Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 9:04 pm
I've just PMed you my email address if you could possibly send me a screenshot. Thanks.
PureBasic Forums - English
http://www.purebasic.com
https://www.purebasic.fr/english/
Using EXECryptor with PureBasic
Page 2 of 7
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 9:10 pm
Look in your e-mail
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 10:44 pm
I think Armoured sorted it. Theres a tick box to turn off the warning. It looks like it's something to do with running exe's that don't have a valid digital signature (maybe an SP2 feature).
Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 11:49 am
Mat, can ExeCryptor be used without messing with the SDK/API? I'm not shure how it works. 
What I want to do is to protect a program, and then offer it for download. When (If) a user pays
for it, I send the user a serial based on the encrypted program and the users reg name.
Can ExeCrypt be used this way without touching the SDK/API for PB?
What I want to do is to protect a program, and then offer it for download. When (If) a user pays
for it, I send the user a serial based on the encrypted program and the users reg name.
Can ExeCrypt be used this way without touching the SDK/API for PB?
Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 1:21 pm
Hi,
Yes it can. I don't think it could in the past when i first started looking at it but it can now. It has a 'One-touch trial' option that lets you specify a trial period and/or a max number of executions. This can be applied to any exe (at least in theory, contact their support if it doesn't work for you) including PureBasic programs. So you can compile your exe as usual, apply the protection, then let the user download it. When they pay for the app and contact you then you can generate a serial number within the EXECryptor app that works for them.
I'd strongly recommend trying the demo for yourself if you're interested. By not using the sdk you're losing out on some of its features and you're also limited to a standard looking 'registration' box when your program starts (although you can control the text that is displayed).
The only 'bad' point about EXECryptor is that it adds several hundred k to your app so you may be surprised to see a small app grow by so much. It does compress your app too so for a larger app this probably isn't noticeable and your app may actually shrink in size. Support has been great every time i've contacted them and the price seems fair too but i cannot stress enough that testing any protector yourself is always a good idea. Besides, i'm a registered user and probably biased towards recommending it to everyone
Yes it can. I don't think it could in the past when i first started looking at it but it can now. It has a 'One-touch trial' option that lets you specify a trial period and/or a max number of executions. This can be applied to any exe (at least in theory, contact their support if it doesn't work for you) including PureBasic programs. So you can compile your exe as usual, apply the protection, then let the user download it. When they pay for the app and contact you then you can generate a serial number within the EXECryptor app that works for them.
I'd strongly recommend trying the demo for yourself if you're interested. By not using the sdk you're losing out on some of its features and you're also limited to a standard looking 'registration' box when your program starts (although you can control the text that is displayed).
The only 'bad' point about EXECryptor is that it adds several hundred k to your app so you may be surprised to see a small app grow by so much. It does compress your app too so for a larger app this probably isn't noticeable and your app may actually shrink in size. Support has been great every time i've contacted them and the price seems fair too but i cannot stress enough that testing any protector yourself is always a good idea. Besides, i'm a registered user and probably biased towards recommending it to everyone
Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 6:37 pm
Thanks, Mat! I really appreciate your answer on this. I did download the demo, and asked them
about what I just asked you, and it seems I understood our friend right about this question.
I noticed the growth in size, but since PB's exe's are as small as they are, that's no
problem, so I guess I'm going to register as well. Thanks for the answer!
about what I just asked you, and it seems I understood our friend right about this question.
I noticed the growth in size, but since PB's exe's are as small as they are, that's no
problem, so I guess I'm going to register as well. Thanks for the answer!
Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 11:29 am
Nice work!
I really liked it, and i'm considering buying ExeCryptor later on!
I really liked it, and i'm considering buying ExeCryptor later on!
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 2:42 pm
In case anyone is interested in this package, I'm evaluating it and just tried out its 'One Touch Trial' feature
with PureBasic.
I compiled the program below to an exe using PBCoffe, then opened Execryptor, created a project for this
program and protected it.
Now users can download and evaluate the program, or if they buy it, you can open the project, generate a
user name/serial an mail it to them.
When they register, the program can get access to the registrationname as shown below between the !CRYPT_
tags, so that it can display a 'Registered to...' message somewhere.
As far as I can see, you can also recompile new versions of the program and protect again without having to
send registered users new keys.
with PureBasic.
I compiled the program below to an exe using PBCoffe, then opened Execryptor, created a project for this
program and protected it.
