Looking toward CompTIA Security+ Certification , Here is greate Link
for Excellent Security+ Certification Guide,
http://www.studyexam4less.com/mb.asp
Also here is another Money saving idea for Security+ Testing exam fee. buy voucher
and Scheduale the exam using Security+ voucher for Only US $165.00 saving of
US $ 60
http://www.getcertify4less.com/mb.asp do_not_use_this_address_@hotmail.com (Howard) wrote in message
news:<5cbfad6b.0401120152.6486f7b4@posting.google. com>...[color=blue]
> Thanks for the info. Armadillo is one of the packages I have come
> across while searching the web, and I will definitely be checking it
> out.
>
> The other posts/comments etc have been interesting reading, but as my
> original post said, I'm mainly interested whether it's possible to
> allow debugging for the application code written by users of our SDK,
> whilst still preventing them from seeing/debugging our own code.
>
> There are clearly different philosophies on the pros and cons of
> giving people access to your source code, but this choice has already
> taken by our company.
>
> I'm also well aware that code protection can never be perfect - people
> will always be able to find a way to break into your code. However, we
> want to put in some measures that will at least mean it takes a
> reasonable amount of time and effort to do this. This should prevent
> all but the most determined hackers.
>
> I like the locks/keys analogy. I know that I cannot prevent someone
> from breaking into my house and stealing my possessions, and I know
> that locks can be broken, but I still put locks on the doors and
> windows to stop the less determined thieves!
>
> Howard
>
>
>
>
gerryq@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn) wrote in message news:<TzRLb.4316$HR.8944@news.indigo.ie>...[color=green]
> > In article <5cbfad6b.0401090842.2812cfe6@posting.google.com >,
do_not_use_this_address_@hotmail.com (Howard) wrote:[color=darkred]
> > >I am currently looking at the various packages that are available for
> > >software protection. I have a particular question that I'd welcome
> > >your feedback on.
> > >
> > >Background info:
> > >I work for a company that develops software, and typically releases
> > >software SDKs. Development is in C++ using MS Visual C++. We need to
> > >apply software encryption/protection to achieve:
> > >
> > >1) Time-limited versions (e.g software expires after X days)
> > >2) Machine-locking (once activation key entered, software will only
> > >run on the machine it was installed on)
> > >3) Anti-debugging/reverse-engineering protection[/color]
> >
> > I would recommend you take a look at Armadillo from
> >
www.siliconrealms.com . I know it has some restrictions relating to
> > debugging and DLLs, but I suspect it can be configured suitably. You
> > can download a trial version and check it out.
> >[color=darkred]
> > >3rd party developers using our SDKs access the core functions using a
> > >supplied dll, and it is the dll which needs to be protected. We do not
> > >want them to be able to debug the dll we supply, but we *do* want them
> > >to be able to debug the code that they write!
> > >
> > >The encryption/anti-debugging employed by PCGuard means that they are
> > >not able to debug their own code, which is a major problem.[/color]
> >
> > If all else fails, an alternative option you might consider is to issue
> > two separate DLLs, with the same general functionality. One would be
> > the distributable DLL, protected but not debuggable. The other would be
> > debuggable, but would have undesirable behaviours that prevent it being
> > used in a distributed program. Of course, care would have to be taken
> > to make this hard to crack.
> >
> > - Gerry Quinn[/color][/color]
