Federalist Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 (edited) Is there any way to encrypt/mask my source so that it cannot be decompiled from my .exe? Would obfuscating do the trick? Edited December 15, 2007 by Federalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustinReno Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 Are you serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John117 Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 (edited) Is there any way to encrypt/mask my source so that it cannot be decompiled from my .exe? Would obfuscating do the trick?it would make it take a little longer. as of 3.2.6+ decomile is not officially supported or to be discussed.as of right now, I don't know of a way to truly protect your source, but the lack of support does help keep your source harder to decompile.running obfuscator more than once before compile may make it harder with each run. but . . .as of right now, I don't know of a way to truly protect your source.I would suggest changeing everything that points to autoit. compile with options and use resource hack 'its a tab when compiling' remove any mention of autoit. -fake another compiler message if you wish . . .edit: change the icons too. Edited December 15, 2007 by Hatcheda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustinReno Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 Even so Hatcheda, under ResHacker there is a string that points to AutoIt even with version number. And besides, its technically impossible to decompile the source. And besides, there are deobfuscater downloads available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John117 Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 (edited) Even so Hatcheda, under ResHacker there is a string that points to AutoIt even with version number. And besides, its technically impossible to decompile the source. And besides, there are deobfuscater downloads available.Are you serious?1. please point to the string -I have changed mine. unless I am missing something2.technically impossible -its a program, no it isn't technically impossible but again, not to be discussedand to quote myselfrunning obfuscator more than once before compile may make it harder with each run. but . . .as of right now, I don't know of a way to truly protect your source. Edited December 15, 2007 by Hatcheda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustinReno Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 You completely missed a very easy point:Do you get it now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John117 Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 You completely missed a very easy point:Do you get it now?48% of a 1440 by 900 you should start by asking if I can see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustinReno Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 Theres also another thing you easily missed: Click the top black bar that says "Click to view full size". Or, right click the picture and click properties, copy the URL and enter it into your browser, it will be clear to see what you have missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John117 Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 so you prove my point that its not secure. one hex change and you see monkeys. even if you dont, who cares. the point was its not secure and the best security is to fake its origin as best as possible you really want me to have to copy past your url? a compiled version is even less secure. then they spend not time looking. your best hope is they know nothing about autoit/autoit decompilers then dont know what to google Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustinReno Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 I really don't care if your too lazy to copy a URL into an address box. Have fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John117 Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 (edited) again thank you for wasting everyones time and proving nothing. @ OP obfuscate more than once with standalone before compiling. compile wiht all 1's except for drop unused funcitons. dont drop them, more makes it harder to read. I believe that 3.2.6+ uses random rolling hex so it should be harder than ever to crack for most users. Remove all traces of autoit that you can find. as the other poster 'cleverly' posted, there are hex traces. of course I knew that considering the posted image is of a hex checker that I built to verify an autoit.exe. Make a backup and change the hex as needed testing after each minor change. Edited December 15, 2007 by Hatcheda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustinReno Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 Actually I proved you wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John117 Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 at what point justin, that you can't really protect the source, that it can be decompiled, deobfuscated, mostly hidden autoit origin, or that your a time wasting idiot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustinReno Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 (edited) All of the above excluding your idiotic and retarted end comment. And prove to me, how am I wasting your time? By making you copy a URL and look at an image? Edited December 15, 2007 by JustinReno Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federalist Posted December 15, 2007 Author Share Posted December 15, 2007 Thanks for answering my question. I see that there's no surefire way - but obfuscating will slow down at least the most very basic people. Other than that, continue your flamewar. Thanks to both of you for help, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustinReno Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 Your welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John117 Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 by your comments that are wasting time as I stated 1. it can be decompiled 2. it can be deobfuscated but more than once makes it harder 3. it can be hidden from normal viewing (not hex as I never said it could from hex) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustinReno Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 You didn't state any of it in your original post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John117 Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 Im sorry I'll spell this out for everyone next time incase you stop by and dont clearly understand factas of right now, I don't know of a way to truly protect your source.point 1. ie it can be decompiled and deobfuscated period.running obfuscator more than once before compile may make it harder with each run. but . . .as of right now, I don't know of a way to truly protect your source.point 2. obfucator more than once makes it harder.point 3 look at the jpg I posted -do you see the name? Post one was only to change the visible characteristics period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John117 Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 im going to bed before you rub off on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now