I just repeat, if cracker cannot determine what protection is used, even if protection is hidden like in this feature, this cracker will not pass the protection.
Hi Enigma,
I'm not sure if you are right with this statement ... even if cracker (I mean good one) can't determine the protection schema, he is able to analyze it and recognize that the stub or some loader or envelope is used and the program is encrypted and packed. So what do you think about it? Can it be possible or not?
alpak wrote:Hi Enigma,I'm not sure if you are right with this statement ... even if cracker (I mean good one) can't determine the protection schema, he is able to analyze it and recognize that the stub or some loader or envelope is used and the program is encrypted and packed. So what do you think about it? Can it be possible or not?
The principal of this feature is so easy, so if cracker can't determine the protection using other methods, this is not a good cracker, and he can't crack protected application.
Moreover, even if I agree to improve this feature (if it is even possible), this will give us huge number of false detections by antiviruses. This will happen because we will need to change protector signature. Current protector signature is well known by antiviruses and that's because you do not get false detections with protected files.
