Software protection against cracks and piracy

Discussion:

(too old to reply)

SoftComplete

2005-12-20 09:48:32 UTC

EXECryptor reaches version 2.2.5
Many people are waiting for the next release of your great product,
and you are ready to release. You want users to use your program and to
pay for it, as all companies do. But you also know, there's many
people who doesn't want to buy your product but want to crack it and
offer it free to others. So, you are looking for strong and unbeatable
protection against these graceless thieves.. We have heard you, and
your wait is over.

EXECryptor is a powerful software tool that developers with software
protection from reverse engineering, analysis, modifications, and
cracking. Its main difference from other protection tools is a new and
unique metamorphing code transformation technology.
With EXECryptor the protected code block is not just packed or
obfuscated like many other packers, but also disassembled into
nondeterminate transformations, effectively scrambling the visible
logical code structure and making it impossible to reverse. After the
code transformation, it remains executable and working as it is
supposed to but it cannot be analysed, modified, or circumvented.
It is not just a question about code encryption but also code
transformation. You can optionally wrap additional parts of your code,
at a source code level, in special flags which then transform into
virtually impossible code to trace, crack, or bypass. Protected code
blocks are never 'decrypted' during execution they remain in their
transformed code state. Code restoration becomes an NP-hard problem.
EXECryptor has the innovative very powerful antidebug, antitrace and
import protection features to stop the latest cracking software.
EXECryptor allows to use short registration keys of 12/16 characters
long, based on a new generation of our HardKey algorithm,
cryptographically strong ultrashort digital signature.
The power of software protection with EXECryptor is proved out in
practice: despite numberous cracking attempts and challenges, the
EXECryptor's 2.x series has not been cracked since its inception in
July of 2004.
In addition to its advanced protection features, EXECryptor allows you
to compress the code and resources of your application.
EXECryptor is able to protect any 32bit PE executable file (exe, dll,
bpl, vxd, wdm). It has been tested with W95/98/ME/2000/NT/XP/2003. SDKs
are available for Delphi, C++Builder, Microsoft Visual C++, LCC,
PellesC, Visual Basic, PowerBASIC , Ibasic and PureBasic.

What's new in this version :
* added sdk and example for IBasic
* improved antidebug and antitrace
* improved: compatibility with MS signcode tool
* improved: PowerBasic 8 compatible
EXECryptor is distributed electronically over the Internet; free trial
version is available at http://www.strongbit.com for evaluation.

* Operating system: Windows 95, 98, ME, NT, 2000, XP, 2003
* RAM: 32 Mb
* Hard Disk: 2.5 Mb
Product Page: http://www.strongbit.com/execryptor.asp
Download: http://www.softcomplete.com/download/execryptor.zip
Buy Link: http://www.strongbit.com/order.asp

i***@example.com

2006-01-02 16:44:19 UTC

Permalink

(Please leave the crosspost to comp.lang.basic.powerbasic in.
it is a very low-volume newsgroup and a good place for a
thread about this particular PowerBASIC-based snake-oil...)

Post by SoftComplete
EXECryptor reaches version 2.2.5
Many people are waiting for the next release of your great product,
and you are ready to release. You want users to use your program and to
pay for it, as all companies do. But you also know, there's many
people who doesn't want to buy your product but want to crack it and
offer it free to others. So, you are looking for strong and unbeatable
protection against these graceless thieves.. We have heard you, and
your wait is over.
EXECryptor is a powerful software tool that developers with software
protection from reverse engineering, analysis, modifications, and
cracking. Its main difference from other protection tools is a new and
unique metamorphing code transformation technology.
With EXECryptor the protected code block is not just packed or
obfuscated like many other packers, but also disassembled into
nondeterminate transformations, effectively scrambling the visible
logical code structure and making it impossible to reverse. After the
code transformation, it remains executable and working as it is
supposed to but it cannot be analysed, modified, or circumvented.
It is not just a question about code encryption but also code
transformation. You can optionally wrap additional parts of your code,
at a source code level, in special flags which then transform into
virtually impossible code to trace, crack, or bypass. Protected code
blocks are never 'decrypted' during execution they remain in their
transformed code state. Code restoration becomes an NP-hard problem.
EXECryptor has the innovative very powerful antidebug, antitrace and
import protection features to stop the latest cracking software.
EXECryptor allows to use short registration keys of 12/16 characters
long, based on a new generation of our HardKey algorithm,
cryptographically strong ultrashort digital signature.
The power of software protection with EXECryptor is proved out in
practice: despite numberous cracking attempts and challenges, the
EXECryptor's 2.x series has not been cracked since its inception in
July of 2004.
In addition to its advanced protection features, EXECryptor allows you
to compress the code and resources of your application.
EXECryptor is able to protect any 32bit PE executable file (exe, dll,
bpl, vxd, wdm). It has been tested with W95/98/ME/2000/NT/XP/2003. SDKs
are available for Delphi, C++Builder, Microsoft Visual C++, LCC,
PellesC, Visual Basic, PowerBASIC , Ibasic and PureBasic.
* added sdk and example for IBasic
* improved antidebug and antitrace
* improved: compatibility with MS signcode tool
* improved: PowerBasic 8 compatible
EXECryptor is distributed electronically over the Internet; free trial
version is available at http://www.strongbit.com for evaluation.
* Operating system: Windows 95, 98, ME, NT, 2000, XP, 2003
* RAM: 32 Mb
* Hard Disk: 2.5 Mb
Product Page: http://www.[obfuscated].com/execryptor.asp
Download: http://www.soft[obfuscated].com/download/execryptor.zip
Buy Link: http://www.[obfuscated].com/order.asp

