rules	Replication and modification of models, prompts, or post-processing	Offline, privacy, or low-latency requirements	Version pairing, loading, rollback, and logging
Critical Third-Party Interfaces	Consequences of SDK bypass or incorrect invocation	Platform or channel requirements	Real accounts, signatures, and callback paths

Tech Stack Inventory Defines Compatibility Test Boundaries

Android projects must specify Java, Kotlin, NDK, Gradle, and Android Gradle Plugin versions, minSdk, targetSdk, released ABIs, and usage of reflection, serialization, dynamic class loading, hotfixes, pluginization, WebView, Native components, and multi-process architectures. iOS projects must specify Swift, Objective-C, minimum OS version, extensions, dynamic libraries, runtime characteristics, and signing capabilities.

For Flutter, React Native, Unity, Cocos, or other cross-platform frameworks, record the framework version, bridging method, engine, and business Native libraries. Do not simply state 'cross-platform,' as artifact structure, application launch behavior, and third-party integrations vary significantly across versions.

Third-party login, payment, push notifications, maps, audio/video, analytics, risk control, hotfixes, and vendor services may rely on reflection, signatures, Manifest entries, URL Schemes, JNI, resources, or their own integrity checks. Listing these completely during initial assessment saves more time than guessing them one by one after crashes occur.

Languages, build systems, and major plugin versions
Minimum and target OS, devices, and ABIs
Native components, JNI, dynamic loading, and cross-platform frameworks
Multi-process, WebView, hotfixes, and pluginization
Critical SDKs: Login, Payment, Push, Audio/Video, etc.

Clarify Signing, Channels, and Upgrade Plans Before PoC

Specify what signature the PoC artifact uses, who signs the formal release, whether channel resources are processed before or after signing, whether Play App Signing is used, and which distribution method is used for iOS. These factors affect installation, upgrades, integrity signals, and final file identity.

Android officially states that app signing keys confirm updates originate from the same key holder. If the PoC uses a temporary certificate, it validates only that specific environment and does not automatically prove coverage for online versions. Formal acceptance must use a signing plan consistent with the release chain, permitted by authorization and security workflows.

Channel processing must follow a fixed order. Modifying the package body after final signing breaks the signature; rebuilding or re-signing after acceptance generates a new candidate. Rollback versions must also verify signatures, version numbers, data migration, and overwrite upgrades in advance.

Questions to Confirm Regarding the Release Chain
Question	Why It Matters	Acceptable PoC State	Formal Acceptance Requirement
Who performs the final signing?	Determines key responsibility and artifact identity	Temporary signing with clear limitations	Consistent with formal process and auditable
When is the package body modified for channels?	Modification changes the file and signed content	Order can be described	Completed before signing with re-fixed identity
How to cover online versions?	Validates signature and version continuity	Can be skipped but marked as uncovered	Upgrade from real online version
How to rollback?	Must be executable during incidents	Prepare baseline candidate	Rollback package pre-verified with assigned owner

Define PoC Success, Failure, and Stop Conditions Upfront

A PoC is not merely generating an installable hardened package. Pre-determine the protection scope to observe, static exposure surface, application launch behavior, critical business flows, performance budget, target systems, ABIs, third-party SDKs, installation/upgrades, and exception fallbacks. Each project may have different weights, but none can lack definitions.

Success conditions must be measurable, such as consistent key inputs/outputs,逐项 passing target systems, application launch changes within project budget, safe exception paths, and traceable protection configurations. Failure conditions include application launch blocking, critical business errors, unacceptable performance changes, compatibility failures within target scope, or unattributable issues.

Stop conditions prevent blind scope expansion. If candidate identities are inconsistent, baselines are missing, critical logs are unavailable, signing workflows are unconfirmed, or test environments mismatch the release scope, address these gaps before proceeding.

