Uten Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 That tool is installed by default between your ears. Learn C++ and code it! ROLF, upgrade time maybe..Personally I would just stick with C (FreeBASIC if you don't know and don't want to learn C) and make the "business sensitive" part of my program a library. Please keep your sig. small! Use the help file. Search the forum. Then ask unresolved questions :) Script plugin demo, Simple Trace udf, TrayMenuEx udf, IOChatter demo, freebasic multithreaded dll sample, PostMessage, Aspell, Code profiling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
narciso Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 ROLF, upgrade time maybe..Personally I would just stick with C (FreeBASIC if you don't know and don't want to learn C) and make the "business sensitive" part of my program a library.Nice idea. Thanks for the hint. I will hopefully try it when my C++ gets good enough What do you think of the possibility of saving the output of the interpreter in a form of byte code and then making a real exe out of it. Theoretically possible, isn't it? Warmly,Narciso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uten Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 Yes, sort of, but the reason interpreters are so popular is the simplisity they provide. FreeBASIC translates the basic to C and compile the result. Compare the release cycles and decide for yourself. A quick search in the forum will show you that this topic has been discussed up, down and both sides to boot. So the conclusion is. If in need of binaries, use a language delivering binaries. They are not that hard to cope with.. Please keep your sig. small! Use the help file. Search the forum. Then ask unresolved questions :) Script plugin demo, Simple Trace udf, TrayMenuEx udf, IOChatter demo, freebasic multithreaded dll sample, PostMessage, Aspell, Code profiling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScriptUSER Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Yes, sort of, but the reason interpreters are so popular is the simplisity they provide. FreeBASIC translates the basic to C and compile the result. Compare the release cycles and decide for yourself.A quick search in the forum will show you that this topic has been discussed up, down and both sides to boot.So the conclusion is. If in need of binaries, use a language delivering binaries. They are not that hard to cope with..You make harder I think for your script robbers if you :1, Obfuscate it 2/3 times with Jdeb tool which is nice 2, compile with password 3, Remove all unnecessary resources with a tool Like resource tuner 4, Remove dos headers , compress multi times with packer tools now it will be harder ! comments ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReaImDown Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 (edited) You make harder I think for your script robbers if you :1, Obfuscate it 2/3 times with Jdeb tool which is nice 2, compile with password 3, Remove all unnecessary resources with a tool Like resource tuner 4, Remove dos headers , compress multi times with packer tools now it will be harder ! comments ??packers such as aspack dontwork on autoit scripts, and most scripts cant be obfuscated more than once depending on its complexity, but, I wonder...if I made a script...saved it, made a new script and used #include....would that hide part of my scripting? also, passwords do nothing, I assure u, cracking passwords can be done w/ one mouseclick lolinput is welcome Edited June 1, 2007 by ReaImDown [u][font="Century Gothic"]~я α и d γ ĵ . ċ . ѕ қ ϊ и и ε я~- My Programs -auto shutdownSleep funcdisallow programs[/font][/u] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators SmOke_N Posted June 1, 2007 Moderators Share Posted June 1, 2007 packers such as aspack dontwork on autoit scripts, and most scripts cant be obfuscated more than once depending on its complexity, but, I wonder...if I made a script...saved it, made a new script and used #include....would that hide part of my scripting? also, passwords do nothing, I assure u, cracking passwords can be done w/ one mouseclick lolinput is welcome I personally think all of you are barking up the wrong tree.Until Jon or someone else re-writes the compiler or change from interpretation to translation... Most attempts at anything you do will be futile to a skilled cracker.ScriptUser has posted the only 2 suggestions (1 and 4) of 3, I'm aware of, that are going to even remotely help anyone at the current time. Common sense plays a role in the basics of understanding AutoIt... If you're lacking in that, do us all a favor, and step away from the computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Robertson Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 What happens if you run an executable without a DOS header in a DOS shell without Windows running? I'm curious to see what happens. I'm a fan of the "This program cannot be run in MS-DOS mode." prompt from older DOS headers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScriptUSER Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 I personally think all of you are barking up the wrong tree.Until Jon or someone else re-writes the compiler or change from interpretation to translation... Most attempts at anything you do will be futile to a skilled cracker.ScriptUser has posted the only 2 suggestions (1 and 4) of 3, I'm aware of, that are going to even remotely help anyone at the current time.Smoke ! it is True !Anyone can see your autoit code . I was so annoyed when i knew that .the solution i mentioned above is just to hide partly that your program is script converted !If someone knows that your script is autoit exe , the story ends there . the suggestions 3 and 4 can make a big problem for a non skilled cracker who is not aware of that the exe is made by autoit .Scripts threated by 3.4 completely changes the picture until it decompiles succesfully . Maybe , more advanced obfuscation ,and running scripts by embedding in other c++ applications may do the trick . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReaImDown Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 how would I go about removing dos headers? [u][font="Century Gothic"]~я α и d γ ĵ . ċ . ѕ қ ϊ и и ε я~- My Programs -auto shutdownSleep funcdisallow programs[/font][/u] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
=sinister= Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 This is why someone should make an AutoIt to C++ convertor. Just think obfuscating the AutoIt code, converting it to C++ and compiling it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators SmOke_N Posted June 2, 2007 Moderators Share Posted June 2, 2007 This is why someone should make an AutoIt to C++ convertor. Just think obfuscating the AutoIt code, converting it to C++ and compiling it...It'd be better to convert then obfuscate the c++ code then compile In all seriousness... who would do this? Those that can do it, would be doing it in C++ to begin with. Common sense plays a role in the basics of understanding AutoIt... If you're lacking in that, do us all a favor, and step away from the computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts