The latest on licensing control products?
Dave
I have been wondering how various products compare and have downloaded
trial versions.
However, not being a hacker, it isn't easy for me to deduce how secure
my software would be using each of the products. If I'm buying
something I might as well spend money on the 'best' one.
Searching the forums the main contenders seem to be:
ASprotect
Armadillo
ICE Licence
EXE Cryptor
Themida
TP Onguard (free)
I did see a reference to this link about EXEcryptor:
http://forum.exetools.com/showthread.php?t=3563 which dates back to
2004 saying it was hard to crack.
I also found lots of links like this one for Armadillo:
http://www.reversing.be/comment.php?mode=view&cid=363
ASProtect
http://www.reversing.be/article.php?story=20060226194125166&query=ASprot
ect
TP Onguard seems very flexible in what it can do, and the documentation
is fairly good, but in some ways it appears quiet dated now, with no
ability to detect debuggers or obfuscation of code and no support.
I assume there are more people talking about hacking ASProtect and
Armadillo as they are used on popular software? Or is it because the
others don't pose enough of a challenge for hackers to talk about them?
Is it fair to assume that any of the others would offer more deterrent
to the average hacker simply due to a lack of people with experience of
hacking software using those products?
As EXECryptor seems to be the cheapest of the bunch, I wonder what
people would think about using that to obfuscate code and detect
debuggers, and then just to be a bit different, use the free TP Onguard
for the licence codes?
D
--
Holger
I use native VCL protection and just see this and you'll understand:
http://www.tuts4you.com/index/index.php?dir=Tutorials/Unpacking%20Tutorials/
That proves that the Exe Protector are not really effective for a long
term...it's just small protection layer... when unpacker will be available
all your projects protected with will be unlocked... even Themida and
ExeCryptor are cracked (see in the list)
I should you to have protection with source for many reasons :
1) - It's like open source project, so secury holes will can be fixed by
other developers or directly by you, elso you can learn new programmation
techniques..
2) - You can customize the protection to avoid generic attack or add some
functions and you are not depend from the author, e.g when you see crack for
your application, you can immediately react, that you can't do with Exe
Protector (you need to wait new version...).
3) - Flexibility than Exe Protector, because it's VCL, it's easy for
implentation.
Regards,
Holger
"Dave" <DJ9...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news:
44eb...@newsgroups.borland.com...
Steve McGrath
> Hello Dave,
>
> I use native VCL protection and just see this and you'll understand:
> http://www.tuts4you.com/index/index.php?dir=Tutorials/Unpacking%20Tutorials/
>
Holger,
Exactly what protection system are you referring to? If its Native
Delphi Protection (http://www.posolsoft.com/NDPU.php) that doesn't seem
to have progressed beyond D7,
Steve
Holger
No it's not NDPU (I tried but don't understand how its working), I use this
:
- BilleniumSoft Citadel Crypt (http://www.billeniumsoft.com/ctd/index.htm)
- Ionworx ICE License (http://www.ionworx.com/icelicense.html)
- nsPack just to pack my executable (http://www.nsdsn.com/eng/index.htm)
Regards,
Holger
"Steve McGrath" <smcg...@no-spam.org> a écrit dans le message news:
44eb...@newsgroups.borland.com...
William Egge
Normal Delphi:
A:= 0;
Form.Left:= A;
NDPU Delphi:
A:= Decrypt('5632i23jsdsdgs'); // 5632i23jsdsdgs decrypts to 0
Form.Left:= A;
The point is that the app requires A to be zero, but zero is not stored anywhere
except as the result of a decryption algorithm.
"Holger" <nos...@noemail.de> wrote in message
news:44eb...@newsgroups.borland.com...
Dave
> Ionworx ICE License
I did download the trial for this product, but couldn't see how it was
meant to work. Unless the trial is so crippled it doesn't work? I did
look through the help file, but the trial didn't seem to work in the
same way.
I was interested to see that it wasn't in the list
http://www.tuts4you.com/index/index.php?dir=Tutorials/Unpacking%20Tutori
als/
which I don't quiet understand as I thought this worked on similar
principles to the EXECryptor.
