Registration Moduale

[Cableguy]

I think you missunderstood me...
It's a known fact...
Whatever we do and However we protect our software, when theres a will, teres a way...to crack it....
Yes we should complicate thisngs, as much as we can...
But, in the PDA world,, spending more than 2 or 3 seconds confirming the security status is too much...
Any way, I got a bit more time these days and I wil post my logic aproach to this matter...

[WZSun]

Sometime back, I asked about encrypting the 'code' in the compiled EXE to make it looks more garbage.. this makes it more harder for novice crackers to hack the program, or to make it takes more time for them to break it. Yes, no program is hack/crack proof.. but if we start by making the 'code' looks garbage, it may not be worth the time for crackers to break it.

At the moment, what I did is a simple primitive prevention. I'd test my completed project first and once done, I will save it to another filename. From there, I would rename all functions, variables, etc., into random cryptic alphanumeric words. For example.. if I have a function 'validateCode', it will be renamed as 'kn5' and so on. As many known variables/subs are renamed so that it does not 'sensible/readable' if you use a hex editor to peek. For me, I simply load the whole compiled EXE into wordpad and see whether I can see 'readable function/veriable names'.. and if so, I will renamed them again... and then compile it as 'finished' product.

If you load your compiled EXE into wordpad, you can stil see portions of your code. In some cases, numeric starings are seen... especially if you have formula...etc. Instead of:

If A = 1234 then
..
..


I would change my values to something like:
x=2
y = x + (x+1) ' 5
z = (((((y*y)*y)*x)*x)*x) + ((((y*y)*x)*x)*x) + (((x^(x+x))+1)*x)
If A = z then
..
..

this way, if you peek at the code of your compiled exe.. it sure looks garbage. Of course, reserved function/variables names used by Basic4PPC can still be seen.. so if the whole compiled EXE is encrypted.. itmakes it harder for cracking.

The key issue it to make it harder for casual hackers.. or make it takes more time to probe.. by then hopefully they'd have given up...

Hopefully Erel can think about something on the development side to have an encrypted compiled EXE.

Anyway, feature that would be great is to have a 'flush' taps/keyboard function.. will it will flush off all keystrokes/taps.. in case there are 'active spy' program running that invokes when a key/tap is pressed. This is a also useful if you have a process running.. and users tap on the screen a few times.. and when the process end.. you may find the program executing the 'unwanted keypress'...

[alfcen]

Software protection and reverse engineering is a cold war. Either side triggers
new technologies in an seemingly endless exchange of hatred.

Those spammers offering AutoCAD and MS Office suites have obviously defeated the major professional software giants. The other bad guys are
those shopping, thus creating 'market demand'.

Most commercial PPC software offerers write the date of first installation someplace hidden, preventing erasure upon uninstallation. The stamp is
removed after a hard reset, but who would hard-reset her/his device or
set the device clock back to extend a time-limited fully functional trial?

For most of us, private hobby programmers, one simple method of protecting
know-how is compliling without code comments whilst using inconclusive
variable names. The bad guys want to make QUICK money.

In addition, attach an affordable price tag or work on donation basis which
won't render hacking worth while.

If all doesn't help, hope for an invitation to a private message

[WZSun]

For those who simply want a compression.. there's a freeware .Net compressor - MPRESS which reduces the file size of Basic4PPC compiled .Net EXE files.

I tried it on Desktop (Windows) and Device (PPC). The project runs well.

This is just one small step in making things a little harder. Of course, the ideal is to get commercial .net protection utilities.. which make it even harder.. though not impossible, to reverse engineer.

[Cableguy]

@EREL
It would be a very interesting competition target...
Objective: to implement a Stand alone, customizable interface, protection code/scheme...

We would all gain with this one...
Heck, even I would have a go at it....

[pochero]

will mpress work with basic4ppc optimiced programs? I can't test it. Thank you

[Erel]

Optimized compiled Basic4ppc applications are normal .Net applications.
If mpress supports .Net executables then it should support these as well.