Is .NET Reactor recommended
Marc van Beveren
I'm currently using SmartAssembly, which works ok, but it's price
scheme is too high imho. That's why I'm looking for options. Of all
the "cheap" alternatives .NET Reactor looks like the best choice.
I'm aware of the support problems, which is not a big plus to say the
least. But, in my experience I never need support if the quality of
the product is ok.
So, my question is: Is .NET Reactor recommended if you take the
quality in account?
Thx in advance for you opinions!
Tim Haughton
--
Regards,
Tim Haughton
Founder, Dokix Inc
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ".Net Reactor Support" group.
To post to this group, send email to net-react...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to net-reactor-sup...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/net-reactor-support?hl=en.
Glen Harvy
You have hit the nail on the head and have covered the negatives. As for
the quality of the product, you cannot get better value for your money.
As to whether you will have need of support, a lot depends upon your own
skills and general coding knowledge. I have used .Net Reactor for over 3
years and have needed support on about 4 occasions. On 3 of those
occasions, the problem was of my own making as I didn't either
understand the 'manual' or what I was trying to do was beyond the scope
of the program or was just plain impossible to do anyhow. On the other
occasion Denis asked for my source code so he could 'fix' .Net Reactor
however I decided the default protection level was quite adequate for my
needs.
Like you however, Denis has not always been there when I needed him - in
fact I have one huge support request with him at the moment and have
heard nothing. In the meantime, there is a viable workaround and that
gives me all the protection I really need.
Like most programmers, I want to protect all my hard work to the maximum
degree. Naturally I tick all the options and am a little peeved when
something goes wrong. The truth is however, that my code has become
quite complicated and even I have lost track of the detail and as you
know, 'the devil is in the detail'.
I have found though, if you chose the 'default' options to start with,
the protection mechanism will work OK. You should then gradually
increase the protection options one by one until it fails. Most often,
it will not fail.
I cannot tick all the options on two of my projects however the
'default' options do work on those projects.
Considering some of .Net Reactor's competitor products don't even have
all the 'default' options that .Net Reactor has, I feel quite safe in
allowing my code to go out the door.
As Denis once said to me in an email - can anyone say that their .Net
Protected software has been successfully cracked? I'm not saying it
hasn't but I've never heard anyone say it has - do a google search and
see if you can find where it has.
As for the licencing mechanism - I have never had any technical problems
with that at all. I have had some personal coding problems figuring it
out but I think they have all been covered in this group anyway.
FastSpring connects to me for each sale, my webservice produces and
emails the appropriate licence key file etc etc. The licencing system
works as advertised - if it doesn't then you probably have configured it
incorrectly.
Hope the above helps you to decide.
Glen Harvy.
Munawar Bijani
been using it now for a year and have never once regretted buying it. Not
only does it have protection, the licensing system is extremely flexible, so
much so that using Asp.NET I was able to automate product registration
easily and this is working really, really well.
Munawar A. Bijani
BPCPrograms, LLC
http://www.bpcprograms.com
Blog: http://munawar0009.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Marc van Beveren" <mjvanb...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 5:12 AM
To: ".Net Reactor Support" <net-react...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Is .NET Reactor recommended
Marc van Beveren
the upgrade costs are after the first year?
Marc van Beveren
On 4 jan, 11:23, Tim Haughton <timhaugh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've used both Reactor and Intellilock and can recommend them both. My
> personal preference is for Intellilock, it depends what your requirements
> are.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Tim Haughton
> Founder, Dokix Inc
> Twitter] <http://www.twitter.com/dokix> [image: Blog
> RSS]<http://feeds.feedburner.com/dokix>
> On 4 January 2011 10:12, Marc van Beveren <mjvanbree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi,
>
> > I'm currently using SmartAssembly, which works ok, but it's price
> > scheme is too high imho. That's why I'm looking for options. Of all
> > the "cheap" alternatives .NET Reactor looks like the best choice.
>
> > I'm aware of the support problems, which is not a big plus to say the
> > least. But, in my experience I never need support if the quality of
> > the product is ok.
>
> > So, my question is: Is .NET Reactor recommended if you take the
> > quality in account?
