Jump to content
Tuts 4 You

About Execryptor


Recommended Posts


I note many message from customer about cracked application has been removed from StrongBit forum, instead to help and improve their customer, see the message :


A few weeks ago, I reported that my program has been cracked due to some

disabled protection options of ExeCryptor. Now, after enabling ALL

protection options in my program, the new version still has been cracked by

Digerati. They even make fun of StrongBit in their NFO file and the cracked

exe says "Full ExeCryptor license". Nice work of Digerati - they seem to be

a group of very capable hackers (just a pity, that they don't use their

skills for more productive things ;-)

This means, that ExeCryptor is in fact absolutely worthless. The only thing

it does is making my applications bigger, slower and incompatible to some

systems. Nice work, StrongBit!

I'll now go back to not protection my apps anymore (or better, to something

very very deeply hidden ;-), because it has proven useless and there's no

difference in the sales numbers anyway. Honest people still buy my products,

the others wouldn't buy them anyway, even if they couldn't find a crack.

I'm writing this to warn everybody about using ExeCryptor - if your program

is popular enough, it will be cracked anyway. ExeCryptor does not protect it

at all. Everybody please help to get this info out to other developers,

before they loose money on a non-working protection. I'll do anything

possible to do that.


Martin Hoefler 27 Aug 2006 15:34:44"

What do you think about ExeCryptor ? I'm worried about this action...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ha ha ha ha......finally they got to the truth .... lol

lets hope the rest of them also accept defeat !

PS: . . . that author dosent know that we reverse for fun .... and we do support him by telling people to buy the software if they like it ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when has DeskSoft apps been protected with ExeCryptor :dunno: Unless Martin is developing software for someone else I'm not sure why he should bash StrongBit. He should be fully aware that no software protection is bullet proof.

It would be interesting to know which app he's referring to and if he implemented code morphing correctly rather than just tick some box's in the option list... :rolleyes:


Link to comment
Share on other sites

he should bash StrongBit

i think because their advertisments says:

unbreakable protection for your author's rights and in


ts 2 version starting to use Code morphing launched in July 2004 remains uncracked. Whatever anybody says in practice 2 years to be unbroken I think it's very good for an app protector

There is a VB app (ImageToIcon Converter) that is protected with EC - but you can "read" the serial very easiely (at "reversing" time (march 06), i used "normal" OllyDbg without anti-EC-patches - you had to kill all the thread except the main and then you was able to attach the applikation and place some BP on vbastrcmp). For a working selfkeygen i made a little codeinjection (loader) in the running VBVM60.DLL ;) .

I think many protected applikations dont use the full capabilities of EC - but most of people seems to give up on PEIDs "ExeCryptor detected" ;)

Edited by CDW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well they dont use due it slows down all, why games dont use all methods? less fps. same is here, why getright doesnt use copymem2, due it was slow like hell with that, even armadillo warns about slowing down. for some apps speed is important and then protector is just dead to few months of author asm code optimization. look at execryptor picture if it virtualizes 1 instruction into 10, so it will be 10-100 times slower, due no code pairing, memory and code collisions, cache misses.

and final word, people who want and can afford will buy it, other will never do that. now all relic games come out unprotected, no more securom, game is cheaper i wonder how much more or less they sold out. i think for sure not less, more? we should ask them.

especially many people dont buy if its starforce protected, area 51 was sf protected but after few months developer rlsed patch without anything, because he knows he will not sell more. also starforce says, protect then later rls unprotected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well at least he doesnt sound bitter.. ;)

more hurt than anything else..hehehe

well starforce thought they were undefeatable but they were proven wrong.(it did take awhile though)...

i guess if theres a will theres a way...


B :zorro:

p.s...heres a question i dont get though...when the developer of the protection is aware of such a thing and the group,etc how come they cant go "after" them and press charges,etc???is it cause they cant find them or is there a loop hole somewhere??

just wonderin`..

Edited by Blah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh sigma, what a lame question and all dev rld cracks what are?

blah what charges? where they find groups? fbi only can once per year or two, its called scene busts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can use ExeCryptors code morphing on none intesive code sections. You'd not really want to be using it anywhere else so any places that do the licence checking is probably perfect.

The same applies for Armadillo with CopyMem2 and Nanomities, even in their documentation it states not to use these protection features in code intensive parts.

Software protection is only as good as it is applied and as we all know its still no guarantee that it gives you bullet proof protection. All that happens is that you buy a little bit more time...


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats like saying what is the point of protection :rolleyes: To get the best out of a protection software you have to use it to its full potential. Software authors are only trying to protect their software so why not use it, just because these protectors can be unpacked doesn't necessarily mean that they are pointless.

Take PowerArchiver for example, okay its been cracked on numerous occasions (due to weak licence checking locations) even though its protected with ExeCryptor. How many keygens have you seen for it now that the licence routine is morphed with ExeCryptor? Before it was protected with ExeCryptor there were keygens for it everywhere. The protection is only as good as it is implemented, thats my point... :)


Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...