Protecting the source code before compilation - page 16
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
Good afternoon!
It has been said before that everything created by one person tends to be broken by another.
What you describe is relevant to remove restrictions, but in no way makes it easier to analyze and examine the code for the nuances of the trading logic in order to steal its algorithm.
We suggested initiating a survey (as this is different for everyone):
What is more important to you?
1. Protect the logic embedded in the source code from scrutiny
2. Protect your code from cracking restrictions (use bytime,account number, etc.)
I don't give the source code to anyone
The executable is protected more than enough
Breaking something from the marketplace, is it worth it?
And if something is worth it, they will break it down along with the fence.
PS: I'm not a hacker
but if you're motivated.
It's already been done.
https://mqllock.com/metatrader4-mqllock/
http://www.star-force.ru/products/
Ex4 is already fully protected from understanding when you look at it.
It is twice as rubbish if the author of this wonderful method is speaking about protection of compiled code from understanding. I guess he has dropped out of the Moon, hasn't he?
The talk is just about protecting source code from understanding, but again, the author of this curious method is trying to convince us in a different way. Triple delusion!
I don't give the source code to anyone.
The executable is more than sufficiently protected.
Breaking something from the marketplace, is it worth it?
And if something is worth it, they will break it along with the fence.
PS: I'm not a hacker.
but if you're motivated.
Glad we understand each other!
Thanks for your opinion!
Then you misunderstood the first post.
Then you misunderstood the first post.
Excerpt:"Every experienced programmer can see by himself/herself from the given example that the subsequent compilation of such encrypted source code into the *.ex4 formatmakes it very hard to study and analyze".
As everybody knows compiled .ex4 files are used in terminals
It is about encrypting the source code before compilation to implement additional protection measures against examining the logic in compiled .ex4 files.
We could publish the results of encryption only in compiled .ex4 without .mq4, but then, most forum users would not know what's inside.
For this reason, all the smart tricks in notepads and editors, which many people demonstrate here, editing our deliberately posted open source .mq4 code are inappropriate when working with compiled .ex4 files
This post should be filed in the annals. All tricks with compiled files are inappropriate anyway. ex4 is not understandable anyway.
It offers to protect what is already protected.
Glad we understand each other!
Thank you for your opinion!
Unfortunately you still don't get it, no fish here
If they decompile again, which I highly doubt
We'll hide the logic in a DLL, cheap and cheaper
Yuri, unfortunately you are not paying attention again.
The first post says"experienced cracking experts successfully analyze their contents and make unauthorized edits to them, including disablingtrial protections and various bindings".
This does not mean that the breaking is performed by trivial editing of the decompiled code in .mq4 format, as it was in older builds.
We have provided the necessary confirmations (all the necessary information, files and direct links) of a few facts of the break-in to MQL administrator Renat at the very beginning of the article.
Moreover, we are far from being pioneers in this problem, because the direct links to hacked files that we have provided are seen by thousands of users of this famous resource, who regularly order hacks of new products and download them in a "cured" form.
And it's not the problem of standard compiler protection at all, there are just always people who will successfully crack it.
According to the information we have, at the end of last year a fresh .ex4 was cracked only for decent money, and since this year it is being done publicly and for free just to boost one's hacker rating.
Yuri, unfortunately you are not paying attention again.
In the first post it says"experienced hackers successfully analyze their content and make unauthorized edits to them, including disablingtrial protection and various bindings".
This does not mean that the breaking is performed by trivial editing of the decompiled code in .mq4 format, as it was in older builds.
We have provided the necessary confirmations (all the necessary information, files, direct links) to several facts of the break-in to MQL administrator Renat at the very beginning of the article.
Moreover, we are far from being pioneers in this problem, because the direct links to hacked files that we have provided are seen by thousands of users of this famous resource, who regularly order hacks of new products and download them in cured form.
This is not a problem of standard compiler protection at all, just there will always be people who will successfully break it.
Guys, I get it.
All this encryption is just so that in ready-made ex4 with built-in binding to account/iron/date it is impossible to substitute this binding (account/iron/date) and use it in other conditions.
The author just went overboard with epithets in the first post (and all the others). Should have just said - "complicating the modification of ex4 in order to spoof the embedded account number". And no one would have thrown. Otherwise "super-duper encryption, source protection", ugh.