You may use the cipher.dll (from the Files section) for encryption.

Vlad

>>>I'm afraid I can't answer your questions, but I will be following this thread with great interest. I too have an idea for a shareware program that I'd like to 'get out there' via the internet.
>>>
>>>Do you have any experience with any decompilers? I know of one for Clipper that would create .prg files from an .exe but I don't know of any for VFP. Would you be able extract code that is in database triggers or form methods? What about the field defaults that are set at the database level?
>>>
>>
>>Just a few ideas I'm throwing here.
>>
>>Have the user name and company recorded in the registry. Have your user provide you the exact same name and company and build them a key they'll have to add in the about screen and saved in the registry. Have your app evaluate the KEY stored in the registry. Only if this key is there will they be able to use the full product without the nag screens. (This is the sort of thing done by SNAGIT, by the way).
>>
>>You might include the DBC within your EXE and make a call to an application level function for the validation of some fields. Something like:
>>GoApp.UsedInApp() AND !EMPTY()
>>
>>This would ensure that your data might not be touched from outside the application. You might also encrypt some important fields and decrypt them on the fly.
>>
>>José
>
>Thanks alot for your feed-back. I take your point concerning testing for (or writing) user name and company into the registry at application start-up and then creating a number with a standard encryption algorithm. I expect this algorithm to be safe from decompilation (because of REFOX).
>
>Once the user has the Number one might go user screen and "register" the number,
>itself into the registry.
>
>I am far from being an encryption specialist. Any idea about the kind of algorithm that might be used (no CONFIDENTIAL DEFENSE level required) is
>welcome.
>
>Obvious this protection would just be what it is intended for, minimal harassment on casual users go thru the standard installation routine.
>
>Larry,
>
>Concerning your point on decompilers, i know very little and indeed intend to use it based on the feed-back it has received from UT members using it as a
>PROTECTION tool.
>
>Warm regards to all