Jump to content

On Software Protection...

Teddy Rogers

Recommended Posts

I was just having a look around the net and came across this short and unfinished article by Jeremy Collake:

In it software protection is described and the ideal requirements of a software protection scheme are enumerated and elaborated on.

I don't agree with the part about carding...


Link to comment

You have a point but even from the outset Jeremy always stated that PeCompact was only ever meant to be a packer and not a protector. After he said all that it seemed strange that he then went on to implement API redirection, the IsPacked API check and also encrypted string markers. I think he did have intentions on creating a new protector and as such those features were a stepping stone to it. I am not sure if he still has ideas on doing this, it was quite a long time ago... :dunno:


Link to comment

And to describe it with Jeremy's own words:

It is important for people to realize that protection is a trade-off. The more secure your software, the less efficiently it will load and the less compressed it will end up. Furthermore, as I mentioned before, protection schemes are usually inveresely proportional in security and platform (and software environment) compatibility.

The supported AntiDebug Loader is a non-standard feature for example,

but Pec2 will never support a hard protection (like teddy said it was meant to be a packer).

I don't think Jeremy ever change his way, because he cares about the right essential things.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...