>>>I understand your point. But you and I both know that such a freeware utility will be useless against any serious cracker threat.
>>
>>Well...this is true, but also true with any utility that isn't freeware - really I think this is irrelavent here.
>
>It is relevant because it goes to the usefullness of such a utility. Why bother with something that will not help you in a material way? I am not talking about the "free" part. I am talking about a utility which "marks" your application so that Refox can recognize that it should not decompile it. ie, a Refox specific protection solution which is what this issue is about.

I'm not talking about some magic utility here...I'm talking about extorsion, remember? Not having to pay for refox to protect yourself from refox. It's the principle of the thing. UnFoxAll doesnt make you buy it to prevent you from using it does it?

>Such a marking can be circumvented in many ways. So this option is useless and possibly worse because it will give developers a false sense of security. You would only be protected against Refox if no one hacks Refox to remove the mark test, no one hacks your exe to remove the mark, and no one uses any other decompilation product or technique. All of which a cracker would presumably explore.

Again..that's not the point. I'm not talking about protecting from decompiling at all - its the extorsion.

>Unless of course you are suggesting that Refox should build a complete product protecting against decompilation in general and give that away for free. But then why would they do that when many other companies are offering protection systems for money?

Nope again. If refox's "branding" didn't exist (which, with the hack - it doesnt) - then the extorsion wouldn't exist and I wouldn't have an issue here at all.


>>>You know that it will not provide the protection that one requires. Would you not agree?
>>
>>mmmmmm...For the issue I'm talking about here - the extorsion - it would provide the exact protection I was looking for. (Protection from the refox extorsion- having to pay for refox to protect yourself from refox).
>
>Well it would protect you assuming the cracker was using Refox as is, out of the box, and that he would make no further cracking attempts beyond that. An unlikely scenario if you ask me.
>
>And on your specific point - "having to pay for refox to protect yourself from refox" - lets assume that such a utility existed. OK, great. Would I drop the other decompilation and protection systems I am using? Absolutely not. In fact, I wouldnt even bother with using the "Refox protection marking" at all because it would not be a complete anti-cracking solution like I am using now. It would protect against the amateur cracker that only knows Refox out of the box and nothing else. Thats not who one presumably needs protection from if one has something worth protecting.
>
>In other words, such a product, free or otherwise, will not really help you against the true threat that is out there.

Dude...it's the extorsion factor.

>But perhaps we agree to disagree :)

awww..and take all the fun out of it? Yes we can agree to disagree if that's what it takes. None-the-less getting your point of view can only be enlighting and I have been known to change my mind - which wouldn't of happend if the other party wouldn't of spoke up.

>Cool company name btw.

hehehe..thanks. I'll send you an email of my company logo.

><snip>