Why VB 6.0??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joeman

I know people can modify my programs to do things... like crack it, but I am more worried that if I use the .net, they will decompile my work back to the source code, copyright it and sue me because they own my work now or worse they sell it for money and then come after me. This can be a real scenario.

---

So protect your software with the techniques that have been outlined. If this is so important to you, then perhaps native code isn't sufficient and you should look into a DRM?

It seems a bit ridiculous to continue to complain about this point when it is so easy to do something about it.

Man you are trying to put native code and back to source code in the same boat. Try this.. you need to steal a car, you have a bad pick set. This would be your c compiled to native code and you have made a copy of the key with a tool. This would be the .net decompiler. Now what one is easier? Yes, the .net decompiler making the key to get real source code back. I don't need to copyright my source code for c++ because I am the only able to get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjay

It seems a bit ridiculous to continue to complain about this point when it is so easy to do something about it.

---

You can't do anything about it when it is that darn simple to get hacked unless microsoft steps up and does something about it, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joeman

You can't do anything about it when it is that darn simple to get hacked unless microsoft steps up and does something about it, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

---

Microsoft doesn't need to do anything about it. The ball is in your court.

Why should it be. It is their fault!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joeman

I know people can modify my programs to do things... like crack it, but I am more worried that if I use the .net, they will decompile my work back to the source code, copyright it and sue me because they own my work now or worse they sell it for money and then come after me. This can be a real scenario.

---

Firstly, you will have to write some blady excelent code, something that no-one else can!!

Secondly, It'll be easy to prove that you wrote the original, Expecially because you will have a release date long before their copyright date.

If this is a reason not to use the latest developing software, it's acctually very lame....

If you are saying that the original source code isn't important. Why are there hackers hacking into big cooperations like microsoft and stealing their source code for games and apps. Do you guys remember about half-life 2?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjay

Why should there be a sudden influx of folks just now discovering this? After all, .Net was first publically released in 2002 (and available in beta form prior to that). Again, it doesn't matter - if you need to secure your code, don't mistakenly think that native code does it for you.

---

Yes, it does. You will never get the original source code back if it is compiled to native code and for the hackers that are modifying your apps memory, you can stop them and that is a fry car from getting the original source code. It doesn't take a real hacker to read the .net decompiled source code because it is exactly the same thing as the original source code. There are alot of people that can program in the .net because it is so easy, so you are all vulnerable to all the newbies hackers and just people that can program in the .net, so I will stick with a program language that can compile to native code. All I will have to worry about is protecting my app's memory and exe unlike having to protect the source code lol.

PS I know that you could decomplie .net when it came out because it didn't
compile into native code but I guess some people had faith in microsoft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GremlinSA

Firstly, you will have to write some blady excelent code, something that no-one else can!!

Secondly, It'll be easy to prove that you wrote the original, Expecially because you will have a release date long before their copyright date.

If this is a reason not to use the latest developing software, it's acctually very lame....

---

Your tying to tell me sco group that had the thought they had the unix copyright that got over overthrown by novell had nothing to worry about because did own the unix source code at that time, but some very strong people made it not so. You just like giving your code to people don't you?

Just give it to me and I will show you how to feel about the .net.

One more thing, You can't make a badly excellent program in the .net. It is too slow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joeman

You just like giving your code to people don't you?

Just give it to me and I will show you how to feel about the .net.

One more thing, You can't make a badly excellent program in the .net. It is too slow.

---

Go ahead, all the source for 'MY' applcations are online already. The projects i get paid for is a different story.. Just look at my signature for links to the two bigest private projects that i'm working on.. ( well havn't had time to do much on them lately).. And check out some of the articles, full source there too. then i also have a few projects of sourceforge, again full source there too..

I'm more of a OPEN SOURCE type of guy. However if someone else pay's for a program according to there given spec, I legally canot release the source, I'm also not legally allowed to release the exe.

What's the point many may say. Well with the GPL open source licence model, my code is available for all to use, and if it is truely brilliant code, somewhere someone will give credit for it, and not cash. For me programming is a hobby, that turned into my proffesion.

.NET may be one of the slower running development platforms, however (And i may get shot for this) it is also close to one of the more powerfull development tools, when it comes to windows applications (remeber you can include C#, VB & ASP into a single application)..

Wow very few subjects can get me typing this much ;)..

I think one of the main things differentiating those who like .net and those who don't, is that those who do tend to be paid to write software which is not released to the general public. However, when your software needs to be widely distributed on the Internet, downloaded and purchased by as many people as possible, so you can afford to eat, it's quite a different story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjay

So protect your software with the techniques that have been outlined. If this is so important to you, then perhaps native code isn't sufficient and you should look into a DRM?

It seems a bit ridiculous to continue to complain about this point when it is so easy to do something about it.

