Locker

[doudou]

And whatever happened to frozen systems and virtual machines ? And besides the code is not obfuscated... if some of you are so paranoidal why dont you simply extract the codes. (or does that hurt programming ethics ? But again isnt that the case only when you are doing so without the consent of the coder ? )

Posting compiled EXE implies that you don't wish to disclose your code (what else could be the reason for bloating the post attachment with AutoIt runtime, which everyone here has installed anyway?) - and yes, extracting code from such EXE without explicit permission would be violation of ethics and even laws (in some countries). If you really want to share code, share it in its purity.

It's not that I'm taking side of the people, who moan "I don't trust you, why shall run your EXE?" Such statements are actually pointless, they always can be returned: "If you don't want to run it, why wasting your breath? Just don't run."

[Jos]

I could not resist, I must give my opinion:

What I have in my mind is that this forum should be only for knowledge exchange (questions and answers) and not to test for executable files!

Jos said: "oh, by the way .... let us know if it is really safe or not."

He is absolutely right! Only madmen running compiled code.

AutoIt: for me is not just a language designed for automating the Windows GUI and general scripting, is much more than that! But 80% of the regulars only think of Games, Keylogers and knows what more there, or want us to execute your compiled code, most often without much or any explanation, frankly, "clik"

Decompiling is not allowed and will not be discussed/tolerated here. We will ban people without warning when they indicate having violated the EULA.

Posting a compiled script is fine and running it too without looking at the code but not from somebody that is relative new here.

So all I said is: There is no issue with this posted EXE but I will not run it as I do not know the code abilities of the op.

Now lets go back on track and post comments related to the script when you feel brave enough to run it.

[DarkAngel]

Why are we deviating from the topic at hand ? I had some some questions which no one answered Please dont deviate from the topic. Thats a request. I will post the code as soon as i make it a bit read worthy. Its full of commented lines and thats the reason i didnt put it up here. Its basically a very simple 1 that uses the cacls from the console. please dont fight about running and not running, decompiling and not decompiling ... lets discuss the script and the topic instead.

[Jos]

Why are we deviating from the topic at hand ? I had some some questions which no one answered Please dont deviate from the topic. Thats a request. I will post the code as soon as i make it a bit read worthy. Its full of commented lines and thats the reason i didnt put it up here. Its basically a very simple 1 that uses the cacls from the console. please dont fight about running and not running, decompiling and not decompiling ... lets discuss the script and the topic instead.

Isn't that what I already said?

[JScript]

Decompiling is not allowed and will not be discussed/tolerated here. We will ban people without warning when they indicate having violated the EULA (...)

"Decompiling" ?!?!

I have not mentioned that word in my text...

"We will ban people..."

You have all rights...

We will not spend our time with this, we have more important things to discuss!

Edited July 31, 2010 by jscript

[sxyObs]

ok here's the unlocker for your mystery locker.

If you need some improvement the best way is to post your code. not all but some 50% i guess.

if $icacls = true Then
         ShellExecuteWait("icacls",'"' & $lockedfolder & '" /remove:d everyone',@SystemDir,"",@SW_HIDE)
         Elseif $icacls = false Then
            ShellExecute("cacls",'"' & $lockedfolder & '" /p everyone:f',@SystemDir,"",@SW_HIDE)
            sleep(100)
            SendKeepActive("cacls")
            send("y{Enter}")
                 EndIf

Edited August 3, 2010 by sxyObs

[DarkAngel]

ok here's the unlocker for your mystery locker.

If you need some improvement the best way is to post your code. not all but some 50% i guess.

if $icacls = true Then
         ShellExecuteWait("icacls",'"' & $lockedfolder & '" /remove:d everyone',@SystemDir,"",@SW_HIDE)
         Elseif $icacls = false Then
            ShellExecute("cacls",'"' & $lockedfolder & '" /p everyone:f',@SystemDir,"",@SW_HIDE)
            sleep(100)
            SendKeepActive("cacls")
            send("y{Enter}")
                 EndIf

Duh.. I guess this has been written in previous posts too . I think i mentioned it first that the whole thing can be bypassed in a matter of seconds !! So its nothing new and neither are you to be the first one for doing this. And u dun need to even write a script for that. just a matter of mouse clicks .

Well, anyway thanks for your opinion ... The topic presently at discussion here is how to stop windows from allowing users to use cacls or icacls on the selected folder.

one way maybe to run a script at intervals of every 50 ms , so that even if the permissions are changed it would be reset again almost immediately. But i am looking for better options like making the folder virtually invisible even to the OS.

[sxyObs]

Duh.. I guess this has been written in previous posts too . I think i mentioned it first that the whole thing can be bypassed in a matter of seconds !! So its nothing new and neither are you to be the first one for doing this. And u dun need to even write a script for that. just a matter of mouse clicks .

Well, anyway thanks for your opinion ... The topic presently at discussion here is how to stop windows from allowing users to use cacls or icacls on the selected folder.

one way maybe to run a script at intervals of every 50 ms , so that even if the permissions are changed it would be reset again almost immediately. But i am looking for better options like making the folder virtually invisible even to the OS.

"bypassed just a matter of mouse clicks" - how? hmm if that so then just put your code and don't be shy . hmmm and BTW i guess all locked folders including system folders can be deleted by this one UNLOCKER 1.9.0 BY CEDRICK 'NITCH' COLLOM. Don't waste your time making a locker for folder if someone can just delete it in a matter of mouse clicks

[DarkAngel]

Unlocker . Yeh . Already discussed.See in the previous posts. I dun understand something. The matter at hand is to prevent it from being bypassed . So why are you all so interested in "re"cracking something that i have already experimented and criticized my own post with.

[kaotkbliss]

Don't worry DarkAngel, keep at it! I look forward to a complete version.

Gotta keep prying eyes from certain folders especially that porn LOL

[sxyObs]

Unlocker . Yeh . Already discussed.See in the previous posts. I dun understand something. The matter at hand is to prevent it from being bypassed . So why are you all so interested in "re"cracking something that i have already experimented and criticized my own post with.

Before you put security to somethin you need to think first the most common and simplest rule -"know your enemy".

NVM, BTW I tried unlocker to delete virtual drive and it says an error "drive access denied" - atleast unlocker have still

a weak point.

[DarkAngel]

Before you put security to somethin you need to think first the most common and simplest rule -"know your enemy".

NVM, BTW I tried unlocker to delete virtual drive and it says an error "drive access denied" - atleast unlocker have still

a weak point.

Well like i said ... the safest method is to apply a process terminator script for likes of Unlocker assistant.exe . And reapply the restrictions at every 10 ms. I suppose none of us her sre so fast as to even use any unlocker in that interval. Which reminds me . _procwatch() can be used in this regard to guard over the guarding script so that it cant be terminated. and btw .. i dun understand something . Its been a long time since someone actually posted something useful that could be integrated into the project. All are busy in pulling it down. Lmao. And i dont know if any of you here has even bothered to see it or not but kaspersky protects its containers in much the same fashion. A bit modified though.

[kaotkbliss]

I'm waiting until it cannot be "bypassed in a matter of seconds" before making any update suggestions.

My thought is

Have it working the way you want before trying to add anything new.