How to Classify PoC Results
Status	Meaning	Reporting Requirement	Publishable?
Verified	Evidence obtained for the same candidate within agreed scope	Specify method, environment, results, and boundaries	Judgment valid only for that scope
Failed	Reproducible blocking or budget non-compliance occurred	Retain earliest differences and impact	Cannot publish with original configuration
Not Executed	Missing devices, accounts, data, or authorization	State reason and next steps	Cannot substitute with other results
Not Applicable	Project explicitly excludes this platform or capability	Provide basis for determination	Excluded from current scope

Public Security Example for PoC Application Data

project_stage: release-candidate
artifacts:
  baseline: identified
  protected_candidate: pending
assets:
  - entitlement-decision
  - protocol-core
stack:
  platform: Android
  min_os: project-defined
  abis: [arm64-v8a]
critical_journeys:
  - cold-launch
  - sign-in
  - protected-operation
acceptance:
  functional_parity: required
  performance_budget: project-defined
  compatibility_matrix: required
  rollback_rehearsal: required
boundaries:
  - no_unverified_attack_resistance_claim
  - uncovered_devices_remain_open

Deliverables Formed by Yudun Assessment After Complete Data Submission

Complete input supports three consecutive phases. Phase One confirms assets, tech stack, and release chain to form an initial protection scope and risk list. Phase Two generates a traceable PoC and executes static and runtime checks on the same candidate identity. Phase Three adjusts the scope based on results to finalize the target matrix, release boundaries, and rollback conditions.

Specific protection capabilities, platform support, performance budgets, and delivery cycles must be confirmed against real projects. This page uses no customer cases, pass rates, or generic performance figures, nor does it promise final outcomes without a release candidate.

Login, registration, applications, pricing, and project data are unified within the central Yudun platform. Topic sites will not establish a second set of accounts or application systems. Organize materials according to this checklist before submission to avoid repeatedly supplementing candidate identities and release scopes after project initiation.

Traceable release candidate, baseline, and release chain
Clear description of protected assets and business losses
Complete tech stack, third-party dependencies, and target matrix
Defined success, failure, uncovered scope, and rollback conditions
Submit sensitive data only via the central platform

Evidence and applicability boundaries

This section separates documented platform facts, engineering judgment, and limits that cannot be generalized into unverified product claims.

Article judgment	Fact or engineering basis	Applicability limit
Release candidate identity is the common primary key for assessment evidence.	Rebuilding, signing, channel modifications, and dependency changes alter the final file and potential runtime behavior.	SHA-256 identifies the file but does not imply the file is secure.
VMP protection targets should derive from business loss and threat modeling.	OWASP MASVS treats anti-reverse engineering and anti-tampering as depth defense against specific threats, not replacements for server-side logic or overall architecture.	Standards cannot prove that a specific candidate or configuration has passed.
Signing and upgrade plans must be closed loop in formal acceptance.	Android uses app signing identity to confirm update continuity; Apple platforms also require executable code to follow the code signing chain.	Different distribution methods and certificate rotation strategies must be verified per project.
Ability to install and launch is not a complete PoC conclusion.	Release also involves critical business flows, performance, systems, ABIs, third parties, upgrades, monitoring, and rollback.	Projects may trim the matrix based on real user scope, but uncovered items must be explicitly stated.
Topic sites do not accept sensitive project data.	Accounts, applications, and project data are uniformly handled by the central Yudun platform; content sites provide only public methods and redirects.	Specific data permissions and retention rules are subject to the central platform and project agreements.

Engineering questions

Can I apply for assessment with only an APK and no source code?

You can confirm the artifact and targets first, but protection configuration, issue attribution, and rebuilding capabilities may be limited. You should specify whether you can provide build cooperation, symbols, test accounts, and baselines.

Must formal signing be provided during the first communication?

Not necessarily. Controlled test signing can be used for partial PoC, but it must be clearly stated that this does not represent online upgrades or the formal signing chain. The release plan must be completed before formal acceptance.

Why list all third-party SDKs?

Third-party SDKs may rely on reflection, signatures, resources, JNI, initialization order, or their own integrity checks, making them a significant source of compatibility issues.

Can I directly request full maximum strength?

You can state risk preferences, but the final scope must still be layered based on business value, execution frequency, blast radius, and regression testing capabilities; otherwise, forming a stable release conclusion is difficult.

Can the data listed in this article be uploaded directly via the topic site?

No. Topic sites provide only public content. Login, registration, applications, and project data must be redirected to the central Yudun platform for processing.

Want to test this on your own app?

Submit the release candidate, target systems, and critical business paths for a Yudun PoC and compatibility assessment.

Continue with: Yudun VMP preparation checklist

Request an app hardening test Submit project details