---

Since the techniques outlined, namely obfuscation and ngen, have been shown to be fairly pointless for public releases, it therefore doesn't appear to be "so easy to do something about it". Thus far, it has yet to be shown how .net code can be equally secure as a C++ native executable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheCPUWizard

This weekend i will post some samples of the output using various simple techniques to minimize what
is exposed, along with some simple examples of what can quickly be reversed engineered from a native C++ implementation of the identical program.

But if you want to run an experiment in the meantime. Take ANY .Net executable, run it through ngen.exe (which ships with the runtime) and examine the resulting .EXE file...

---

I look forward to your samples. But ngen means nothing if the MSIL still has to come along in order to make the program run. Your .net samples need to include all the files required for them to run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WizBang

I look forward to your samples. But ngen means nothing if the MSIL still has to come along in order to make the program run. Your .net samples need to include all the files required for them to run.

---

I will be posting completely executable samples that will be as tamter resistant and with an internal algorithm as secure as and native application.

Additionally I will re-open the challenge of someone producing a peice of code with a given set of performance specifications that I can notmatch within 10% using pure managed code....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RealityIsForLocos

If you are saying that the original source code isn't important. Why are there hackers hacking into big cooperations like microsoft and stealing their source code for games and apps. Do you guys remember about half-life 2?

---

Original source is convenient but it isn't necessary to reproduce an application. If you have a native exe, given the motivation, you can produce the source for equivalent functionality. Is it the original code? No, but does it matter if the functionality is copied and the app operates the same way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RealityIsForLocos

Yes, it does. You will never get the original source code back if it is compiled to native code and for the hackers that are modifying your apps memory, you can stop them and that is a fry car from getting the original source code. It doesn't take a real hacker to read the .net decompiled source code because it is exactly the same thing as the original source code. There are alot of people that can program in the .net because it is so easy, so you are all vulnerable to all the newbies hackers and just people that can program in the .net, so I will stick with a program language that can compile to native code. All I will have to worry about is protecting my app's memory and exe unlike having to protect the source code lol.

PS I know that you could decomplie .net when it came out because it didn't
compile into native code but I guess some people had faith in microsoft.

---

What is so difficult to understand that a native app can be reverse engineered? It's a matter of effort. So .Net by default is easier to reverse engineer. So what? If is important to have a false sense of security that you have with a native app, then obfuscate the .Net code or ngen it. Happy now?

What is this faith B.S. with regard to Microsoft? It's not like Microsoft hid this fact when 1.0 came out 6 years ago? If you are moving to a new framework, then it's up to the developer to understand the differences. It's funny to see folks post that they just discovered Reflector exists after using .Net for years and somehow blame MS.

This whole post has gotten off topic with regard to using VB6.

The folks here that are recommending moving to newer technology are suggesting it because if a developer remains up on later technologies, historically it's shown that they will remain employable. Consider how many C programming positions were available 15 years ago as compared to now.

Do you think VB6 will be any different?

Now actually I don't really care whether folks move to newer technologies. In fact I like it in my business if I'm bidding against competitors offering VB6 solutions to my clients. It's pretty easy to land those bids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RealityIsForLocos

This post has not got off topic because you don't like what you are reading about the .net does not mean this post is not talking about why people are picking vb6 over the .net. If you have not figured out that having the source code for that app you're hacking is not alot easier than debugging and reading the asm code, then you must not be that bright and that is way are are using the .net. Is your IQ only 100? Let me say I have bypassed security and hacked games before and yes, it is alot harder without the source code if not impossible sometimes. Even sometimes I can't do it. I say to myself when im hacking a game too bad they didn't program this in the .net. It would make my day alot easier. So if you would like to program in the .net, you can program in the .net. I didn't know that msil was a newer technology lol and that is what the .net is all about. Msil is bs. I bet if you program in the .net professionally, all you be dealing with databases and management and not with the newer cooler games and ipods. I have a relative that programs in the .net and that is all he deals with is databases and management. Wow that sound like fun to me lol, so go with the slow .net and have all the newbie hackers stealing your source code or learn vb6 and dont't have to worry about that. Which one sounds better?

If you want to switch to the .net, it would be my pleasure because it will make my job alot easier to reverse engineer your code.

---

I think there needs to be an age minimum on CG. That way we don't get the 12 year old hackers here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joeman

You just like giving your code to people don't you?

---

In case you're wondering, CG has a Article section where people who love sharing their knowledge and experience with others. Nothing wrong with sharing ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joeman

One more thing, You can't make a badly excellent program in the .net. It is too slow.

---

This issue also always arises, and my answer to this is always that your logic and planning is wrong. Trust me, I should know ;)
If you design your .NET application well enough, it wouldn't be slow.

Let's keep this discussion civil, and leave out any personal comments, ok?