Author: mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
Posted: 2016-12-01 09:59:06 Link
On 2016-12-01 06:27, Ted Roche wrote:
> Agree. Depends on the level of security you want/need. Compiling
> encrypted is enough to deter most. Nearly all Fox EXE / DLL can be
> decrypted, so if you *really* need it secure, look to a 3rd party
> solution, or move the secure parts off the client's machine and
> require them to contact a web resource you control so they can't
> access it.
I recall somebody mentioning Armadillo to protect your EXEs in the past
(from reverse engineering):
ReFox also offers protection: http://www.refox.net/-overview.html
Can you think of any other tool preferable to use for protecting your
deployed apps?
Any comments on the two mentioned above?
tia,
--Mike
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/ed83e93973899f647c9725b8deb6b380@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Carl Lindner
Posted: 2016-12-01 10:44:45 Link
Mike,
I have been using Armadillo aka Software Passport for years. I do not know
of any protection issues but my distribution to clients is limited - in the
couple dozen range.
When I bought, it was purchased as 32 or 64 bit. That depended on the
source machine, not the target.
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: ProFox [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of
mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
Sent: 12/01/2016 10:59 AM
To: ProFox
Subject: PROTECTING YOUR DISTRIBUTED CODE (was Re: Using a common class from
another EXE/DLL)
On 2016-12-01 06:27, Ted Roche wrote:
> Agree. Depends on the level of security you want/need. Compiling
> encrypted is enough to deter most. Nearly all Fox EXE / DLL can be
> decrypted, so if you *really* need it secure, look to a 3rd party
> solution, or move the secure parts off the client's machine and
> require them to contact a web resource you control so they can't
> access it.
I recall somebody mentioning Armadillo to protect your EXEs in the past
(from reverse engineering):
http://www.freedownloadscenter.com/Programming/Registration_Tools/The_Armadi
llo_Software_Protection_System.html
ReFox also offers protection: http://www.refox.net/-overview.html
Can you think of any other tool preferable to use for protecting your
deployed apps?
Any comments on the two mentioned above?
tia,
--Mike
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
Posted: 2016-12-01 17:00:16 Link
On 2016-12-01 11:44, Carl Lindner wrote:
> Mike,
>
> I have been using Armadillo aka Software Passport for years. I do not
> know
> of any protection issues but my distribution to clients is limited - in
> the
> couple dozen range.
>
> When I bought, it was purchased as 32 or 64 bit. That depended on the
> source machine, not the target.
>
> Carl
Thanks, Carl. My machines are 64-bit, but I'm sure some clients out
there still have 32-bit.
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/b6dab7e3b81d4dad5a9497c15016a2cb@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Carl Lindner
Posted: 2016-12-01 17:13:19 Link
Mike,
Long time... So, if things have not changed, you get the 64 bit and encrypt
in your environment. The client environment does not matter.
Years ago I researched encryption very hard and went with Software Passport.
I had some quirky problems with Win 7-32 and the developer helped resolve
them. It hurts to see a good product fail.
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: ProFox [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of
mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 6:00 PM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: RE: PROTECTING YOUR DISTRIBUTED CODE (was Re: Using a common class
from another EXE/DLL)
On 2016-12-01 11:44, Carl Lindner wrote:
> Mike,
>
> I have been using Armadillo aka Software Passport for years. I do not
> know of any protection issues but my distribution to clients is
> limited - in the couple dozen range.
>
> When I bought, it was purchased as 32 or 64 bit. That depended on the
> source machine, not the target.
>
> Carl
Thanks, Carl. My machines are 64-bit, but I'm sure some clients out there
still have 32-bit.
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Wollenhaupt, Christof
Posted: 2016-12-02 12:54:06 Link
>
> Can you think of any other tool preferable to use for protecting your
> deployed apps?
>
> Any comments on the two mentioned above?
>
As long as you are aware that none of these tools will protect code that is
stored in a VCX, they are both good choices.
--
Christof
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CAL4QJhg_ato99JHjZWqVbk8Rb_8S-Gx14jOuirxmRA8+X-9kvA@mail.gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
Posted: 2016-12-02 13:17:28 Link
On 2016-12-02 13:54, Wollenhaupt, Christof wrote:
>>
>> Can you think of any other tool preferable to use for protecting your
>> deployed apps?
