You might have me there with Refox XI+. I was thinking about earlier versions that I haven't used for years.

Off topic but I used Xitech's product Cryptor 5.0 for awhile because it was such a brain dead easy way to encrypt database and text files. Alas, it wouldn't work in conjunction with MoleBox and MoleBox simplified component registration issues, along with making it more difficult to decompile the application. Cryptor is a great tool for keeping people from messing directly with the database (although not acceptable for encryption because its algorithm doesn't qualify as "strong encryption").

Has anyone had any luck with Cryptor 5.0 and later versions of Molebox???


>Hello Scott,
>
>iro Refox XI+, are you aware of a known, available hack against the latest version? i.e. yes, a hacker can hack anything given sufficient skill and motivation but is there an easily accesible automated hack?
>
>
>>Reasons to change:
>>1) Conditional support for Windows 7 with the older versions.
>>2) Stay current with your tools.
>>3) Help the Russians with your money.
>>4) I working on a fourth reason.
>>
>>FWIW, I read on a hackers site that the "Ultra" version had already been cracked. At some point I'll be following up on this. I know older versions were hackable, albeit with some effort. In any event, everything is hackable so that's not a show stopper. Unsecured foxpro applications are incredibly easy to hack and refoxed versions aren't far behind. At least with Molebox (any version) the required skill level to hack increases by a magnitude, which makes the auditors happy.
>>
>>
>>>Bonjour François,
>>>
>>>Is there a big difference between ordinary MoleBox and the Ultra version? Why should I get the Ultra one?
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I had problems with their latest "Ultra" version and reported the problem. Recently they emailed that there was a new build 4.2408 (download at http://www.molebox.com/MoleBoxSetup.exe ). I haven't tried it yet but plan to in the next few days.
>>>>
>>>>Thank you for the useful feedback. Here using 4.2244 with deep satisfaction. Tried the 4.2321 a couple of months ago that failed and resorted to older stuff.
>>>>
>>>>It just made a rough test with this new 4.2408 build that you mentioned. It worked but no full test suite at this moment!
>>>>
>>>>PS: For readers of this forum, do not be fooled. The software is robust. Just that the testing process is a bit weak. You just have to cope :)