Hi Walter.

At the end of the day the app needs to run in memory, unprotected. That is where your app is vulnerable to a whole host of attack vectors. Of course your comment about attacking Armadillo instead of the application directly - well why not? It's fair game to the cracker. They just want the code, or at least, to an understanding of how it works.

The key imo to the discussion of copy protection is (a) what do you want to protect, (b) for how long, and (c) from who? If you want to stop frivolous copying and to provide some level of protection against all but knowledgable hackers then Armadillo, Konxise, etc, will do the trick.



>Hi jos,
>
>>Walter, Armadillo has been cracked. All protection schemes are crackable. It's just a matter of time and effort. Any software installed on an end-user PC can be cracked. But one may as well make it as hard as possible :)
>
>As far as I've been told, all attempts to crack armadillo were about to crack armadillo itself and certain features within armadillo (e.g. keys protection, timeout protection etc), not the software itself it is to protect.
>
>Of course, you're right that it is possible to crack anything, however, with the help of keys you can create such algorithms that it takes too much time to crack it. I don't know the internals of Armadillo, but I can imagine that something simular is used there.
>
>Walter,
>
>
<snip>