TP OnGuard seems to have been forgotten too, it would seem that it
would be a good starting place if only it had the anti-debugging and
code obfusification.
My existing security involves encrypting procedure names and decrypting
them only when called at run time. A pain to implement and not that
secure unless i start calling all my procedures like that!
D
--
Matthew Jones
> for the licence codes?
FWIW, I would recommend using this approach, or rather, separating
protection from the install code mechanism. I have done my own code system
for years, and use EXECryptor for protection. But if I want, I can switch
to another any time I want without messing up any existing install codes.
A friend is using a certain other product for both protection and codes,
and he's having hassle with it but is trapped in that he has some users
out there already using the install code mechanism. Thus he will at some
point have to roll his own install codes and update existing users.
I'd certainly ensure that I had source to the install code part of any
system.
/Matthew Jones/
David Ninnes
I've been having a little look at this lately too - a new product coming out
soon. It's a bit depressing about the unpackers, thanks for posting that
link Holger. I was looking at these earlier this week, it seemed to good to
be true pay a couple of hundred bucks and don't worry about it. It's
probably worth getting one of these products as a first line of defence, but
put in some custom stuff as well?
Dave, have you seen this
http://www.woodmann.com/crackz/Tutorials/Anticrk.htm it gave me a few ideas,
I don't know if they're good yet, time will tell.
This is also worth a look
http://delphi.about.com/od/devutilities/a/decompiling_3.htm?terms=delphi+decompiling
to see what can be achieved through decompiling your exe, it surprised me
how much of your .dfm remains in your exe.
Forgive me if I'm teaching grandpa how to suck eggs.
regards,
David Ninnes
"Matthew Jones" <mat...@matthewdelme-jones.delme.com> wrote in message
news:memo.2006082...@nothanks.nothanks.co.uk...
Holger
I understand your approach but for me it's dangerous because the main
difficulty is based only on ExeCryptor and if this protection is removed
your licensing mechanism is weak can be analyzed.
I read "My program has been cracked!" thread on Strongbit forum :
http://www.strongbit.com/showtopic.asp?tid=199&pg=1
Imagine if this user (on StrongBit forum) would have used your approach..
there are several of good free solution and quite as powerful like :
Yoda PE Protector is good to protect executable, free and open source :
http://sourceforge.net/project/screenshots.php?group_id=127636 (good but no
supported and outdated)
Privacy Exe Protector : http://www.setisoft.com/pep.php?lang=en as good as
ExeCryptor, free and updated! (recommended)
I recommend to use native delphi solution for licensing copy protection, Exe
Protector/Packer are only another protection layer. But keep in mind for all
Exe Protector solution when cracker find OEP (Entrypoint of your
application), ... it's finish !
Regards,
Holger
"Matthew Jones" <mat...@matthewdelme-jones.delme.com> a écrit dans le
message news: memo.2006082...@nothanks.nothanks.co.uk...
Holger
>The point is that the app requires A to be zero, but zero is not stored
anywhere
>except as the result of a decryption algorithm.
What happen if you try to access directly at this address
@Decrypt('5632i23jsdsdgs') ? You'll get value I think...
but what is the difference with this example simple xor :
simple encryption function :
function simpleXor(S: string): String;
var
x: Byte;
begin
RandSeed := 123456789; // simple Key
for x := 1 to Length(S) do S[x] := Chr(Ord(S[x]) xor (Random(128) or
128));
Result := S;
end;
in action (var A : Integer)
A := IntToStr(simpleXor('õ')) // õ = 0 in decrypted
Of course you can change encryption algo to increase security, but the
concept is same or not ?
Regards,
Holger
"William Egge" <be...@eggcentric.com> a écrit dans le message news:
44ebb333$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
Ionworx
If you wish I can explain you via demo tutorial using remotely control how
ICE License is working.
Please contact me via email when you have time for this.
I stay at your service,
Best regards,
Bruno
IONWORX Tech. Support
sup...@ionworx.com
http://www.ionworx.com
"Dave" <DJ9...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
44ec0996$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
Dave
> Hello Dave,
>
> If you wish I can explain you via demo tutorial using remotely
> control how ICE License is working.
