At 02:22 PM 5/27/2003, you wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mos [mailto:mos99@stripped]
>
> > Correct, which is why I have a means of compressing and
> > *encrypting* the .exe file.
>
>I don't understand how this helps... The EXE file has to contain a complete
>decryption routine or it can't be executed. So all the person has to do is
>decompile the decryption routine, and then run the reverse-engineered
>routine against the program. Alternatively, they can use a debugger and put
>a breakpoint in at the end of the decryption routine.
>
>This sort of stuff does help against a casual attacker, but you always have
>to keep in mind that you aren't really making the software secure, just
>raising the energy barrier. It's a bit like the door locks on your car.
>They'll keep curious people out, but a determined thief will just break a
>window.
The software encryption resists attacks like that. It may not be 100%
effective, but it will make it a tough nut to crack.
Yes, I am raising the bar. Most people know how to copy files onto
diskettes, or email them to a friend.
Not that many know how to hack an encrypted program or an encrypted
database. So if I eliminate 99.9% of the attackers, I've eliminated a large
portion of the threat. Over 50% of computer break-ins are done by internal
employees, and by securing the software and database it will greatly
reduce the number of successful attacks.
> It's a bit like the door locks on your car.
>They'll keep curious people out, but a determined thief will just break a
window.
Exactly. Do you lock your car when it is on the street? Why? If you're
right, someone will only break the window and drive off with it anyway. So
leave it unlocked and the keys in it. That way the thief won't rip out the
ignition or break a window. After all, he's going to get in anyway, right?
Well, the more barriers there are for the thief (or snoop) to overcome, the
more likely he will go somewhere else.
Mike
P.S. Where'd you say you parked your car? :)