Jos,

>>Both Defox and Refox are going to be cracked by any serious hacker. And both Defox and Refox will protect you against the end-user / casual computer user trying to be clever. It is protection enough for 99% of the people who would get hold of your EXE.

I have tried not to boast but in the previous challenge, the only person who demonstrated a crack of Leonid's latest Defox, was me, and only for a single-form sample exe rather than a typical VFP application. That's not pride speaking, it's just my way of saying that I have some insight into all this. ;-)

In my view, Refox has improved a lot and I understand there may be more improvements on the way. Certainly its author does listen and is actively improving his product. But once you know what to do, previous versions could be cracked by a neophyte following some simple steps. Current version is a lot better, including some anti-injection tests offered up during the previous challenge, but IMHO you face the same problem as any walling system: if you can get inside the walls, it doesn't matter how good the walls are.

It is a characteristic of VFP that it's easy to get inside the walls. If your app uses a dbf for example, a neophyte can bypass any walling system in minutes. Also there are predictable hook/breakpoint locations that allow you to lift the pcode. The latest Refox does make it more difficult to spool out the unprotected app once you're inside the wall, but suffice to say that VFP has lots of ways to achieve a desired goal.

IMHO the proper way to protect a VFP app, is to address the fundamental problem by altering the internal structure. This is how it works in both Defox and VFP Compiler.