>
> > Thx in advance for you opinions!
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > ".Net Reactor Support" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to net-react...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > .
oussema
there is no costs...
you can see the website to check it
Marc van Beveren
after that you'll have to pay an upgrade fee.
Marc van Beveren
good sign .....
http://www.reteam.org/board/showthread.php?t=801
Munawar Bijani
never expire.muna...@gmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Marc van Beveren" <mjvanb...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 1:08 PM
To: ".Net Reactor Support" <net-react...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Is .NET Reactor recommended
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> ".Net Reactor Support" group.
> To post to this group, send email to net-react...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> net-reactor-sup...@googlegroups.com.
glen
> Read this thread about .NET Reactor. If it's true then that's not a
> good sign .....
In that post, which is well known, you will find a guy that claims to
be able to defeat a number of code protection mechanisms. You will
also note that he is going to create his own code protection system
presumably because it will be uncrackable. It doesn't yet seem
available after being 2 years in the making.
It is also well known that the guy is wasting his time because I
believe there is no such thing as an uncrackable code protection
system - particularly for .Net code. At least not outside of possible
high grade (read multi-expensive) government backed random and
frequently changing code encryption schemes. You could probably
implement something as simple as that yourself however it would
require an almost permanent secure link back to a central repository
where the decryption codes would be stored. Not really practical for
everyday use by the general public.
The claim that the base source code of .Net Reactor is (or was)
publicly available code may or may not be correct. If you are
concerned about that possibility then I applaud your ethics and
appreciate your not using .Net Reactor. I see no reason for Denis to
lose any sleep over that particular claim. I use such code myself
subject to licence terms. I am sure .Net Protector has suitable (and
easy to implement routines) that would make the use of such publicly
available code to crack the original code almost useless.
If you really believe that .Net Reactor can be easily cracked then you
will need to consider implementing the most commonly attempted
solution to this problem - on-line activation (and if your using .Net
Reactor) de-activation with regular call back to ensure it's validity.
You need to remember that there is no certain and affordable way to
protect your software from a cracker who has the motive to spend a not
inconsiderable amount of time in breaking the code protection on your
$15 application. Apart from bragging rights there is just no financial
gain.
I think you could also search for all the cracks available on-line. As
far as I know, they were all protected by some form of protection
system so obviously their protection systems are just as effective
as .Net Reactor's.
I also note the blurring of lines between code de-obfuscation and
software use protection systems. They are quite different of course.
Marc van Beveren
protection can be broken if you really want.
My only need for using a obfuscator tool is to make it hard (not
impossible) for someone to see/obtain my original code. That's all I
need. I don't need a license protection.
On that forum they claim that .NET Reactor is "easy" to break and that
SmartAssembly is better than "the rest". Don't know if that claim is
true. I just need to decide if I should continue using (the more
expensive) SmartAssembly or step over to .NET Reactor ....
Glen Harvy
Three years ago, when I started using C#, I found *everything* to be
hard :-)
Now I find almost *everything* to be generally understandable or at
least I know the right terms to search with on Google. Certainly some
coding I find "easy".
If I thought I could make a living out of cracks then I would probably
consider getting into the market as the 'Masked Crusader for Freedom" :-)
If .Net Reactor can be cracked, then I'm pretty certain it wouldn't be
'easy'.
Good luck ...
Glen.
Abepro
the licensing. I ran into problems with licenses failing after
releasing product version upgrades. Probably because I ran the code
protection with a new master key. It seems the licensing and
protection both depend on the same master key. Da, you say?
1. The only way I know to keep ahead of the bad guys is to always code
protect with different encryption key with every new version release.
2. I also like license protecton that use web services to occationaly
check for valid license to keep everyone honest.
It's been said that "tall fences make for good neighbors".
John Smith
Thanks.
Glen Harvy
I can't think of any reason why the control name would be obfuscated as
i can't see how that information wouldn't be obvious to a prospective
thief of your code when running the program. Having said that, I can't
read the control names of my protected C# application using a free hex
editor I just downloaded.
If your worried then have a look at the Settings details and see if you
have enabled everything.
Regards,
Glen.
John Smith
Still learning...