...

[stuka]

.

Edited August 21, 2009 by stuka

[toonboon]

would be nice if you'd include a link to the function, so that we know what ur talking about.

[dbzfanatic]

If someone wants certain information badly enough there isn't anything that can stop them. You can specify _StringEcrypt()'s strength by setting the level and using a long password but that does not ensure that the data can not be recovered. If you only want one way encryption and won't need the data later,just need to check it's validity, use a hash.

would be nice if you'd include a link to the function, so that we know what ur talking about.

Why post a link to a standard function? You've been all over the forums and you keep making a fool of yourself. Perhaps read through the helpfile then come back, or sit and observe the forums before posting unless you know the answer,not just think you might. I ghosted here for a while myself and I learned a lot, I still ghost certain topics from time to time,there's no shame in watching those more skilled than you. Edited November 21, 2008 by dbzfanatic

[Andreik]

Is _StringEncrypt's encryption strong enough to prevent crackers?

Thank you!

_StringEncrypt is based on RC4. More about RC4 here.

RC4 is used because is very simple. If you want something good try Blowfish cipher.

[toonboon]

Why post a link to a standard function? You've been all over the forums and you keep making a fool of yourself. Perhaps read through the helpfile then come back, or sit and observe the forums before posting unless you know the answer,not just think you might. I ghosted here for a while myself and I learned a lot, I still ghost certain topics from time to time,there's no shame in watching those more skilled than you.

I'm sorry mister better than everyone else.. If YOU have watched these forums carefully, you'd have seen that I have only been active since yesterday. And I never read the helpfile, because I never needed it, the internet and this forum have always been great help for me.

And because the function's name was _StringEncrypt, I figured that it might have been a custom function made by someone else.

Please don't judge on someone on the basis of a few posts.

Edited November 21, 2008 by toonboon

[Andreik]

@jackit

Check this.

@toonboon

Relax, everybody makes mistakes, but it is good to read help file.

[dbzfanatic]

This is hardly the place for a rant. It's rude to hijack others' topics and the fact you admit to never reading the helpfile shows that you need to. Even experts require/reference the helpfile from time to time. _StringEncrypt() is indeed a UDF but it is also one that comes standard with autoit. I was not trying to say I'm better than you I was simply trying to say rash posts make anyone look bad,expert and novice alike. If a function is mentioned and you aren't familiar with it then it's always a good idea to check the helpfile, if it isn't listed then ask if it is from beta or a UDF you need to download. I think this confrontation has gone on long enough and the OP has been given enough information to make a decision for themself, at least it seems that way.

[toonboon]

I apologise for my sudden overreaction. It's just been a bad day for me...

[dbzfanatic]

And my best friend's mom got a restraining order against me and because of that I can't see or even talk to my girlfriend. Bad days are bound to happen, but being able to keep a professional manner on the forums is something that is a good thing to be able to do. We all overreact at times so no hard feelings, I was merely trying to help you get a leg up.

[Andreik]

SkinnyWhiteGuy's version looks nice, but as compared to it, is _StringEncrypt any weaker or vulnerable?

Read post #4.

Surely it is more vulnerable as Blowfish, Rijndael or DES.