>
> Please contact me via email when you have time for this.
>
> I stay at your service,
>
> Best regards,
> Bruno
> IONWORX Tech. Support
> sup...@ionworx.com
> http://www.ionworx.com
>
> "Dave" <DJ9...@hotmail.com> a icrit dans le message de news:
> 44ec0996$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> > Holger wrote:
> >
> > > Ionworx ICE License
> >
> > I did download the trial for this product, but couldn't see how it
> > was meant to work. Unless the trial is so crippled it doesn't work?
> > I did look through the help file, but the trial didn't seem to work
> > in the same way.
> >
> > I was interested to see that it wasn't in the list
> > http://www.tuts4you.com/index/index.php?dir=Tutorials/Unpacking%20Tu
> > tori als/
> >
> > which I don't quiet understand as I thought this worked on similar
> > principles to the EXECryptor.
> >
> >
> > TP OnGuard seems to have been forgotten too, it would seem that it
> > would be a good starting place if only it had the anti-debugging and
> > code obfusification.
> >
> > My existing security involves encrypting procedure names and
> > decrypting them only when called at run time. A pain to implement
> > and not that secure unless i start calling all my procedures like
> > that!
> >
> > D
> >
> > --
> >
Hi Bruno
That would be great thank you. I will do that soon.
D
--
Matthew Jones
> your licensing mechanism is weak can be analyzed.
Well yes, but first they have to remove the protection! Of course it may
be possible, but my aim is to keep honest people honest and not get in
their way. I have an advantage in that our apps are fairly specialist, so
I suspect most hackers won't ever even find them, but even if we gave it
away free not that many people in the world would want them. 8-)
/Matthew Jones/
Holger
"Current version of EXECryptor is not so difficult to crack.Someone in China
has already cracked the demo version of EXECryptor few months ago. (Remove
the nag screen and make the protected applications can run on other
machines. The cracker says he has no live EXECryptor key, otherwise he could
give out a full functional EXECryptor.) A tutorial was given too. Follow the
steps the tutorial says even i can patch the EXECryptor myself. What a
wonderful job.
So before the new version of EXECryptor is coming we must do not release our
software."
It's true, because the tutorial is the list (tuts4you), as you see this user
is dependent of StrongBit, if no update is available what is doing during
this time ?! ExeCryptor is useless...
Now you understand why I don't like EXE Protector, it's good example ... ;)
>I have an advantage in that our apps are fairly specialist, so
> I suspect most hackers won't ever even find them, but even if we gave it
> away free not that many people in the world would want them. 8-)
In this case free tools like Yoda PE Protector or PeP will be enought and
you'll save money... :-)
Regards,
Holger
"Matthew Jones" <mat...@matthewdelme-jones.delme.com> a écrit dans le
message news: memo.2006082...@nothanks.nothanks.co.uk...
Matthew Jones
/Matthew Jones/
Holger
Cracker don't like this.
For my side I add custom stuff starting from solid licensing protection (ICE
License).
About Ionworx I would like to say my experience with technical support has
been excellent with a high degree of customer attention.
When I read some posts I would like say I have never seen a technical
support with 100 % of contentment...
Regards,
Holger
"David Ninnes" <david_...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news:
44ec...@newsgroups.borland.com...
Dave
> Hi
>
> I have been wondering how various products compare and have downloaded
> trial versions.
>
> However, not being a hacker, it isn't easy for me to deduce how secure
> my software would be using each of the products. If I'm buying
> something I might as well spend money on the 'best' one.
>
> Searching the forums the main contenders seem to be:
> ASprotect
> Armadillo
> ICE Licence
> EXE Cryptor
> Themida
> TP Onguard (free)
>
> I did see a reference to this link about EXEcryptor:
> http://forum.exetools.com/showthread.php?t=3563 which dates back to
> 2004 saying it was hard to crack.
