decompile 
Author Message
 decompile
how to protect from decompile program...

thank you



Mon, 19 Jul 2004 02:40:02 GMT
 decompile

You need to buy Refox.

Quote:
>Subject: decompile

>Date: 1/30/2002 10:40 AM Pacific Standard Time

>how to protect from decompile program...

>thank you

Mike


Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:08:10 GMT
 decompile

Quote:
> You need to buy Refox.

And that is not sufficient, it seems. There is these chinese program
that can decompile all Fox versions, even treated with ReFox. But I must
admit, I have downloaded this program, but I can't get it to work. It is
in chinese :-)

Quote:

> >how to protect from decompile program...

--

Groetjes,
   Wim de Lange



Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:21:14 GMT
 decompile
The fact you can't get it to work and the fact that no one has yet ever
decompiled a program branded with refox and challenge after challenge has been
issued is sufficient enough for me.

In fact, one time I need to decompile one of my own forms in my application.
Let me say that my application has over 200 forms and I only needed to
decompile ONE form.  Even after decompilation, it was HELL to try and
reconstruct it.  The fact is that I remove all comments from my code along with
that and when an application uses classes and inheritance, it's just all the
more difficult.

That along with someone trying to decompile an entire app with no support is
enough to say the amount of protection Refox offers is more than enough.

Regards,

Quote:
>And that is not sufficient, it seems. There is these chinese program
>that can decompile all Fox versions, even treated with ReFox. But I must
>admit, I have downloaded this program, but I can't get it to work. It is
>in chinese :-)

Mike


Fri, 23 Jul 2004 04:30:36 GMT
 decompile
I have, in fact, decompiled branded, FPD2.6 fxp files with a Chinese program
called, I think, UnFoxAll.  The version that I had did NOT work on VFP
files.  I did not test exe's or app's.  The fxp's that I used were our own
company's software, branded with Refox 7, and were compiled with the
encrypted (big deal) option.

 - Rush


Quote:
> The fact you can't get it to work and the fact that no one has yet ever
> decompiled a program branded with refox and challenge after challenge has
been
> issued is sufficient enough for me.

> In fact, one time I need to decompile one of my own forms in my
application.
> Let me say that my application has over 200 forms and I only needed to
> decompile ONE form.  Even after decompilation, it was HELL to try and
> reconstruct it.  The fact is that I remove all comments from my code along
with
> that and when an application uses classes and inheritance, it's just all
the
> more difficult.

> That along with someone trying to decompile an entire app with no support
is
> enough to say the amount of protection Refox offers is more than enough.

> Regards,

> >And that is not sufficient, it seems. There is these chinese program
> >that can decompile all Fox versions, even treated with ReFox. But I must
> >admit, I have downloaded this program, but I can't get it to work. It is
> >in chinese :-)

> Mike



Sat, 24 Jul 2004 04:00:27 GMT
 decompile
Hi Rush,

couple of things.  First, I've heard conflicting reports about whether there is
anything out there that could decompile a VFP app.  But, even if there were, I
still see several problems:

1.  No comments (if compiled correctly).
2.  Isn't it true that the decompiled apps no longer use classes (ie:
inheritance).
3.  No header files can be re-created since this stuff is sent to the
preprocessor.

With all 3 above (and possibly) more problems, you just don't get the same
source at all.  Also, you should test it on the exe since an fxp is still a
"step below" an exe with all the fxp's and other pieces.

Regards,

Quote:
>I have, in fact, decompiled branded, FPD2.6 fxp files with a Chinese program
>called, I think, UnFoxAll.  The version that I had did NOT work on VFP
>files.  I did not test exe's or app's.  The fxp's that I used were our own
>company's software, branded with Refox 7, and were compiled with the
>encrypted (big deal) option.

> - Rush

Mike


Sun, 25 Jul 2004 01:27:16 GMT
 decompile
Mike -

Personally, I feel no need for copy protection.  I only researched it on
behalf of a company I formerly worked for.  They were using Refox and were
under the belief that it would protect the files.

The company required the client to own a copy of FPD2.6, and distributed
only .fxp files.  Hence, never a need to test .exe's.  Proving that the
.fxp's were vulnerable proved my point to them.

As for VFP, I've no experience - but the lack of header files is trivial if
you are simply after the source code.

 - Rush


Quote:
> Hi Rush,

> couple of things.  First, I've heard conflicting reports about whether
there is
> anything out there that could decompile a VFP app.  But, even if there
were, I
> still see several problems:

> 1.  No comments (if compiled correctly).
> 2.  Isn't it true that the decompiled apps no longer use classes (ie:
> inheritance).
> 3.  No header files can be re-created since this stuff is sent to the
> preprocessor.

> With all 3 above (and possibly) more problems, you just don't get the same
> source at all.  Also, you should test it on the exe since an fxp is still
a
> "step below" an exe with all the fxp's and other pieces.

> Regards,

> >I have, in fact, decompiled branded, FPD2.6 fxp files with a Chinese
program
> >called, I think, UnFoxAll.  The version that I had did NOT work on VFP
> >files.  I did not test exe's or app's.  The fxp's that I used were our
own
> >company's software, branded with Refox 7, and were compiled with the
> >encrypted (big deal) option.

> > - Rush

> Mike



Sun, 25 Jul 2004 11:44:35 GMT
 decompile
Rush,

out of curiousity....why do you feel there is no need for it?  I could
understand if one is developing a custom application.  But, if one is
developing a commercial application, I would totally understand the need for
it.

Regards,

Quote:
>Subject: Re: decompile

>Date: 2/5/2002 7:44 PM Pacific Standard Time

>Mike -

>Personally, I feel no need for copy protection.  I only researched it on
>behalf of a company I formerly worked for.  They were using Refox and were
>under the belief that it would protect the files.

Mike


Sun, 25 Jul 2004 12:35:04 GMT
 decompile
I meant that I had no personal need - my work runs toward custom.  (And did
I really say, "copy protection?"  I meant, of course, anti-decomp
protection).

 - Rush


Quote:
> Rush,

> out of curiousity....why do you feel there is no need for it?  I could
> understand if one is developing a custom application.  But, if one is
> developing a commercial application, I would totally understand the need
for
> it.

> Regards,

> >Subject: Re: decompile

> >Date: 2/5/2002 7:44 PM Pacific Standard Time

> >Mike -

> >Personally, I feel no need for copy protection.  I only researched it on
> >behalf of a company I formerly worked for.  They were using Refox and
were
> >under the belief that it would protect the files.

> Mike



Sun, 25 Jul 2004 14:56:04 GMT
 
 [ 9 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Decompile R:Base .apx file?

2. How to decompile *.fxp program

3. FOX2.6DOS EXE-DECOMPILe

4. decompile a fpw26 program

5. Looking for someone to decompile fox 2.6 for windows exe file

6. decompile dbase IV application

7. decompile deliveries so to modify code/forms

8. decompile option in access97

9. Courious growing of MDB after /DECOMPILE and /COMPACT

10. decompile option in access97

11. VB Decompile utility


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software