Here is my little tot
which will help you to do this with hex and masm32 v7 easy steps with pics

Hope you all injoy it

:)
Attachments:
Posted on 2006-04-17 21:12:37 by COREY
Waste of time.
Posted on 2006-04-19 12:34:33 by PBrennick
agrees with Rifleman.
Posted on 2006-04-19 12:47:18 by f0dder
Why do you say that
Well some people dont need there software being picked up so people can crack it.

And they can alter the script so they can get pass the unpackers

thats so no one can just edit your software
And pass it off as there own (if its not open source etc)
Posted on 2006-04-19 21:25:02 by COREY

Why do you say that
Well some people dont need there software being picked up so people can crack it.

And they can alter the script so they can get pass the unpackers

thats so no one can just edit your software
And pass it off as there own (if its not open source etc)


That is "security through obscurity", and it rarely works.

As long as your program can be loaded into memory, people will find a way to manipulate it however they wish. All you are really doing here is discouraging the amateur *h4x0rz*, and forcing any *professionals* (who are interested) to break apart your program just to prove to you that they can. Also, in the process of doing this, you are forcing the end-user to suffer slower load times.

Lose-lose situation IMHO.
Posted on 2006-04-19 22:38:00 by SpooK
* Paul agrees with Spook
Posted on 2006-04-19 23:26:19 by PBrennick

That is "security through obscurity", and it rarely works.

Especially not when applying obscurity to a not-extremely-strong protector that has been attacked a lot... just because PEiD doesn't identify something doesn't mean people won't realize what it is.
Posted on 2006-04-20 04:25:10 by f0dder
That is true.

But if any old someone just scanes it to find out what it is they can go online get a unpacker or it and they dont have to use there time. Wasted on how dose the packer work? maybe it may take some time but they are not going to use a Unpacker which is free over the internet when they really dont know whant protector/crypter they are using on there app

So
i was thinking it was not much of a wast of time...

Peace
Corey.
Posted on 2006-04-23 21:09:45 by COREY
I agree with the others, its a waste of time.

The problem with protection is that the better it is the more people will try to break it and anything that can be loaded can be broken and examined. I don't even bother protecting code because I know that if I wanted to look at a peice of code most schemes would break down after the first few minutes, some might take longer but not much.

I once tried using extreme spaghetti code and encrypting a critical block in the resource section then loading it dynamically and decrypting it in memory. The API calls were all done by scanning for the base to Kernel32 then loading them dynamically so there were no imports to give anything away. I sent the code to a friend to see how secure it was, I got it back in about 3 hours and that's because he had to eat supper first :) If I still have a copy in my backups (which is doubtful) I will post it.
Posted on 2006-04-23 22:19:43 by donkey