>
> I also found lots of links like this one for Armadillo:
> http://www.reversing.be/comment.php?mode=view&cid=363
>
> ASProtect
> http://www.reversing.be/article.php?story=20060226194125166&query=ASpr
> ot ect
>
> TP Onguard seems very flexible in what it can do, and the
> documentation is fairly good, but in some ways it appears quiet dated
> now, with no ability to detect debuggers or obfuscation of code and
> no support.
>
> I assume there are more people talking about hacking ASProtect and
> Armadillo as they are used on popular software? Or is it because the
> others don't pose enough of a challenge for hackers to talk about
> them?
>
> Is it fair to assume that any of the others would offer more deterrent
> to the average hacker simply due to a lack of people with experience
> of hacking software using those products?
>
> As EXECryptor seems to be the cheapest of the bunch, I wonder what
> people would think about using that to obfuscate code and detect
> debuggers, and then just to be a bit different, use the free TP
> Onguard for the licence codes?
>
> D
Hi Everyone
Thanks for the input so far.
Done a little more digging myself. Found
http://www.accessroot.com/ARTeam/ar/cracking/tuts.html
Doing searchs for Themida, ICE License and ExeCryptor proved usefull.
The tutorial on Themida (TheMida : defeating ring0) was 32 pages long
and looked like it involved a lot of asm work, as did the tutorial on
Execryptor (Unpacking and dumping ExeCryptor, and coding loader).
However, the ICE License tutorial(ICE License Overview – Cracking
TomahawkGold 3.0) was about 2 pages long and looked much easier to
follow. Although another search found a tutorial on the newer version
which was nine pages long.
I wonder how impartial these tutorials are? The Themida one, actually
says at the end of it:
"Very good protection, very good, if I was software developer I would
use themida 1.0.0.5 to protect my application. That would for sure nook
90% of reversing community and your application would remain uncracked
for a long time"
and the execryptor one says:
"ExeCryptor is one of the best protections available on the market,
very difficult to dump and unpack, but with some knowledge it can be
done."
To be fair, i havent tried to follow the tutorials so I dont know how
correct they are, or how easy it would be to transfer the knowledge to
another app.
Themida seems easy to use and has a detailed help file, but I have seen
someone say it can cause apps to be unstable. Although the hacking
community seem to regard it highly:
http://community.reverse-engineering.net/viewtopic.php?t=4815
The post half way down the page by Havoc was interesting.
Arhh but then at the end he says its taken a step backwards!
It would seem to me that using either Themida or Execryptor and
actually encrypting the TP Onguard units, as well as my own code, might
make for a good setup.
D
--
Klaus
Becarefull TurboPower OnGuard uses 128bit keys with XORing. Since you can
dump an app with OnGuard, you can find out the primary key and make a key
generator to unlock that application without need to unpack your app...
For me OnGuard is outdated:
- no asymmetric encryption ... (keygen can be done easily)
- no antidebugging and tracing.... (anyone can analyse debug your app)
- no runtime code encryption ... (anyone can analyze your code)
- no support or updates ...
If you can't find tut on Onguard it's normal, because anyone can crack it,
see
here : http://www.gatago.com/alt/ph/uk/6101488.html
Of course OnGuard is free but you know when you spent 6 months or 2 years to
create software, believe me the protection is important to protect your
investments...
About ICE License crack I feel the protection was quickly implented on the
software because the developer didn't used code encryption correctly to
protect his source code...
Personnaly I use ICE License and I should you instead OnGuard.
Klaus.
"Dave" <DJ9...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news:
44ecbc02$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> However, the ICE License tutorial(ICE License Overview - Cracking
David Ninnes
reading the posts, as you say though 100% happy customers is difficult to
achieve. I'll keep it on my evaluation list.
regards,
David Ninnes
"Holger" <nos...@noemail.de> wrote in message
news:44ec...@newsgroups.borland.com...
Dave
> Hello Dave,
>
> Becarefull TurboPower OnGuard uses 128bit keys with XORing. Since you
> can dump an app with OnGuard, you can find out the primary key and
> make a key generator to unlock that application without need to
> unpack your app...
>
> For me OnGuard is outdated:
> - no asymmetric encryption ... (keygen can be done easily)
> - no antidebugging and tracing.... (anyone can analyse debug your
> app) - no runtime code encryption ... (anyone can analyze your code)
> - no support or updates ...
