PureBasic Forums - English

Hello, I posted my first post on this forum a few days ago, received 1 reply, but now the thread has been entirely deleted???
I was asking about the compatiblity problems between the latest version of PB4 and execryptor.
After a lot of research over the last 2 years, it appears that PureBasic is about the best programming language, and Execryptor about the most effective piracy-protection app. But starting with PB4.2?, PB is no longer compatible with execryptor. Supposedly, the two were working together to get this solved, but a year later, I hear no more.
I wrote execryptor last week, - no response yet.
I posted here, - the thread was deleted, with no explanation.
Is it a hidden rule that we aren't supposed to mention execryptor on this forum??? Reason, or clarification???
Is Fred planning to put the function labels back in the generated asm so PB can work again with execryptor?
PB sounds great, but unfortunately, piracy-protection is also very important, and with execryptor being the most effective at this, it means that I could only have limited use, if at all, of PureBasic until the conflict gets solved again. Is it still possible to download anywhere the 3.9 or even 4.1 PB versions that didn't have this problem?
Thanks for any ideas.. And hope I haven't offended whoever deleted my post. You could explain? - I'm new here.

Sounds like a conspiracy to me!

Sometime the admins move threads if they are not in the correct location. If your post was in the bugs area and wasn't a PB bug then they may have moved it. When they move it the link in the email will fail and you need to find it. One way of doing that is to click on your profile and view posts by yourself but since "Leaf" has a post count of 1 I guess you started another profile.

If you are only 90% sure you have a pb bug it's best to post to the coding areas. Admins can move it to the bugs section if need be later. If something isn't (any longer) supported then from PB's perspective it might not be a bug as such. That doesn't mean that there's no workaround though.

I remember that post. I replied.

It may be that your post received a heavy-duty response or two from a PureBasic zealot or so (yes, we have extremists who shoot first and then ask "friend or foe". These are the guys who would gun down anyone and cost a sale or two rather than discuss things).

If so perhaps it was removed to prevent a flame war.

Maybe it had even started a flame war!

Then again, maybe it is a conspiracy .. maybe you inadvertently stumbled upon Fred's plot to take over Microsoft (and thus the world!).

Rats! Now that I have told you that last I will have to .. nevermind.

* calls the wet-team *

> I remember that post

I saw it too, and it wasn't really a bug, so that's probably why it got deleted.

> Is it a hidden rule that we aren't supposed to mention execryptor on this forum?

Of course not. Search for execryptor here and you'll find posts about it, even
in the "Tips And Tricks" of how to use it (or used to use it, in your case).

> Is Fred planning to put the function labels back in the generated asm so
> PB can work again with execryptor?

I doubt it. If he took something out that "broke" execryptor, he is under no
obligation to restore them. The more plausible scenario is that he removed
labels for optimisation or something, and execryptor suffered as a result.
That doesn't make it a PureBasic bug, as I said at the start of this post.
PureBasic doesn't have to support any third-party applications at all.

Besides, is it really PureBasic's fault, or execryptor's? Look at Brice's post:
http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtopic.php?t=26433

Thanks for the quick responses!
well, I couldn't find my orginal post via a search, so it wasn't moved, just deleted. I didn't make a new profile, either.
> "he is under no obligation to restore them."
Yes, no one is under any obligation. But, it would definitely be mutally benfecial to PureBasic and Execryptor (and their users), is the two can be made compatible again.
Thanks for the link. I see that Brice has the same problem, and I'll try to see if he or anyone has found a way to get a copy of the old PureBasic.

Instead of EXECryptor, you might want to give Private exe Protector a try.

Fred's plot to take over Microsoft

Dare... We know where you live, we know when you are sleepig... we know when you are awake... Santa Claus is one of Fred's best assasins...

And you have said too much!

hehehe

I use Armadillo. It simplifies the shareware end of software without my having to do anything.

I do not see why the generated asm output should prevent you from using any such tool.

Through the direct asm feature or inline asm you can create anything you need.

lol, RZ.

To Santa ..

• You better watch out.
  You better not fly
  You better stay home
  Not telling you why ....
  But Rudolph's nose is redder, tonight!

* Sends the reindeer a little gift *



The wet team has arrived ..
But wait .. it's lemonade!

and you could use Kript-On
its mostly written in PB
Though still in beta....targetes release in March 2008

freak wrote:I do not see why the generated asm output should prevent you from using any such tool.

Through the direct asm feature or inline asm you can create anything you need.

Indeed

Psychophanta wrote:

freak wrote:I do not see why the generated asm output should prevent you from using any such tool.

Through the direct asm feature or inline asm you can create anything you need.

Indeed

Not really, you cannot put a label at the start of a procedure where it used to be (before 4.02). If you put one there and pass a string to the procedure the string gets initialised before the label and hence it is in the wrong position (i.e. not at the start of the procedure). You can work around it by modifying the asm directly or by using PB's labels (_Procedure0 etc.) but this is different behaviour to before.

Personally i'm not bothered though *no longer uses execryptor*

It seems that when making a new Application, programming it is the easy part, while protecting it is the really hard part. Many don't even try. No protection is full-proof, but from what I've seen on this and other forums, EXEcryptor is about the most effective tool out there, so that's why I'm so interested. ( haven't tried it myself yet, though. )
MrMat: you say you no longer use it. Any reasons, or bad luck with it?
Brice: you have heard of execrypotr having troubles elsewhere? Any info? I suppose it might be very difficult to reliably 'morph' code from all languages. I looked at Setisofts 'private Exe protector' but this is only one simple homepage with a little paragraph. It basically said: "yeah, we got a code-morpher here, so send us $120 to Russia..."
Kinglestat, I saw your other thread here: http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... 535#224535 and wrote you this: "Were you ever able to find an older copy of purebasic? Which version and where did you get it? And it works well with EXEcryptor? Do you need to use PBcoffee for that, also? Do you feel it's protecting your app well? I'm very intersted in using purebasic with EXEcryptor.. "
Re; kript-on: it's a 'service' which keeps all serials on its onw servers, which I don't want. Beside, there are many such protectors, but I'm looking specifically for 'code morphing' (the only thing that can really stump a hacker. All other 'protections' are easy to dump into memory and read the asm. Dlls are especially easy to bypass. )
- Thanks for any n all ideas, Leaf

leaf wrote:MrMat: you say you no longer use it. Any reasons, or bad luck with it?

It didn't work with Vista for a long time and i was using Vista at the time.

You can use execryptor with the latest versions of PureBasic but it requires a bit more work. I'm sure i posted something in the execryptor forums showing how to go about it.

That is strange, after logging in to the execryptor forums i cannot find any of my posts

From memory it was adding something like directly at the start of each procedure in the Execryptor include file, where _Procedure0 is found by compiling with the /commented flag and looking at the source (it will be different for each procedure).

Then follow as per:
http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... 170#128170

Sorry i don't have it installed so i cannot check if that is correct (it might be rubbish!) but hopefully you can get it working