Plateforme Level Extreme
Abonnement
Profil corporatif
Produits & Services
Support
Légal
English
Any alternate to Molebox?
Message
De
09/04/2015 06:26:29
Metin Emre
Ozcom Bilgisayar Ltd.
Istanbul, Turquie
 
 
À
08/04/2015 17:24:24
John Ryan
Captain-Cooker Appreciation Society
Taumata Whakatangi ..., Nouvelle Zélande
Information générale
Forum:
Visual FoxPro
Catégorie:
Produits tierce partie
Versions des environnements
Visual FoxPro:
VFP 9 SP2
OS:
Windows Server 2012
Network:
Windows 2008 Server
Database:
MS SQL Server
Application:
Web
Divers
Thread ID:
01617916
Message ID:
01618062
Vues:
50
>>>We have hundreds of customers, so I can't trust VFP C++ compiler at this time.I just wait for others to test... :)
>
>We've been deploying VFP-Compiled apps since 2010-2011. Works well- we have high volume systems processing millions of HL7 messages without a hitch and complex VFPX user interfaces, ditto. Installation consists of copying a handful of files, though also Chen offers a "Green" option that packs the runtimes and dependencies into a single exe. This is not recommended because it can be tripped up by UAC. OCX needing to be registered is a different issue. What OCX do you need, btw?


Sorry, I'll ask again, you're talking about Chen's C++ compiler when talking about VFP-Compiled apps since 2010-2011? You use Chen's compiler for your core VFP applications? If, yes I'll try his demo edition and would be buy...

>
>>>Maybe Defox + another .EXE, DLL wrapper would be a better solution. What about Refox on Defox protected files?
>
>Honestly: I'd forget wrapper protections for VFP. The issue is that the VFP pcode needs to be in memory in order for the VFP app to run. Once it's in memory, it's easy to hook the app and then to use Refox to deliver project contents. To prevent this, you need to alter the internal app structure. VFP Compiler and Defox both do this. Defox encrypts individual pcode lines that are decrypted briefly on the fly, so you can't just hook out the pcode. VFP Compiler obfuscates and decomposes aggressively and then moves most of the content to a C++ dll, leaving a useless exe for a hacker to hook. Defox has stronger encryption but it is visibly slower, especially in tight loops. VFP Compiler is very quick despite the decomposition/obfuscation, but the aggressive decompilation can require additional STACKSIZE setting.
>
>>>I add dll files too into Molebox wrapper. Isn't that a good protection?
>
>Nope- because you can hook or breakpoint the call to the dll, at which point the VFP app and variable contents can be scooped out of memory.

Molebox enough for fool hackers. At least I couldn't opened my Molebox protected VFP .EXE. :)
Précédent
Suivant
Répondre
Fil
Voir

Click here to load this message in the networking platform