well here we go..
- 1. drag and drop doesn't work correctly in the main gui
- 2. 'protecting' an x64 exe results in
Code:
---------------------------
Sorensoft Power Disc Lock
---------------------------
Access violation at address 00000000. Read of address 00000000.
---------------------------
OK
---------------------------
maybe that was unfair, as it doesn't state x64 support, but it shouldn't crash!
- 3. file / folder navigation in the main window is totally screwed, try opening a folder with a sub folder (in the right window).. now double click the sub folder.. NOTHING happens.. the folder also doesn't update if i copy new content into it... ie: GUI needs a LOT of work.
- 4. using 'leet' filenames when doing the exe protection just makes your program look really childish.. i 'protected' test_x86.exe and it made a little 7357_x86.3x3.tst file..
which has an AACS header.. which clearly is NOT executable..
- 5. running the executable to protect it is also not a good idea.. and then it being upacked afterwards just makes avg (and probably other anti virus) go nuts..
- 6. overwriting the exe without asking the user if they want to make a backup of it is quite simply irresonsible..
- 7. the superman logo etc is most likely a trademark infringement, so thats won't make your customers (if you have any) too happy..
- 8. relocating data segments and code segments without reloc data is a really stupid idea.. in my test exe you relocated the data, and the exe shows the little splash screen and then silently exits.. did you actually even test this?
- 9. the anti debug is a joke. int 1?.. lol
- 10. assuming the program to be protected is gui is a bad idea..
my test was a console exe, your 'wrapper' made it into gui.. making it not work..
Code:
original is : Subsystem Console
you made it : Subsystem GUI
and a few other things..
Code:
original -> OS version 5.00
original -> Subsystem version 5.00
you made it..
Code:
OS version 4.00
Subsystem version 4.00
so you magically make a program that is designed to run on a HIGHER version of windows run on a LESSER version of windows..
bad idea..
you reset the compile timestamp in the pe header to NULL.. why?
Code:
original -> Size of image 0017700
you made it -> Size of image 00AF0000
thats QUITE a difference.. 0AD8900h -> 11,372,800..
yes folks, thats an ~11MB INCREASE in the executable image size in memory..
- 11. to test further i decided to protect protection_id.exe, it should be a good candidate. .its gui, so should work.. right?..
well.. NO..you did the following (which if i was a publisher i would be quite pissed off about)
- a. you OVERWROTE my version information in the exe with yours
- b. you OVERWROTE my icon with yours
- c. you REMOVED my exports
now, while it may all be ok that you copy this all back at runtime, i can't validate it will work as it never even seems to reach the
entrypoint of my exe.. its also bad practice...
end result.. your splash screen appears with some '114' code in a static window and the program silently exits..
- 12. wrapper is in delphi.. bad design idea..
- 13. build iso and lock disk result in a 'contact me' dialog appearing.. so HOW am i meant to be able to test this?
now, i have no idea if this is by design, but how am i meant to test if it works or not if this is all i see?.. the demo is crippled to such an extent that it will (supposedly) protect, but i can't validate it...
final conclusion : total piece of shit, the developer really needs to learn a little more about the PE format, and how to protect things properly..