>>>>>Hi all,
>>>>>I've been looking at Protection Professional (PP) from Hallogram...
>>>>>
>>>>>TIA,
>>>>>
>>>>>Bill Simpson
>>>>
>>>>ReFox allows you to set a password that will stop anyone else ReFoxing your code (at least it did in the last version that I used for FP 2.6).
>>>
>>>Pity, but this protection can be removed within couple of minutes (a little of bit hacking)...
>>
>>Vladimir,
>>I think you are saying that removing ReFox PW protection is easy (as I'm sure it is for someone who knows how). This implies a truism for any available product that claims to protect Fox .EXE or .APP's against extracting source code. Source code protection to date may be like a magic trick: it relies more on end-user deception than technology. And once the "trick" is understood, it is trivial to circumvent.
>>My other question is for anyone using Protection Plus Professional from Hallogram. Does PPP make any claim to encrypt "source code" to protect source code from ReFox?
>>Maybe I'm paranoid. But distributing an app on the web hoping that honesty will protect my investment keeps me awake at night <g>. I see a few UT'ers with the same concern. Not all apps can depend on vast markets and future upgrades to assure financial viability. I know that opinion is split on protection vs user discomfort. For me, I want some level of protection that at least makes an effort to convince end-users that my product is "safe".
>>If not ReFox, or PPP, then what?
>>
>>Bill
>
>
>NO. There is no way the application can be encrypted. That would me that the generate p-code would have to be changed...which would then mean that Fox can't read the p-code.

I have the same problem using PPP. NetLib encryption tool is going to add this new feature. I use NetLib for protect tables, but any file may be protected.

I am waiting for it.

VFP exes encrypted with this tool can`t be open with Refox.


Alejandro Fernandez.