>Mike, I'm referring to the latest version. It was someone else here (I think Jos Pols) who implied that Refox could be cracked easilly.

I guess, until proven otherwise, I can only base myself on the words of Jan. Is it possible the Jos Pols is referring to a different version? Where Jan was made aware of the problem and corrected it with the curretn version.


>>Peter can Iask you a question? Which version of Refox are you refering to? As far as I'm told by the programmer that wrote Refox, is that Refox 8, might have been 'hackable', but according to him, the current version of Refox is not 'hackable' and as such would properly protect you application from being decompiled with Refox or other tools of this type. Here is a quote:
>>I think that the modifying of ReFox.exe body (by hacking, cracking, patching or whatever ... )
>>can be done on ReFox8 only - the old DOS version which was not protected.
>>ReFox XI body is compressed and protected by ******** (edited) and there is no chance
>>to modify the code.
>
>Mike, I'm referring to the latest version. It was someone else here (I think Jos Pols) who implied that Refox could be cracked easilly.
>If the programmer, Jan Brebera, could deliver a special FREE utility that enables us to prevent decompilation with Refox, then I would be satisfied and highly appreciate the effort. It would demonstrate that Jan Brebera has given serious attention to the fact that he not only created a solution, but also a problem.
>
>
>>>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>>You want to outlaw Refox. This is not true! Read my original post and all my replies again and you have to (or better, you should) conclude that I want the makers of Refox to come with a free utility that we can use to make our apps insensitive to decompilation with Refox. That's all. Tell me what's wrong with that idea?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well since you now want to focus on just this one point...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1) You said that Refox is illegal software hence my comment about you wanting to outlaw it. To be illegal I assume you wish it to be removed and stopped.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>2) Whats wrong with your suggestion is that (a) you are trying to solve the wrong problem, (b) there will always be another Refox, (c) there will be a way around whatever gimmick Refox give you, (d) why should they give you anything, they provide a useful product for those situations where code is lost.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The problem is crackers, the tool users. Not the tool.
>>>>>
>>>>>Okay, let me be clear here. As long as that such a free utility does not exist, Refox is illegal software from my point of view. Reason is that they introduce a problem to the developers that can now only be solved by spending money on their product. And it is terribly easy for them to prevent this kind of problem by publishing the free utility.
>>>>>
>>>>>Your a) is not an argument. Your b) can be tackled by also demanding such a free utility from those other toolmakers. Your c) may be true, but it is not the responsibility of the makers of Refox, and it can also not be a valid reason for them not to provide the free utility. Your d), well ... they gave me the problem for free, so let them also give me the solution for free.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>My (a) is a valid argument becuase you want to solve the tool problem whereas I suggest you solve the cracker problem.
>>>>
>>>>iro (b) - I am sure the crackers are waiting for your request to cease and desist.
>>>>
>>>>(c) is true because compiled VFP apps even with encoding are inherently insecure.
>>>>
>>>>(d) they did not give you a problem. If you think like this then you should complain to MS for producing a tool in which source code protection is insufficient. btw .Net is just as exposed as VFP, in case any one cares to know, and there are decompilers and protections for that platform as well.
>>>
>>>Your original a) is not an argument, it's a conclusion. Your suggestion to solve the cracker problem rather than the tool problem is also a conclusion, but of course I do see what you are trying to make clear. I'm not stupid. But I don't agree with it. You know, in Holland weapons are forbidden for most of us, in the U.S. (and South Africa, I remember having read somewhere recently) they are not. Maybe our perception difference is culturally based to a certain extend?! We believe that a lot of trouble can be prevented best by preventing people to have certain 'tools', rather than expecting them to behave properly even when they have those tools. I know that circumstances can make a difference. For example, being in the middle of the jungle makes a difference when compared to being in the middle of a civilized town. Perhaps your view of the IT and the internet is that it resembles a jungle more than a civilized society. Personally, I want it to be/become civilized. Tools that can be
>>>used for the bad, should be considered illegal if the makers have not taken steps to (seriously try to) prevent such abuse. KaZaA is illegal these days, not because it cannot be used for the good, but because the makers have not made enough effort to prevent the bad use.
>>>
>>>About b). The crackers are acting illegally, but they are not my current target. Other companies that make software similar to Refox, yes, they too should provide us a free utility that prevents decompilation with their tool.
>>>
>>>About c). Reread what I wrote about my house. There are locks on all outdoors and windows. Perhaps weak locks, but they are visual enough to make clear to burglars that it is forbidden to get in without my permission.
>>>
>>>About d). Well, here we must agree to disagree. The makers of Refox did create a problem for us, that's my strong opinion.
>>>
>>>The only real argument I see for the makers of Refox is that they are already on the market since 1991-1992 and that 'we' are acting a little bit late. That may pose a problem when going to court. I'm curious why people haven't tried to fight Refox in those days. Or have they?