  Man-at-the-end (MATE) attackers have full control over the system on which
the attacked software runs, and try to break the confidentiality or integrity
of assets embedded in the software. Both companies and malware authors want to
prevent such attacks. This has driven an arms race between attackers and
defenders, resulting in a plethora of different protection and analysis
methods. However, it remains difficult to measure the strength of protections
because MATE attackers can reach their goals in many different ways and a
universally accepted evaluation methodology does not exist. This survey
systematically reviews the evaluation methodologies of papers on obfuscation, a
major class of protections against MATE attacks. For 571 papers, we collected
113 aspects of their evaluation methodologies, ranging from sample set types
and sizes, over sample treatment, to performed measurements. We provide
detailed insights into how the academic state of the art evaluates both the
protections and analyses thereon. In summary, there is a clear need for better
evaluation methodologies. We identify nine challenges for software protection
evaluations, which represent threats to the validity, reproducibility, and
interpretation of research results in the context of MATE attacks and formulate
a number of concrete recommendations for improving the evaluations reported in
future research papers.