You are claiming the ability to do the impossible. If the CPU of
a PC can undo whatever snakeoil you apply far enough to execute
the code, so can a human cracking the program. In addition, any
cryptographic system that decrypts without forcing the user to
enter a key every time must store the key somewhere, and a good
cracker can find that key.

As Valery Pryamikov wrote in reply to one of your many spam runs:

|
|The facts are that they:
|
|1. Make a lots of obviously bogus claims like "unbreakable", "total
|protection", "cannot be analyzed, modified, or circumvented", "impossible .
|to trace, crack, or bypass"
|
|2. Claim "Unbreakable security" of PROPRIATERY, NEVER REVIEWED OR PUBLISHED
|algorithms (esp. their HardKey);
|
|3. Try to use a lot of pseudo-scientific terminology - pseudo-mathematical
|gobbledygook.
|
|4. Failure to use well established terminology in software obfuscation and
|program licensing research papers (don't appear to be updated in that
|research area).
|
|5. Failure to use correct terminology in the area of Context Free Grammars
|and LR/LALR parsers that they claim to be the major technique back their
|"total unbreakable protection that doesn't allow to analyze, modify or
|circumvent." ex. ".result of NFA (Nondeterminate Final Automat) action on
|input/output sequence" (from separate post by the same poster to
|microsoft.public.security.crypto newsgroup) while as I guess it should be
|"Nondeterministic Finite Automaton" and was used totally out of context.
|(don't appear to be very familiar with that area as well)
|
|6. plus many other thing that clearly classifies these spammers for Snake
|Oil.
|
|So far I didn't see any single thing that would classify it to be something
|not a Snake Oil.
|
|And the fact that they actively spam other usenet groups - only proves the
|point.
|

Read the thread here:
http://www.derkeiler.com/Newsgroups/sci.crypt/2005-06/1221.html
http://www.derkeiler.com/Newsgroups/sci.crypt/2005-06/1225.html
http://www.derkeiler.com/Newsgroups/sci.crypt/2005-06/1237.html
http://www.derkeiler.com/Newsgroups/sci.crypt/2005-06/1229.html
http://www.derkeiler.com/Newsgroups/sci.crypt/2005-06/1248.html

SoftComplete

2006-01-05 10:23:42 UTC

Permalink

Post by i***@example.com
(Please leave the crosspost to comp.lang.basic.powerbasic in.
it is a very low-volume newsgroup and a good place for a
thread about this particular PowerBASIC-based snake-oil...)
You are claiming the ability to do the impossible. If the CPU of
a PC can undo whatever snakeoil you apply far enough to execute
the code, so can a human cracking the program. In addition, any
cryptographic system that decrypts without forcing the user to
enter a key every time must store the key somewhere, and a good
cracker can find that key.
|
|
|1. Make a lots of obviously bogus claims like "unbreakable", "total
|protection", "cannot be analyzed, modified, or circumvented", "impossible .
|to trace, crack, or bypass"
|
|2. Claim "Unbreakable security" of PROPRIATERY, NEVER REVIEWED OR PUBLISHED
|algorithms (esp. their HardKey);
|
|3. Try to use a lot of pseudo-scientific terminology - pseudo-mathematical
|gobbledygook.
|
|4. Failure to use well established terminology in software obfuscation and
|program licensing research papers (don't appear to be updated in that
|research area).
|
|5. Failure to use correct terminology in the area of Context Free Grammars
|and LR/LALR parsers that they claim to be the major technique back their
|"total unbreakable protection that doesn't allow to analyze, modify or
|circumvent." ex. ".result of NFA (Nondeterminate Final Automat) action on
|input/output sequence" (from separate post by the same poster to
|microsoft.public.security.crypto newsgroup) while as I guess it should be
|"Nondeterministic Finite Automaton" and was used totally out of context.
|(don't appear to be very familiar with that area as well)
|
|6. plus many other thing that clearly classifies these spammers for Snake
|Oil.
|
|So far I didn't see any single thing that would classify it to be something
|not a Snake Oil.
|
|And the fact that they actively spam other usenet groups - only proves the
|point.
|
http://www.derkeiler.com/Newsgroups/sci.crypt/2005-06/1221.html
http://www.derkeiler.com/Newsgroups/sci.crypt/2005-06/1225.html
http://www.derkeiler.com/Newsgroups/sci.crypt/2005-06/1237.html
http://www.derkeiler.com/Newsgroups/sci.crypt/2005-06/1229.html
http://www.derkeiler.com/Newsgroups/sci.crypt/2005-06/1248.html

