Page 7 of 8

Re: lol

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:11 pm
by ricardo
Sabour wrote:this is nice , execryptor site blocking all access from my country ip (indonesia) redirect into a page titled "Invalid Request" and with bunch of piracy 'lesson',wtf ?? it's new kind of stereotyping? lol they loose 1 potential customer.i will e-mail them :evil: :(
i have tried 2 isp in here,BOTH of them got blocked so i assume all of my country!,when trying use the proxy works fine :/
this is bad for business
This address is the one that you are talking about http://www.strongbit.com/execryptor.asp ?

no

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 3:18 am
by Sabour
no all of the site,they said because of high fraudelent activity,lol , now they removed my ban using a special page,i can access now but still bored for this stereotyping crap,now our country very concern about this fraud crap,many of them got jailed for atleast 2 year even 5 year!

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:53 pm
by merihevonen
Looking through all these pages I didn't find the "best" protection system.. is there something like that??

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:54 pm
by utopiomania
Until proven otherwise, I think the best protection system is a combination of good protection in
the program itself, and then let ExeCryptor virtualize the parts of the code where the protection
is.

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:57 pm
by thefool
utopiomania wrote:Until proven otherwise, I think the best protection system is a combination of good protection in
the program itself, and then let ExeCryptor virtualize the parts of the code where the protection
is.
And execrypter is probably not the only thin you can use ;)

hmm

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:20 am
by Sabour
i tried the trial version,it seem didn't work with pb 4.02 :( , anyone manage to make it work?

Image

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:50 pm
by utopiomania
I haven't tried with 4.02 myself, but there's a general how-to with PureBasic here:
http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... execryptor

not for 4.02 but it might be helpful.

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:00 pm
by ricardo
For code virtualization im using Code Virtualizer. Works very fine with PB but i havent tested with real world crackers (i will do this week when release my app!) and i hope it work as expected :)

hmm

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:01 pm
by Sabour
are you sure their product still reliable even their topliner product "themida" has been out on the scene the keygen for the latest retail version :(,of course we cann't judge the other product fail but cmon code virtualizer could be stripped down version of themida? anyway really insteresting price for such tool

hmm

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:03 pm
by Sabour
utopiomania wrote:I haven't tried with 4.02 myself, but there's a general how-to with PureBasic here:
http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... execryptor

not for 4.02 but it might be helpful.
i even cann't compile the example app in the sdk :(

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:47 am
by MrMat
Unfortunately the code PB generates has changed in 4.02 and it no longer works. I cannot think of an elegant way to fix it so fingers crossed Fred will revert the change or someone will come up with a good solution. I posted an explanation of the change in the thread mentioned above.

Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:01 pm
by utopiomania
StrongBit is working to fix this ASAP :)

lol

Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:14 pm
by Sabour
Code Virtualizer has been defeated :/,oh nose which do i need? :evil:

Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 10:14 pm
by utopiomania
Code Virtualizer has been defeated
Code Virtualizer seems to me to be one of those who changes the scheme each time you compile
an app protected with them, so my question is:

A) Is the generic method defeated once and for all, or
B) did someone manage to crack an instance of an app protected using Code Virtualizer?

If A) it's serious, if B) it's probably no problem.

In either case, someone is making a living out of these protectors, and some believe in them
for their own profit, so I think some ACCURACY is needed here when you post statements like
that?

Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 11:12 pm
by thefool
utopiomania wrote: if B) it's probably no problem.
It just proofs that nothing is undefeatable. Sure its a problem, but its smaller than A)