It seems that this thread ends (again) with:
is reverse-engineering good or bad.

There is no known exe-encoder which was not unpacked within a limited time. If you want to use it for "shrinking" your files, well this will be ok. But don?t think that you can protect any software with these coding-techniques efficiently.

For the w4rez guys:
What is the sense of protecting a software (only) with an exe-protector, when the whole CD can be copied as ISO ?
If you copy the whole product (serial inclusive).
I think there are some better possibilities to protect better.

Good software will always be bought, because especially in companys you need technical service and more.
Don?t see this as a home-computer-freak... think like a normal company user.

And I agree: If M$ would not have been pirated so much... no, they would not be at their today?s position.
Posted on 2002-07-01 08:06:13 by Zero
ASProtect is quiet good, but is indicated only for professional software with a certain dimension. Small DLL's and EXE's sometimes produce GPF's. More, it's about US$100, the product is updated frequently and the author tries to implement user requests. Protected programs are compressed, too, and programs may be compressed only (I'm using it mainly this way). In any case, I didn't hear a lot about breaking ASProtect, and I tried myself for testing the strength. It seems to me a very good solution for the price. All executables load much faster over networks, DLL's included and OCX's excluded.

The only drawback I know is, DLL export functions must come first and must be explicitly ordered (@1...@n in *.def), because the protection software remaps the function names, and some protection mecanisms conflict with unordered exports.

Posted on 2002-07-03 09:07:10 by sch.jnn

In any case, I didn't hear a lot about breaking ASProtect, and I tried myself for testing the strength.

You haven't looked very hard then, if at all. Asprotect is broken all
the time. Now, if software authors werent so dull and used some
of the asprotect API to encrypt code chunks, it would be harder...
but most software authors dont. Besides, as soon as a license is
carded/leaked, the decrypted code blocks can be restored. And as
for the RSA1024, geeeh, patch it.

No, ready-made solutions aren't solutions.
Posted on 2002-07-03 10:11:25 by f0dder
I didn't hear a lot about breaking ASProtect

You have not looked at the right places. There are forums full about discussions of this.
Anyway, it is not the work worth to code something like this.
BUT (!): When you want to learn... go and code some exeprotector. It is interesting ;)
Posted on 2002-07-03 12:01:22 by Zero