Protecting the source code before compilation - page 17
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
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 to spoof the embedded account number". And no one would have thrown. Otherwise "super-duper encryption, source protection", ugh.
Dear users, we are happy to have such an active discussion on this topic, but in the future we will try to answer only to those users for whom it can really be useful and who are really involved in the testing.
This is due to the fact that unfortunately we do not have free time for the same discussions as others, in principle, the topic already has all the necessary information and with proper attention can be comprehended.
We respect every opinion expressed, including all criticisms!
Thanks to everyone who took part!
If anyone does not have time or inclination to read the entire first post, then read carefully at least the first line of the post"Any developer knows very well how much time and effort it takes to independently develop this or that effective algorithm, and having created it, has an unconditional right to defend it. "
Anyone can contradict that, but we exercise that right to protect it anyway!
So no offence, we are not arguing with anyone about anything no matter how it may seem to someone :)
Somehow, I doubt very much about the possibility of the method that is hinted at (direct editing of ex). Ex is sort of encrypted, as I assume it is decrypted first and then loaded into memory for execution. Any changes made to the executable data cannot be saved.
The author of this thread also hardly saw the cracker at work. Most likely decompiling, editing and compiling again. Maybe now the hackers don't advertise the decompiler, so they don't create an antidote.
If someone substitutes something in the compiled one, then this encryption doesn't make any sense at all.
Well, roughly speaking, if the code just has the account number "12345", it's easier to find and replace than if it's coded as "123 * 10^2 + 9 * 5".
But in general I'm not into machine code, compilation, etc, so it's just a guess.
Yuri, unfortunately you are not paying attention again.
The first post says"experienced hacking experts successfully analyze their content and make unauthorized edits to them, including disablingtrial protections and various bindings".
You have built your reasoning on an inherently flawed assertion.
I'm not even talking about "unauthorised changes to EX files" - that's nonsense.
You have built your reasoning on a fundamentally flawed assertion.
I am not talking about "unauthorised changes to EX files" - that is nonsense.
Renat, thank you for your response!
Is there any explanation for the regular publication of freshly hacked products of various developers on the above mentioned resource?
Also, you promised to clarify the technical nature of the appearance of our product with disabled date verification (sent to you in a private message as well), which they tried to unbind from our license.
I would be grateful if you could reply in a private message. Awaiting your reply.
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 to spoof the embedded account number". And no one would have thrown. Otherwise "super-duper encryption, source protection", ugh.
Is there any explanation for regular publications of freshly cracked products of various developers on the above mentioned resource?
Fortunately, this too is an erroneous and unsubstantiated statement.
In fact you (as well as some others) operate with everyday methods of construction of inferences (saw, heard, somewhere). And it is necessary to operate with technically exact proofs.
What you cited as evidence is nonsense, pulled by the ears (you convinced yourself, because you wanted to convince others).
Fortunately, this too is an erroneous and unsubstantiated statement.
In fact you (as well as some others) operate with everyday methods of construction of inferences (saw, heard, somewhere). And it is necessary to operate with technically exact proofs.
What you have cited as evidence is nonsense, pulled by the ears (you convinced yourself, because you wanted to convince others).
Renat, I understand your position very well!
Resource as you might be convinced is public, the audience of thousands of users, all downloaded "cured" files .ex4 contain various alterations and work without previously applied by developers protections
We do not plan to argue and convince anyone of anything, as we do not need it.
Thanks again for your answers!
Renat, I understand your position very well!
The resource as you can make sure yourself is public, the audience of thousands of users, all downloaded "cured" files .ex4 contain various edits and work without the previously applied by developers protections
We do not plan to argue and convince anyone of anything, as we do not need it.
Thanks again for your answers!
Why are you still hiding this resource?
Renat apparently sees no risk in it, so publish it.
You can post it in person.