Plateforme Level Extreme
Abonnement
Profil corporatif
Produits & Services
Support
Légal
English
Protect from refox
Message
Information générale
Forum:
Visual FoxPro
Catégorie:
Problèmes
Divers
Thread ID:
01062778
Message ID:
01065088
Vues:
46
3) Jan sees a need for a product that can recover source code from compiled apps - so he builds it. taaadaa! Jan should be done now.
Now Jan realized that crackers could use the product for malicisous ends - so he provides a freeware utility to protect VFP apps from refox.
Ooops! Now Jan has lost 80% of his client-base.

Come on Jos - Give logic the benefit of the doubt. Even if I give him number 1 as opposed to number 2, if Jan was eithcal neither would apply and it would be number 3.


>I think you put the horse before the cart. Give Jan a moment of benefit of the doubt. You can see this in one of two ways:
>
>1) Jan sees a need for a product that can recover source code from compiled apps when the developer or company loses the source. He builds it. But then realizes that crackers could use the product for malicious ends. So he adds in the ability to protect his clients from other Refox users.
>
>or
>
>2) Jan purposely builds a product that can crack sofwtare - a crackers tool, in effect. Then attempts to extort VFP developers on the fear of losing their source code to his cracking tool.
>
>Now which one sounds more reasonable? The truth at this point is that each person is free to choose to believe whichever scenario suits them. Me, I choose to believe that the tool was originally designed to help developers as advertised.
>
>
>>The point is not that refox decompiles VFP apps - its that the maker claims that if you buy his product it will protect you from his product. How is this not extorsion? Its like if a few mafia members come up to you saying if you give them $400 they'll protect your biz from catching on fire - but the truth is the $400 is to protect your from them! THIS IS EXTORSION. Now if I goto a 3rd party - say an insurance company - and give them $400 - that's not extorsion because they're not gonna be the ones that burn down my biz if they dont get their $400.
>>Like I said - I dont have an issue with refox being able to decompile my apps - my problem is that the makers try to extort you into buying it by saying if you own it then you can protect yourself from it - hense the existance of the hack.
>>
>>>Hi Victor.
>>>
>>>imo I dont really buy into this whole Refox extortion angle at all. Look at it like this; lets assume a world where Refox does not exist at all. Is your VFP app source code safe from crackers now? No. Will you need to buy third party tools if you want to protect your code? Yes. What's the down side of this "no Refox" world? There will be no tool to help you in those cases where source code has been genuinely lost. How many times has someone posted a request for help to recover lost code here in the UT? So by having no Refox you gain nothing and lose something. (No, I do not own Refox)
>>>
>>>The problem is not Refox at all. This endless whining about getting a free "no-refox-decompile" thing is useless. In fact in might even be less than useless becuase of the false sense of security it would give developers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I think the problem here is that if you do NOT own refox, you can't protect your application from decompiled unless you buy refox. Doesn't matter if it's a hacked version of refox or not, does it?
>>>>So..you must but refox to protect yourself from refox. The reason for the hack's existance is to elimate the extorsion aspect of the product. No point in buying something to protect yourself from something if it doesn't really protect you..riiiight?
>>>>
ICQ 10556 (ya), 254117
Précédent
Suivant
Répondre
Fil
Voir

Click here to load this message in the networking platform