Why VB 6.0??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjay

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?

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?

---

See my previous posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WizBang

See my previous posts.

---

Really what is the point of continuing? The original post was a poll about using VB6 and I believe the intent was to try to find out why folks aren't using later technologies.

Then we got off on the tangent.

Is this the only reason for not using later 2005 or 2008 technologies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjay

Really what is the point of continuing? The original post was a poll about using VB6 and I believe the intent was to try to find out why folks aren't using later technologies.

---

Does this mean you haven't an answer to the fact that obfuscation and ngen don't secure .net code nearly as well as a native C++ executable? Once again, hacking or reverse engineering aren't even close to decompiling. There's no point in continuing to suggest that it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjay

Then we got off on the tangent.

Is this the only reason for not using later 2005 or 2008 technologies?

---

I don't think the topic got off. But the reasons not to use .net may depend on who you ask. IMO, just because something is newer does not make it better. Take winMe and Vista for example. Remember Passport? I am not one of those who jump on all the latest that might come along. It has to not only prove itself, but be of greater value to me than what I already have. Thus far .net has not demonstrated this. It is not a step in the right direction for me. I don't work in some large corporate office, writing apps for internal use.

Anyway, as I've stated, writing programs for the home PC market is quite different than for private business use. The ease at which .net code can be stolen and/or compromised makes it unsuitable for wide distribution. This is one of the reasons I suspect ms has been encouraging pay-per-use software, where the user would log in to a server and access an app via a web interface.

So I'll be interested in seeing what TheCPUWizard comes up with for protected .net executables. Anyone else who wants is also free to post some examples. Let's see some proof one way or the other.

Any one else catch this?

Quote:

---

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.

---

Please be FACTUAL in your posts. One lie, and it's all over.

I doubt you're writing anything for IPOD's either.

Over the past 30 years, almost any software that has been produced has been hacked to some degree. Now, the debate seems to be whether VB6 was more secure than a Net app.

ANY vb6 can be 'jumped' if it uses some kind of log-in/password jump that does one thing if you are correct, and ends the program if you don't.

That is a sequence of about 8 bytes, that can be searched for and replaced (by reversing the condition). Someone wrote the vb code, and posted it somewhere. I got it before it was pulled down.

I *thought* my app was secure, but, once the sequence is re-written, the app can be given to anyone without requiring registration.

This app is about as secure as you can get. The actual .exe is not stored anywhere on the pc, and even if you hacked the version on the pc, it is overwritten the next time you run it.

http://www.siokonline.com/publix/publish.htm

this requires IE, though. It just displays you a listing of the files on your primary drive.

Well.. I just tryed the dotfuscator that comes with VS2008 on a fairly complex app that I upgraded from VB6.


The upgrade went pretty well, only had to change about 6 or 7 lines of code.

The initial build in VB 2008 loaded up fine and appeared as though the program should work.

The build done with dotfuscator crashed hard on startup.

Conclusion it did a fine job of protecting my code as no one will ever see the resulting executable.

dglienna, did you read this thread from head to toe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dglienna

dglienna Any one else catch this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RealityIsForLocos

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.

---

Please be FACTUAL in your posts. One lie, and it's all over.

I doubt you're writing anything for IPOD's either.

---

Yes, not all people can nor will do this, but making hardcore games can't be done in the .net.You just don't have enough speed in the .net to do such a thing. That is why he said that and also, you do get alot of jobs with database management for the .net.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dglienna

Please be FACTUAL in your posts. One lie, and it's all over.

I doubt you're writing anything for IPOD's either.

Over the past 30 years, almost any software that has been produced has been hacked to some degree. Now, the debate seems to be whether VB6 was more secure than a Net app.

ANY vb6 can be 'jumped' if it uses some kind of log-in/password jump that does one thing if you are correct, and ends the program if you don't.

That is a sequence of about 8 bytes, that can be searched for and replaced (by reversing the condition). Someone wrote the vb code, and posted it somewhere. I got it before it was pulled down.

I *thought* my app was secure, but, once the sequence is re-written, the app can be given to anyone without requiring registration.

---

dglienna you are way off. We didn't say things couldn't be hacked. We are saying you can decompile the .net app to source code from what it originated from. Please read this thread more carefully next time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WillAtwell

Well.. I just tryed the dotfuscator that comes with VS2008 on a fairly complex app that I upgraded from VB6.


The upgrade went pretty well, only had to change about 6 or 7 lines of code.

The initial build in VB 2008 loaded up fine and appeared as though the program should work.

The build done with dotfuscator crashed hard on startup.