>
> If you can't find tut on Onguard it's normal, because anyone can
> crack it, see
> here : http://www.gatago.com/alt/ph/uk/6101488.html
>
> Of course OnGuard is free but you know when you spent 6 months or 2
> years to create software, believe me the protection is important to
> protect your investments...
>
> About ICE License crack I feel the protection was quickly implented
> on the software because the developer didn't used code encryption
> correctly to protect his source code...
>
> Personnaly I use ICE License and I should you instead OnGuard.
>
> Klaus.
>
>
> "Dave" <DJ9...@hotmail.com> a icrit dans le message news:
> 44ecbc02$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> > Dave wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > I have been wondering how various products compare and have
> > > downloaded trial versions.
> > >
> > > However, not being a hacker, it isn't easy for me to deduce how
> > > secure my software would be using each of the products. If I'm
> > > buying something I might as well spend money on the 'best' one.
> > >
> > > Searching the forums the main contenders seem to be:
> > > ASprotect
> > > Armadillo
> > > ICE Licence
> > > EXE Cryptor
> > > Themida
> > > TP Onguard (free)
> > >
> > > I did see a reference to this link about EXEcryptor:
> > > http://forum.exetools.com/showthread.php?t=3563 which dates back
> > > to 2004 saying it was hard to crack.
> > >
> > > I also found lots of links like this one for Armadillo:
> > > http://www.reversing.be/comment.php?mode=view&cid=363
> > >
> > > ASProtect
> > > http://www.reversing.be/article.php?story=20060226194125166&query=
> > > ASpr ot ect
Hi
Many thanks for the info on Onguard, I will re-evaluate that at some
time.
I have decided to go with Themida though. The product seemed the most
user friendly, and is regarded highly by the hacker community. They
have an offer at the moment for Themida + Code Virtulizer for 119 euro.
I was also impressed with the speed and detail of the response I had
from them after I emailed asking the difference between the two
products. They are very helpful. It seems I can use this to easily
encrypt and obfuscate the onguard code which will reduce some of the
potential weakness of that product.
This suits me as I can allow current users to upgrade to the new
version without changing their license, while having a new version that
is more secure.
Not to everyones taste I admit, but a step in the right direction for
us.
Many thanks for the interesting debate.
D
--
Richard Phillips
"Dave" <DJ9...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44ed...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> I have decided to go with Themida though. The product seemed the most
> user friendly, and is regarded highly by the hacker community. They
> have an offer at the moment for Themida + Code Virtulizer for 119 euro.
> I was also impressed with the speed and detail of the response I had
> from them after I emailed asking the difference between the two
> products. They are very helpful. It seems I can use this to easily
> encrypt and obfuscate the onguard code which will reduce some of the
> potential weakness of that product.
Hi,
Just wondering, where is the offer for Themida and Code Virtualizer for 119
euro to be found? I've been taking a look at their site (english version)
but haven't come across it anywhere.
Richard
Dave
Hi Richard
It says it on the main page:
http://www.oreans.com/index.php and if i follow the links to buy:
http://www.oreans.com/order.php
But basically you have to email them anyway.
D
--
Dave
Just done this once but it didn't seem to work :(
http://www.oreans.com/ has an animation saying about the offer for free
CV and
http://www.oreans.com/order.php says about the 20% offer.
D
--
Richard Phillips
> Richard Phillips wrote:
>> Just wondering, where is the offer for Themida and Code Virtualizer
>> for 119 euro to be found? I've been taking a look at their site
>> (english version) but haven't come across it anywhere.
>>
>> Richard
>
> Just done this once but it didn't seem to work :(
>
> http://www.oreans.com/ has an animation saying about the offer for free
> CV and
> http://www.oreans.com/order.php says about the 20% offer.
Aye, that's what I was experiencing - the 20% offer only applies when paying
via western union. No sign of selection of free product when going through
to e.g. share-it.
