>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>Jos, in your reply to me (Message #972952) you said 'Compiling with encryption on and debug off protects nothing.' But I think that if you want to stop frivolous copying and to provide some level of protection against all but knowledgable hackers then compiling with encryption on and debug off is just as effective as using Armadillo, Konxise, etc.
>>>
>>>No, it is not. The VFP "encryption" and debug off is a much, much more simple obstacle to get past than what Armadillo, Thinstall, Konxise, etc implement. It is a matter of degrees of difficulty. The VFP "encryption" is also a misnomer - it is encoding, not encryption.
>>
>>I believe you where you state that it's much more simple. But how many people out there (in here!) are not 'knowledgable hackers', yet are successfully hacking vfp-code???
>
>Like I said, the discussion of souce code and copy protection is about (a) what do you want to protect, (b) for how long, and (c) from who?

You said: No, it is not. Inclining that it's better to use a product like Konxise.
I say: Someone is either hacking or not hacking at all. The hacker for sure will use tools to hack and the non-hacker will not hack, so the native 'encryption' is enough protection.