Debugging the DLL? In MT4 and MT5 - page 2
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Is this advice on how to defeat the stupidity that has been created in the terminal? What is the point of creating it? Maybe just get rid of the artificial difficulties that do not make any difference in any matter. Neither in protection against creating a decompiler, I've shown why - because it's enough to hack at least once, nor in protection against hacking.
That's why I don't understand the benefit of this protection. And I don't understand why I don't understand it, while the development firm doesn't.
As for the emulation, I thought about it and it turns out that it's just some kind of crazy! I'm sorry, then let them give such an emulator with the terminal. :)
Why doesn't it understand, it does, and remember the problems with having a decompiler for ex4 files.
MQ also declared that they were not interested to go the way of MS, i.e. to create HARDWARE but very handy software and then heroically fight with problems of hacking this software.
PS
Of course, maybe there will be people who can hack the security of the shopping complex, but I don't understand why they need to make life so easy.
My advice is a simple solution that can save a lot of time when designing and debugging a DLL.
I'll be honest - I don't care whether I study some other platform or develop some emulator, and I don't care whether I study A as well.
What do you personally think is easier? To study some C# system with debugging, self-documented as a matter of fact. Or write an emulator?
Why doesn't it understand, it does, and it remembers the problems with having a decompiler for ex4 files.
MQ also declared that they are not interested to follow MS way, i.e. to create HAPPY but very handy software, and then heroically fight with problems of cracking this software.
PS
Of course, there may be craftsmen who can hack the protection of the trading complex, but I do not understand why they need to make life easier?
How hard do you think it is to hack a program? No way - I'm sure you just need to do a thorough search on the Internet. The protection is standard. And you know how it is.
I'll be honest - I don't care whether I study some other platform or develop some emulator, and I don't care whether I study A as well.
What do you personally think is easier? To study some C# system with debugging, self-documented as a matter of fact. Or to write an emulator?
How hard do you think it is to hack the software? No way - I'm pretty sure you just have to do a proper search on the Internet. The protection's standard. And you know how it is.
May be there is an ex4 hack on the net, but not the hack of MT4 (otherwise there was an API for it on every corner for $20 at most). That said, I think even the search of ex5 hack info can be forgotten for a couple of years, not to mention the info on the hack of the terminal itself and its network protocol (not R2 with its network info protection system).
In addition, experience shows that protection of information and software (with the right approach) of course does not guarantee the possibility of breaking to 100%, but that's exactly what makes it 100 times more expensive (including financially).
PS
What is easier, MT5 with its limitations, or switch to another platform? Everyone chooses for themselves.... О. Gazmanov
Kos:
Все зависит от объема поставленной задачи, которую Вы пытаетесь решить. Понимая всю суть алгоритма, который я хочу реализовать в виде DLL, то эмулятор написать для меня проще, во многих случаях работа эмулятора сводится к доставке данных, и проверке отдельных блоков DLL
For example, I have 20 functions that are used in the indicator. The functions are absolutely different, written for a long time and debugged and use history bars at full speed. For example, one function counts something by historical prices and puts it into an indicator buffer. For example, statistics is calculated on the basis of this buffer. And so on.
Generally speaking, it is easier to put these functions in C# and that's all. The debugging is available - everything is simple.
So, I don't understand what goal can be achieved by prohibiting decompilation. Well, let it be. :)) Does anyone really think that if there is any worthwhile system which brings thousands of dollars no one will break into it? Come on, guys. Anyone can hack it for 200 quid. Unfortunately, I don't understand why anyone other than the developer is advocating a ban on debugging.
And the company could not care less - decompiler will work? So what's wrong here? That the main task of company is to allow someone to develop programs for trading? And I thought that the purpose is for traders to feel comfortable.)
Maybe there is some stuff on the Internet about hacking ex4, but not about MT4 hacking (otherwise there was an API for it on every corner for $20 at most). Meanwhile, I think that even about searching for hacking info on ex5 one can forget about it for a couple of years, not to mention the info on the hacking of the terminal itself and its network protocol (not R2 with its system of network info protection).
In addition, as experience shows, information and software protection (with the right approach) of course does not guarantee the possibility of hacking 100%, but it makes it 100 times more expensive (financially as well).
PS
What's easier, MT5 with its limitations, or switch to another platform? Everyone chooses for themselves.... О. Gazmanov
There have always been such copy protection software and so on. And there's always been some kind of hacking software for almost every one of them. Automatic - that is, you run it and it recreates the program in its original form before protection was installed. Since the program is protected by a standard system that is sold, it has long been broken. As it is among the hackers, it is prestigious and interesting. That is, as soon as the protection appears, after a short time, there appears the unlocker.
As far as I remember, the essence of unlocking protection is making e.g. memory dump and recovering obtained code. How to make a dump so that no one put - but simply, for example, from kernel.
I do not understand your confidence that an experienced hacker cannot remove protection within a week. He will. Trust me. Well, even if you don't believe me, ask someone who's already removed some protection. Let him tell you. Not me, him.
I mean, there's only one harm in that protection.
And another thing - I do not trust the company that developed the MT system. I am not sure that they do not leak source codes if they see that the system is very interesting. I don't believe it. I'm paranoid. :))
So for example for me it's princial to put the code in a DLL. And they don't let me - that's another argument.
