>>Could define limited? I have used Refox, I also distribute Refox, and I never heard that Refox protection is limited.
>
>According to John Ryan and a few others here (I just cannot remember the names), a decent cracker (with or without a Russian accent) could break into any vfp-based stuff including your refox-protected code in a couple of minutes. That looks discouraging especially in view of the cost of the beast:(
>
>I'd be glad to hear a reasonable account of the skills required to break into the stuff. And whether the protection at least does rub out the commenting stuff embedded in VFP code!
>
>from the vfp wiki quoting Igor Korolyov:
>

Yes I can. All I have to have - 1 legal copy (so I can launch it on at least 1 computer). Then I can use Win32 debugger to attach to this process, set breakpoint to Read an API call in vfpXr.dll import table, so I can intercept all VFP runtime file reads - as NO ONE KNOWN VFP protector really modifies VFP runtime encoding or object code processing algorithms (ReFox Level II and above just change encoder/decoder tables and constants - not algorithm itself) - I will get pure VFP object code, the one I can feed to ReFox or other VFP decompiler. If object code was encoded with non-standard encoder/decoder tables (as in case of ReFox Level II branding) I will just need a simple decoder like Corso, or even my own hand made decoder (200 line prg file) - it will made plain object code suitable for ReFox processing.

The problem with refox is that it's actually possible to make some changes to the refox.exe itself with a hexeditor that in turn bypasses the need to enter a password to decompile your refox-branded VFP application...thus making it 100% useless.
...of course first one has to hack the refox.exe - but once you've done that you can use it over and over again. I don't think anyone has posted the hack for the new version on the internet yet (or at least I didn't find it a couple of weeks ago when I was checking for it).

Anyway it's still better than nothing I suppose.