Conclusion it did a fine job of protecting my code as no one will ever see the resulting executable.

---

That is sad :(

Well I base my posts on facts, and not theories, does not mean my post is wrong.
The .net is slow and you don't see any new games out there that are being built out of the .net.
Companies, like EA games, need to protect there source code and get all speed they can get
to stay on the top of their competition. Do you think that if EA games started programming
in the .net, they would fall? If the .net should be on a managed and secured computer, that
sounds like a server and not a regular pc users computer.


PS ipods are mac not a micorsoft product. So go and try to program for an ipod with the .net.

and by the way if you program in the .net and get a job the first year all you
will be doing is Customer Service lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjay

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?

---

I think something interesting is going unsaid here, and that you're implying something that perhaps you don't mean to imply: Does the fact that any publicly released software can be reverse engineered mean that there's no commercial importance to keeping a project closed-source? Would it really make no difference if all applications were distributed with source code?

These are not rhetorical questions, as I am genuinely interested in their answers. Also, .NET is not the only cause for this debate... those of you who say that the source code of your C++ work cannot be gotten are obviously not writing and distributing libraries that rely on templates.

Didn't I answer with the second post here? Of course I've read it.

This is NOT about the open source debate, either.

If games get too hard to protect, then they will just release a version such as that, that runs only online. While VB6 wasn't suitable for writing games (unless you used API's) VB.Net is much different. Using GDI, it's much faster, and does things that were very hard to do with API's before.

Just compare the IDE for C# and VB. Which one is more useful? I'd say the VB editor. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermit

those of you who say that the source code of your C++ work cannot be gotten are obviously not writing and distributing libraries that rely on templates.

---

from http://www.cplusplus.com/doc/tutorial/templates.html

Quote:

---

When the compiler encounters this call to a template function, it uses the template to automatically generate a function replacing each appearance of myType by the type passed as the actual template parameter (int in this case) and then calls it. This process is automatically performed by the compiler and is invisible to the programmer.

---

Now I don't know if this is true, but it sounds like they split the function up to match up to what is supplied until it doesn't find anymore different types of inputs and then compiles them separately.

Can you provide resources that can counter attack this claim or explain why this would give your source code back?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deligeena

Didn't I answer with the second post here? Of course I've read it.

This is NOT about the open source debate, either.

If games get too hard to protect, then they will just release a version such as that, that runs only online. While VB6 wasn't suitable for writing games (unless you used API's) VB.Net is much different. Using GDI, it's much faster, and does things that were very hard to do with API's before.

Just compare the IDE for C# and VB. Which one is more useful? I'd say the VB editor.

---

You did post 2nd on this thread, but it is on page 8 now
??????????????????????????????
I don't think you followed this thread at all. Did you even understand it? I never stated anything about open source is a good or bad thing. I stated the .net is bad if you don't want your source code to be hacked by a .net decompiler and have your source code stolen. I like open source code. That is where I got all my knowledge from.

HOW CAN YOU GET QUAKE4, HITMAN: BLOODMONEY, STAR WARS: BATTLEFRONT, DOOM 1, DOOM 2, DOOM 3, PAINKILLER, UT2004, UT 2007, TIMESHIFT, SOLDIER OF FORTUNE: PAYBACK AND ANY OTHER GAME LIKE THIS ONLINE TO BE PLAYED LOCALLY???????????????????????????????????????????

uh..................................................................................................

So now that we seem to be beyond the 'secure code' debate, it looks like the discussion has turned to revolve games and that .Net isn't suitable for writing games.

Is that what you guys are saying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joeman

Can you provide resources that can counter attack this claim or explain why this would give your source code back?

---

Templates are source code, and cannot be compiled in the usual sense (rather, they are instantiated into something that is compilable). If your library consists mostly of templates (i.e. if they are part of the library, not just used internally by it), those templates must be distributed as source code.

Anyway, I don't mean to stray too far off topic, though admittedly I couldn't care less about the fate of VB6 :)

Same thing that I posted. Click-Once technology, built into .Net

You click on a web-link (only while the site is up) to download the current exe that runs locally in memory.

There are online courses that are written in .Net technology. Look up InnerWorkings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joeman

we say that it just isn't worth the effort to learn the .net.
AND THE .NET IS A ****ING HACKERS PARADISE YOU MORON PLUS IT IS SLOW. I SAID THAT ON LIKE PAGE 2 BEFORE

---

Try to remain professional, if you are able. You didn't respond on page 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joeman

Have you heard of linking to a compiled library before?

---

In C++ template's can't be exposed in compiled libraries. You need to include the headers files (like the way the stl is distributed). Hermit already stated this.