EXECryptor software protection

[jeanjean_5]

Hi all

I'm looking forward to purchase ExeCryptor (www.strongbit.com) to
protect my shareware. But before I'd like to know independent
opinions/experience if any.

My question is: Anybody uses execryptor? Can you tell me smth about?
Are there some problems? Is it cost-effective?

Thank you in advance for any reply

Jean

[Thomas Carter]

On Thu, 04 May 2006 06:55:40 -0700, jeanjean_5 wrote:

Hi all

I'm looking forward to purchase ExeCryptor (www.strongbit.com) to protect
my shareware. But before I'd like to know independent opinions/experience
if any.

My question is: Anybody uses execryptor? Can you tell me smth about? Are
there some problems? Is it cost-effective?

Thank you in advance for any reply

Looking in their web page, the whole thing looks like a lot of snake oil.
Details about its crypto capabilities are scant, and what little is there
looks suspiciously like snake oil. Anyway, this is off-topic here; you'd
better ask in sci.crypt.

[rageratwork]

Thomas Carter wrote:

[spamvertizement deleted]

Looking in their web page, the whole thing looks like a lot of snake oil.
Details about its crypto capabilities are scant, and what little is there
looks suspiciously like snake oil. Anyway, this is off-topic here; you'd
better ask in sci.crypt.

This guy is a spammer for that company. He's spammed this same message
50+ times over 50+ newsgroups in the last month. That site has a forum
of users he could ask if he was really interested.

[Bill]

First I don't find this question spam. ExeCryptor is enough good
developer's solution to be discussed anywhere in programing message
boards. And what about product site forum it is hard to get there any
unbiased opinion.

[Vladimir Oka]

Bill wrote:

First I don't find this question spam. [censored] is enough good
developer's solution to be discussed anywhere in programing message
boards. And what about product site forum it is hard to get there any
unbiased opinion.

Your post makes absolutely no sense as you fail to quote context. It is
also highly off topic, and you also seem to be supporting spamming this
Usenet newsgroup (it is NOT a message board).

Please go away, unless you have a question or something else to say
about ANSI/ISO Standard C programming language.

[jeanjean_5]

I'm sorry my post has brought to such debates. Why I posted to C group
a question related to ExeCryptor is that it is specific tool to protect
applications and code written in different programming languages
including C/C++. So I thought anybody is competent here in the subject.

[Vladimir Oka]

[e-mail] wrote:

I'm sorry my post has brought to such debates. Why I posted to C group
a question related to ExeCryptor is that it is specific tool to protect
applications and code written in different programming languages
including C/C++. So I thought anybody is competent here in the subject.

Anyboday competent in the subject discussed here knwos that there's no
such thing as C/C++ language.

[tomstdenis]

Bill wrote:

First I don't find this question spam. ExeCryptor is enough good
developer's solution to be discussed anywhere in programing message
boards. And what about product site forum it is hard to get there any
unbiased opinion.

It is common practice, at least in sci.crypt, to post "questions" about
tools with links to the product. Routintely though they slip up and
the posting IP and the website IP are in the same netblock.

If your program is something that is easily duplicated by looking at a
debug trace then you don't actually have "value". It's really that
simple. Something of value would be something you could do or master.
Programs like this ARE snake oil and really are counter-productive in a
growing society. But they do have an impressive collection of
meaningless gold stars from various random shareware download sites...
Wow!

For instance, it used to be mastering BSP-trees was tricky and if you
could do it [ID Software's Doom for instance] you'd be set. Now ID
could have obfuscated their code, but they're smarter and realized to
hold the bag they would have to up the anty. While there were a lot of
Doom clones there are very few clones of their latest monstrosity of an
engine...

Tom

[Richard Heathfield]

je********@lycos.com said:

I'm sorry my post has brought to such debates.
Really? Forgive me for being sceptical about that.
Why I posted to C group
a question related to ExeCryptor is that it is specific tool to protect
applications and code written in different programming languages
including C/C++.
No, it's a snake oil product being marketed by snake oil methods. But that's
counter-productive as long as people in the spammed newsgroups keep
pointing out why the product is snake oil.
So I thought anybody is competent here in the subject.

Do you mean that anyone who thinks Execryptor is a pile of junk is therefore
not competent in C programming? That attitude is not going to bring you any
sales from C experts. But then you're not after experts, are you? You're
after credulous morons who think your product has value.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Keith Thompson]

je********@lycos.com writes:

I'm sorry my post has brought to such debates. Why I posted to C group
a question related to ExeCryptor is that it is specific tool to protect
applications and code written in different programming languages
including C/C++. So I thought anybody is competent here in the subject.

EXECryptor is off-topic in this newsgroup. If you continue posting
about it here, people will continue to point out its flaws. Even if
it's a good product (which I doubt), we will encourage people to
boycott it simply because it's being advertised via spam.

Spamming is disruptive and unethical, but if you don't care about
that, consider this. Every time you post about your product here, you
will lose customers. Cut your losses, go away, and never come back.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[hanzprof]

About execryptor I found this one:

I tried more than listed below protections. The strongest most
proof most flexible from this list is really EXECryptor form
http://www.strongbit.com/. It is not only the mine opinion. Most
software vendors agree with me. The only thing I cannot
understand is the absence of reviews of EXECryptor in developer
press, nor blogs/white papers. However it has very good opinions
in different programmer's disscussion. I can assume it is one
one things that "its quality sells itself". The other "cons" is
EXECryptor does not support .NET platform working only for win32
exe's; dll's and othe PE's and only Windows compatible. However for
cross- platform apps licensing there is HardKey License Manager
(as well from strogbit.com ). It has less 'bullet-
proof' antireverse/anticrack but more advanced and flexible
licensing features (however remains unbroken as well as
EXECryptor). So if smb. really needs to solve cracks/piracy
problem StrongBit really will DO. By the way as for .NET
protection (the original thread subject) Strongbit partners with
dotnet protector author 9Rays and they follozing their press
release they are planning to create universal app security. I'm
sure it is the only one protection that warrant attention of people
looking for commercial program anticrack security tools.
Regards
Mad
EXECryptor user

As for me I'm trying execryptor now... What I can say... Another vote
for it
Also there is hot discussion generally about piracy and protection on
http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/de...gn.4.354142.23
we must do this.

[Richard Heathfield]

ha******@hotmail.com said:

>
About execryptor I found this one:

Oh, not this spam junk again.

<snip>

>The only thing I cannot
understand is the absence of reviews of EXECryptor in developer
press, nor blogs/white papers.

Probably because they realise it's snake oil.

>However it has very good opinions in different programmer's disscussion.

Provided you carefully select only those opinions that you like, yes. Lots
of people have explained why you should take such a program with a *huge*
pinch of salt.

<snip>

As for me I'm trying execryptor now... What I can say... Another vote
for it

That makes... one so far.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Keith Thompson]

ha******@hotmail.com writes:

About execryptor I found this one:

> I tried more than listed below protections. The strongest most

[snip]

As for me I'm trying execryptor now... What I can say... Another vote
for it

[snip]

Since this was a direct followup to something I posted nearly a month
ago, I'll repeat what I wrote then:

EXECryptor is off-topic in this newsgroup. If you continue posting
about it here, people will continue to point out its flaws. Even if
it's a good product (which I doubt), we will encourage people to
boycott it simply because it's being advertised via spam.

Spamming is disruptive and unethical, but if you don't care about
that, consider this. Every time you post about your product here, you
will lose customers. Cut your losses, go away, and never come back.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.