Valery Pryamikov is incompetent in software protection area. He may be
strong in theory but there's no any reasoned comments except «
it's snake oil » claims.
Now as a matter of fact:
1. all our short serials algorithms are based on public key
cryptography with serial number verification module is available in
source code. It's important to note that other software protection
systems
supply this module only compiled.
However our systems have no keygens during last
4 years. And this is the reason to talk about strength of our serials
generation system for software protection.

2. If we butt into overmuch faithful mathematical formulizations it
will be not understandable and uninteresting for many developers . I
think more reasonable argument for them is keygens absence and strength
of code protection.

3. If you or Mr. Pryamikov are too expert in math you'll have to
remember about relevance of formal grammars theory and the theory of
finite automaton. But I think that neither you nor
Mr. Pryamikov are enough familiar with these math areas to see such
obvious things.
Algorithms used to protect an executable code by EXECryptor can be
described in parsing terms as well as in finite automaton ones.

4. I completely agree that in theory all program can be broken as well
as well-known RSA or AES encryption algoritms.
There we don't mention absolute impossibility of crack but we claim
It will take much more efforts than breaking other software protection
schemes.

In practice we can only answer you that EXECryptor remains more than
1.5 years a 'strong meat'
and the code restoration and analysis after applying of EXECryptor
question is still open.

Regards
Software Protection developers' team
http://www.strongbit.com

v***@harper.no

2006-01-12 16:01:07 UTC

Permalink

Claiming that other persons are uncompentent behind their back is not
going to increase your reputation....
and about my compentences - i actually hold a presentation on this
subject on the first international academic conference on Digital
Rights Management in Sydney, and my article on "Call Tree
Transformation for Program Obfuscation will be published soon in
Lecture Notes on Computer Science series. where is yours?

-Valery.
http://www.harper.no/valery

Post by SoftComplete

Valery Pryamikov is incompetent in software protection area. He may be
strong in theory but there's no any reasoned comments except «
it's snake oil » claims.
1. all our short serials algorithms are based on public key
cryptography with serial number verification module is available in
source code. It's important to note that other software protection
systems
supply this module only compiled.
However our systems have no keygens during last
4 years. And this is the reason to talk about strength of our serials
generation system for software protection.
2. If we butt into overmuch faithful mathematical formulizations it
will be not understandable and uninteresting for many developers . I
think more reasonable argument for them is keygens absence and strength
of code protection.
3. If you or Mr. Pryamikov are too expert in math you'll have to
remember about relevance of formal grammars theory and the theory of
finite automaton. But I think that neither you nor
Mr. Pryamikov are enough familiar with these math areas to see such
obvious things.
Algorithms used to protect an executable code by EXECryptor can be
described in parsing terms as well as in finite automaton ones.
4. I completely agree that in theory all program can be broken as well
as well-known RSA or AES encryption algoritms.
There we don't mention absolute impossibility of crack but we claim
It will take much more efforts than breaking other software protection
schemes.
In practice we can only answer you that EXECryptor remains more than
1.5 years a 'strong meat'
and the code restoration and analysis after applying of EXECryptor
question is still open.
Regards
Software Protection developers' team
http://www.strongbit.com

i***@example.com

2006-01-02 16:50:41 UTC

Permalink

(Please leave the crosspost to comp.lang.basic.powerbasic in.
it is a very low-volume newsgroup and a good place for a
thread about this particular PowerBASIC-based snake-oil...)

JiXian Yang

2006-01-03 02:53:41 UTC

Permalink

Of course, the public-key can be found by a good cracker.
But it might also be found in special hardware, therefore the hardware
solution seems not to be very good for the high cost.
Checksum is very important.