>>
>> Any comments on the two mentioned above?
>>
>
> As long as you are aware that none of these tools will protect code
> that is
> stored in a VCX, they are both good choices.
Hi Christof,
Can you elaborate on that? Is that because of the binary storing in VCX
files? Would that also apply to SCX files too?
My business and data logic are all in PRGs so I'm just curious at this
point (because it seems like I'm protected otherwise since you only
listed VCX).
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/c1f44a88d66ac4a4ee54ebe400b62ab3@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Stephen Russell
Posted: 2016-12-02 13:30:17 Link
vcx is a different name for a dbf file which is not secure at all.
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:17 PM, <mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
> wrote:
> On 2016-12-02 13:54, Wollenhaupt, Christof wrote:
>
>>
>>> Can you think of any other tool preferable to use for protecting your
>>> deployed apps?
>>>
>>> Any comments on the two mentioned above?
>>>
>>>
>> As long as you are aware that none of these tools will protect code that
>> is
>> stored in a VCX, they are both good choices.
>>
>
>
> Hi Christof,
>
> Can you elaborate on that? Is that because of the binary storing in VCX
> files? Would that also apply to SCX files too?
>
> My business and data logic are all in PRGs so I'm just curious at this
> point (because it seems like I'm protected otherwise since you only listed
> VCX).
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CAJidMYK+UWF_DHu-JXb4D43LTP4=C1_LbhjdZtKo-gn-+BFTqg@mail.gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
Posted: 2016-12-02 13:36:08 Link
On 2016-12-02 14:30, Stephen Russell wrote:
> vcx is a different name for a dbf file which is not secure at all.
Steve,
That's true, but you apparently missed the front part of this thread
perhaps. We're talking about securing via 1 of the 2 3rd party tools I
mentioned earlier in the thread. Try to keep up. <g>
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/355c17e997b4a2b969c3494f004ae10b@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Stephen Russell
Posted: 2016-12-02 14:14:31 Link
I was keeping up.
"Can you elaborate on that? Is that because of the binary storing in VCX
files? Would that also apply to SCX files too?
My business and data logic are all in PRGs so I'm just curious at this
point (because it seems like I'm protected otherwise since you only listed
VCX)."
Combining the dbf-like container in your dll or exe is easily consumable
unless the file itself, dll or exe, is secured.
Or it is just as safe as a prg in the same dll-exe.
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:36 PM, <mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
> wrote:
> On 2016-12-02 14:30, Stephen Russell wrote:
>
>> vcx is a different name for a dbf file which is not secure at all.
>>
>
>
> Steve,
>
> That's true, but you apparently missed the front part of this thread
> perhaps. We're talking about securing via 1 of the 2 3rd party tools I
> mentioned earlier in the thread. Try to keep up. <g>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CAJidMY+uuvbhFUPAoxf8yBBbGWdt7RVpd-OZt8mwaCeQ04J6ug@mail.gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Wollenhaupt, Christof
Posted: 2016-12-03 03:36:43 Link
> Can you elaborate on that? Is that because of the binary storing in VCX
> files? Would that also apply to SCX files too?
>
long version: http://foxpert.com/docs/security.en.htm
*TL;DR:*
SCX files are a bit more difficult, but not by much. The approach is the
same.
SCX and VCX are opened in the system data session when you execute them.
Code injection allows you to copy those files out of the running
application.
Code in the OBJCODE is never encrypted. Clearly visible when you look at
the help file for the COMPILE command and the ENCRYPT option.
The report designer is always the easiest. If you let the user modify
reports try this in your EXE: Open the report designer, right click to open
the data environment, right click to add a file. Pick Other. In the file
open dialog enter the name of a VCX or SCX file that is embedded in the
EXE. The name must be in quotes. You will see the file being available in
the report data environment.
--
Christof
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CAL4QJhg=s2k7F53NyFH8usO4FosKJE3UpaTBVybDbiQrr_91jA@mail.gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.