For example, I have 20 functions that are used in the indicator. The functions are absolutely different, written for a long time and debugged and use history bars at full speed. For example, one function counts something by historical prices and puts it into an indicator buffer. For example, statistics is calculated on the basis of this buffer. And so on.
Generally speaking, it is easier to put these functions in C# and that's all. The debugging is available - everything is simple.
So, I don't understand what goal can be achieved by prohibiting decompilation. Well, let it be. :)) Does anyone really think that if there is any worthwhile system which brings thousands of dollars no one will break into it? Come on, guys. Anyone can hack it for 200 quid. Unfortunately, I don't understand why anyone other than the developer is advocating a ban on debugging.
And the company could not care less - decompiler will work? So what's wrong here? That the main task of company is to allow someone to develop programs for trading? And I thought that the purpose is for traders to feel comfortable.)
I don't know aboutthe ban on indices, but debugging of Expert Advisors is enabled (it's only partially implemented, but still available). Another thing is debugging external code (DLL, etc.), but this is the developers' problem.
No one forbids to write at least some "prototype" in MQL5, debug it using existing tools and then transfer to DLL.
What do you think aboutthe cost of cracking - how much does the security system for a new terminal cost? And here's the second question for the suite - Even if we assume that the net cost of all security elements is only $ 1000, how much should the hack cost in total for such a system?
I personally believe that if there will be a similar hack its total cost (in resources and time) will be no less than $ 10,000.
PS
In doing so, guess - What's easier to spend $1,000 to design a security system or $10,000 to hack into it...?
Regardingthe ban - I do not know about the indices, but debugging of Expert Advisors is allowed (but it is executed "very briefly" yet, but it is still there). Another thing is debugging external code (DLL, etc.), but this is the developers' problem.
No one forbids to write at least some "prototype" in MQL5, debug it using existing tools and then transfer to DLL.
What do you think about the cost of cracking - how much does the security system for a new terminal cost? And here's the second question for the suite - Even if we assume that the net cost of all security elements is only $ 1000, how much should the hack cost in total for such a system?
I personally believe that if there will be a similar hack its total cost (in resources and time) will be no less than $ 10,000.
PS
Guess what - It is easier to spend $ 1000 for development of protection or 10 000 for hacking ...?
Breaking is always easier. And cheaper. Since, the so-called niubiennyh techniques for breaking only a few. That is, all the defences are similar to each other. So, having cracked one, it's easier to crack the other, and so on. Until you get the level of professionalism - which allows you to break into a system in a couple of hours.
A security hack is considered as follows - a hacker sits in the evening and is STRONGLY interested in how it is organized, dreaming of how he will become famous after he publishes this hack. Sits in his spare time, and for the sake of interest, which is the strongest motivation breaks. How long would it take him to do that? No way - I'm afraid to disappoint you, but a typical system takes less than an hour. Because it's all figured out how to break and there are no secrets. Well, if the system is not typical, well, maybe a couple of weeks. That is, after the release of protection - bang. and it does not exist. Once hacked and all - until a new one is not made.
Well, in general you need to continue the conversation with hacking experts - they will tell you more accurately.
It's always easier to break. And cheaper. Because there are only a few so-called nyoble hacking techniques. That is, all protections are similar to each other. So, having cracked one, it's easier to crack the other, and so on. Until you get the level of professionalism - which allows you to break into a system in a couple of hours.
A security hack is considered as follows - a hacker sits in the evening and is STRONGLY interested in how it is organized, dreaming of how he will become famous after he publishes this hack. Sits in his spare time, and for the sake of interest, which is the strongest motivation breaks. How long would it take him to do that? No way - I'm afraid to disappoint you, but a typical system takes less than an hour. Because it's all figured out how to break and there are no secrets. Well, if the system is not typical, well, maybe a couple of weeks. That is, after the release of protection - bang. and it does not exist. Once hacked and all - until a new one is not made.
Well, in general you need to continue the conversation with hacking experts - they will tell you more accurately.
This is if lamers made protection, but in fact (with a competent approach to protection) is 10 and 100 times more expensive (in total time and effort).
In a couple of weeks, yes, now...
On the web, there are already a pile of articles about how to substitute the certificate for the terminal; about how the network protocol is organized and how to exchange information with the server (without the terminal);
on every corner is information about API (at least "not for trading", but for information analysis); surely everyone knows what is stored in system exe and dll (and most importantly how to work with it all).
And in conclusion we all have long been trading on our own terminals, and poor MQ and DC...
Don't make me laugh.
It's a simple task - to receive a list of news from the server that sends them to the terminal. The solution in R2 is one day, try to find a solution for MT4 (if you have experience make a "news client").
The developers have clearly stated that there will be no debugging of DLL and why. At least it's not logical to ask them to deliberately make their code worse, it will immediately lead to attempts to create a decompiler for ex5 (which was ALREADY announced).
And hacking methodology of ex4 won't work here, because the language is completely different and its object stuffing won't be easy to fit into templates of "hacking" ex4.
PS
You're right, it's better to talk about the hacking system to the pros who do it. However, I am afraid that they are unlikely to talk to us about it, because (I may be wrong) none of us is competent in this field...