I can see the advertisement however, so i'll email them and ask :)
Richard Phillips
"Richard Phillips" <rphi...@wayreth.u-net.com> wrote in message
news:44eeae80$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
After contacting developer the offer may not stay there for terribly much
longer, however i've been told that if I let them know which extra i'd like
after purchasing they'll send it through.
Dave
I ordered yesterday afternoon via western union (a right faff!) and got
the license data a few hours later. I'm very impressed by them, if only
all suppliers were this good.....
Western Union was a faff though, firstly their website just gave us
errors, then when you do it on the phone, you have to listen to a whole
bunch of speil about how there is no come back on Western Union if you
do not get what you have paid for. It did worry me a bit, but as the
emails from Oreans were so detailed, I considered it unlikely that
there was any real risk.
I'm pleased I did. I chose Code Virtualizer too, which I just playing
with now. Both products are easy to use, and can be combined, allowing
different security/performance compromises. The Help files are well
written with pretty good English too.
D
--
Holger
back in case the product don't work correctly .
WithWestern Union its you don't this chance, because it's Bank wire
transfer!
Regards,
Holger
"Dave" <DJ9...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news:
44eedb3a$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
Klaüs
I was interested to ExeCryptor but when I read this from StrongBit forum :
"Hi!
A few weeks ago, I reported that my program has been cracked due to some
disabled protection options of ExeCryptor. Now, after enabling ALL
protection options in my program, the new version still has been cracked by
Digerati. They even make fun of StrongBit in their NFO file and the cracked
exe says "Full ExeCryptor license". Nice work of Digerati - they seem to be
a group of very capable hackers (just a pity, that they don't use their
skills for more productive things ;-)
This means, that ExeCryptor is in fact absolutely worthless. The only thing
it does is making my applications bigger, slower and incompatible to some
systems. Nice work, StrongBit!
I'll now go back to not protection my apps anymore (or better, to something
very very deeply hidden ;-), because it has proven useless and there's no
difference in the sales numbers anyway. Honest people still buy my products,
the others wouldn't buy them anyway, even if they couldn't find a crack.
I'm writing this to warn everybody about using ExeCryptor - if your program
is popular enough, it will be cracked anyway. ExeCryptor does not protect it
at all. Everybody please help to get this info out to other developers,
before they loose money on a non-working protection. I'll do anything
possible to do that.
Regards,
Martin Hoefler 27 Aug 2006 15:34:44"
Original URL : http://www.strongbit.com/showtopic.asp?tid=217 (if it's not
removed from StrongBit)
I changed my idea, I'll use another solution.
Regards,
"Matthew Jones" <mat...@matthewdelme-jones.delme.com> a écrit dans le
message news: memo.2006082...@nothanks.nothanks.co.uk...
Frank Soriano
happy because I can combine the strength of Virtual Machines. I use two
models to protect my applications.
1) Stable, 100% compatible but not so secure
* CitaDel
* Virtual Machine
* PeCompact
2) Very secure but 95% compatible
* CitaDel
* Themida or WinLicense (they already included Virtual Machine)
I used to use ExeCryptor but I dont like its support. I dont like the at one
word answers and how negative author is when you ask him something new.
In anycase: Citaldel, Virtual Machine and Themida (or WinLicense depends on
your needs) are MUST for every developer.
F.
"Dave" <DJ9...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44eb...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> --
>
Dave
> "Matthew Jones" <mat...@matthewdelme-jones.delme.com> a icrit dans le
> message news: memo.2006082...@nothanks.nothanks.co.uk...
> > If you read the full thread, the crack wasn't as much as it seems
> > (IIRC).
> >
> > /Matthew Jones/
I think the person on the Strongbit forum needs to understand that no
method of protection will stop a "group of very capable hackers". The
fact that they "make fun of execryptor" in the NFO file means nothing.
The important issue would be to compare how long it took this group to
crack the software using exeCryptor compared with how long it would
take them if he had used some other protection method.
D
--
Matthew Jones
sound like someone who wants EXECryptor to work, for him or anyone else.
It may be true, but I'd be surprised if it was worse than any other such
tool. My main intent with it is to obfuscate some key parts of protection
code in the EXE. So long as it does that, and stops a debugger working,
then it is working well.
/Matthew Jones/