Now users can download and evaluate the program, or if they buy it, you can open the project, generate a
user name/serial an mail it to them.
When they register, the program can get access to the registrationname as shown below between the !CRYPT_
tags, so that it can display a 'Registered to...' message somewhere.
As far as I can see, you can also recompile new versions of the program and protect again without having to
send registered users new keys.
Code: Select all
XIncludeFile "execryptor.pbi"
;-Window procedure
Procedure OpenMainWindow()
If OpenWindow(Id, 0, 0, 400, 200, #PB_Window_ScreenCentered|#PB_Window_SystemMenu, "")
EndIf
ProcedureReturn
EndProcedure
OpenMainWIndow()
!CRYPT_REG
MessageRequester("Registered To", SecureRead("RegistrationName"))
!CRYPT_END
!CRYPT_UNREG
MessageRequester("Unregistered", "")
!CRYPT_END
;-Eventhandler
Repeat
IdEvent = WaitWindowEvent()
Select IdEvent
Case #PB_Event_CloseWindow
Exit = #True
EndSelect
Until Exit = #True
;-Endrun
EndPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 4:02 pm
Is it me or this protection is a joke..
* Removed due to my ball's discretion *
I wouldnt go using execryptor, not even dead.
He also knows some crackers from here that managed to crack usual "crackme"s made with execryptor in very short time with about 3 different methods (real cracking: jumping the checks of execryptor, finding out it's api and inject the "ok" function etc), all with good results, no big efforts. And I've seen it.
I cant give you my word about all this.. I don't want to become a maggot
Just wanted to say that its not as secure as it looks, its stupidity is hidden by a "nifty" looking gui.
Sure everything is crackable, but this one went far too easy.
I don't want to have problems with the author/s so I wont post any shot nor source nor anything else. But just.. know that.
* Removed due to my ball's discretion *
I wouldnt go using execryptor, not even dead.
He also knows some crackers from here that managed to crack usual "crackme"s made with execryptor in very short time with about 3 different methods (real cracking: jumping the checks of execryptor, finding out it's api and inject the "ok" function etc), all with good results, no big efforts. And I've seen it.
I cant give you my word about all this.. I don't want to become a maggot
Just wanted to say that its not as secure as it looks, its stupidity is hidden by a "nifty" looking gui.Sure everything is crackable, but this one went far too easy.
I don't want to have problems with the author/s so I wont post any shot nor source nor anything else. But just.. know that.
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 6:50 pm
Hmm.. interesting since this package is quite expensive. If I mail you a 'crack me', can you crack it and return it to me...??
I'm pretty shure you can't....
I'm pretty shure you can't....
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:08 pm
Could you give some details as to what version of execryptor was used and what protection options were enabled? The only tuts i've seen for v2 are for specific exe's, would love to read some moredagcrack wrote:He also knows some crackers from here that managed to crack usual "crackme"s made with execryptor in very short time with about 3 different methods (real cracking: jumping the checks of execryptor, finding out it's api and inject the "ok" function etc), all with good results, no big efforts. And I've seen it.
Btw, i'm sure the author would be the first person who would like to know details so that he can improve it, so please don't not post details because of that!
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 8:05 pm
I wrote this
Now thats a fair challenge isn't it? No need to post details here, and yo have my permission to crack it. So what about itHmm.. interesting since this package is quite expensive. If I mail you a 'crack me', can you crack it and return it to me...??
I'm pretty shure you can't....
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 8:32 pm
If you send me a coffee cup I can crack itutopiomania wrote:Hmm.. interesting since this package is quite expensive. If I mail you a 'crack me', can you crack it and return it to me...??
I'm pretty shure you can't....
Sorry, just couldn't let that one go by
I followed a cracking tutorial once, I didn't feel it gave me anything in return so I gave it up there and then. Prefer playing around with my own stuff instead of with others
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 8:35 pm
send a crackme to me plz ill have a look
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 8:39 pm
I had an idea of an anti-cracking system a while back. Not sure how secure it would be, but the idea is that the user MUST be online while starting the program. When the program starts, it checks a webserver for the programs md5 checksum, that procedure would be added several places inside the program, and if at any point the program couldn't read the checksum to compare with the exe itself, or if it couldn't get results from the procedures at any point in the program, it would kill itself. Well, just an idea. Haven't done anything with it, but it would be fun to work alittle with and then let people try to crack it, and fix it, and so on.