.Net Reactor Unpacker, (for library mode only)

[jfx]

last patch for v5.1.2.0 (you can find in Google).
for last off. release i don't make patch. (last version 5.4.6.0)

[Andu]

Hi Hannibala and jfx

thanks for pointing out. If 5.1.2.0 is the latest release (also for 'the scene') these are good news. It's actually over one year old and in the meantime the protection has been hardened.

for last off. release i don't make patch. (last version 5.4.6.0)

Because you are good soul or because you simply can't do it ?

Regards,

Andu

[jfx]

No free time
You can try do it yourself I can share last retail (not demo) version.

[Andu]

You can try do it yourself

I think I'm not good enough (I'm a developer, not a cracker)

I can share last retail (not demo) version.

No, thanks. If I'll use their Obfuscator I'll buy it

Regards,

Andu

[Kurapica]

@Andu : You made me very curious ! So many questions about a way to protect your precious code, What are you developing ?

Is it a really very secret code or very expensive algos that you are trying to protect ?

So many commercial targets were cracked and also will be cracked, and I don't think that however any one tries ! If It's worth it then someone will crack it and that's what many years of reversing proved.

You can ask whatever you want here
I'm just curious !

[LibX]

Originally Posted by Andu

Because you are good soul or because you simply can't do it ?
Andu

Just a developer huh?

Question for Andu: what EXACTLY are u trying to prevent in your software? the cracking of it or people reversing the code?
Since reversing the code would mean u need to rename everything to a value that makes sence manualy and nobody in there right mind is going todo that

[Andu]

You made me very curious ! So many questions about a way to protect your precious code, What are you developing ?

Is it a really very secret code or very expensive algos that you are trying to protect ?

Kurapica, no, it's not very secret code or anything close. However, I invested a long time into this program and simply don't wanna be ripped off right at the beginning.

I think that this kind of questions should have been asked a long time before and a rating system should exist so that every developer can judge which system is best for him.

So many commercial targets were cracked and also will be cracked

I know that

and I don't think that however any one tries !

Sorry, maybe I misunderstood you here. You think that nobody is interested in cracking my program? Well, that would be realy nice! To me it seems however that there is a crack for nearly every program (also smaller ones)...

Just a developer huh?

Cracking and preventing it is an interesting field in software science if only done for research purposes. However, as I said, it's not my occupation.

what EXACTLY are u trying to prevent in your software? the cracking of it or people reversing the code?

Both but mainly I wanna prevent people from cracking it. I know that it is virtualy impossible to do this but as you said: I'm not the programer of photoshop and so if the target is hard enough and not interesting enough, maybe there are more 'interesting' targets around. That's my hope at least

Kind Regards,

Andu

[LibX]

Originally Posted by Andu

Both but mainly I wanna prevent people from cracking it. I know that it is virtualy impossible to do this but as you said: I'm not the programer of photoshop and so if the target is hard enough and not interesting enough, maybe there are more 'interesting' targets around. That's my hope at least

Well then u are doing EXACTLY the wrong thing at the moment:
first on all nobody in there right mind is going to decompile your code and use it.
Second: u don't prevent people from cracking your code by using a obfuscator or a protector u do that by implementing a good security system yourself.

What u are doing here is completely useless and specially a big was of time, time u good spend implementing a good protection system

O and btw: the harder it is the more interesting it gets

[Andu]

Hi LibX,

What u are doing here is completely useless and specially a big was of time

Well, no, I don't think so. It helped me alot already

O and btw: the harder it is the more interesting it gets

Yes, the right word is not 'hard' but 'boring'

u don't prevent people from cracking your code by using a obfuscator or a protector u do that by implementing a good security system yourself.

I don't get the point. If someone is able to read and change my sourcecode in any way he likes, every 'security system' in place will simply be ripped out. So the first step is to prevent

A) that somebody can read the code
B) that somebody can change the code

These are exactly those two things that DnGuard, for example, is all about.

What's your definition of a security system given the cons of enforced open source?

Regards,

Andu

[LibX]

U really don't get it do you? :S
Its not about how easy it is to unpack something, sure it can be a bitch to code a unpacker for something like DNGuard but what if a simple patch is still killing your licensing system in just 5 mins?
I really hope you are going to understand what i mean any time soon since its really a wast of time what you are doing at the moment, the way you look at application security doesn't make any sense.
The only thing u have been doing on this board is challenging people to crack specific protections and if they give you a small piece of advice (like this) you are simple going to argue with the people giving it or your saying they are wrong :S
What are u trying to accomplish with this?