Author: Carl Lindner
Posted: 2016-12-01 at 10:44:45
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.