Jeff Massung wrote:
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Richard Gaskin
<ambassador at fourthworld.com>wrote:
[... snip ...]
Then write the inverse of the generator to validate your codes, but break
up the validation into multiple handlers each doing a small part of it,
using obscure function names strewn all over your code base with lots of
red-herring handlers with similar names littered among them. Extra bonus
points if the handlers you call also call others; the more the merrier.
Anyone tracing your code in a low-level debugger will find it far more
annoying than it's worth.
...
2. Don't follow the "Extra bonus points" recommendation. This is a *bad
idea*. You want these functions that check reg codes to be extremely small
and obfuscated.
I agree with everything else you wrote, and it seems very reflective of
much of the Delphi Anti-Cracking FAQ, but on this I'm confused:
It seems like we're saying the same thing about obfuscation. Or maybe I
just wrote poorly.
Having obscure, small handlers in your validation scheme calling other
obscure, small handlers, some of which are are red-herrings, seems to
only further obfuscate the code, no?
At least, that was what I had intended to suggest. I think we're in
agreement here, unless I misunderstand something.
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World
Rev training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
Webzine for Rev developers: http://www.revjournal.com
revJournal blog: http://revjournal.com/blog.irv
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
