Does any one have this pc Mac adress protection?

[wlangfor@uoguelph.ca]

This is not a safe code at all. It would be cracked in seconds by standard hacker groups. Nothing is protected on the whole chain. the 'to bin' and 'to hex' prims just present the data to you differently, without touching the data itself. Base64 doesn't change the data at all, it just packs it into user readable ascii code that is well defined and known: 6 bits per original char in the same order they were before. You just follow the Base64 table of chars to decode it back (takes seconds). Replacing some of those chars by numbers is the oldest security measure besides writing backwards - a simple bruteforce will get it, again, in seconds.

Acknowledging the fact, that no encoding is uncrackable, all you can do is making it extremely long to decode. It's for a reason that prime numbers and pseudo-randomness (which gives you a seed to work with) is the way to go, when trying to protect content from being read. It is as crackable as everything alse, but it takes months and years even with large botnets.

@wlangfor, you wrote you programmed Youtube

I was making products like youtube and ajax in 2005

Could you provide some more info, because wherever I look it up, it always says that Chad Hurley, Steve Chen and Jawed Karim made Youtube. No mentioning of any other involved.

Tula, you are spot on and I already gave my two cents a few days ago on this. I used to be a professional pen tester/hacker, today I consult companies on how to secure and limit their exposure so they are not easy marks for getting hacked. 20 years ago before I started in the security profession, I thought making my own encryption would be something cool and unbreakable etc. I never used it, but I played with it quite a bit. The thought process was truly data scrambling which has been around since early years of the ancient greece/spartans using different types of simple ciphers like the scytale(Wrap it around a rod and then write your message. You need the same size pole to read it). ROT 13 cipher with alpha substitution. How can I not bring up my favorite one from WWII the enigma. This one was actually very difficult and would almost be a good enough encryption tool today when they added the 4th wheel on it. So back to this whole issue. Always use a proven standard. Never try to invent an encryption for you to use without putting the information out there to be tested. When AES was chosen, it was determined by speed to encrypt/decrypt, limiting collisions, key size and confidentiality. Hackers, math magicians and many other groups put this through a ton of tests before there was a chosen winner(Rijndael) to get the label of AES. Which is the standard today for symmetric. The other thing about ciphers, the algorithm must always be available and not a secret. I go back to what I said earlier and this backs up tula. Time and cpu power is the only thing that prevents encryption from be cracked! Why invent if we already have the best standards available to you? We will all be extinct by the time you crack AES today if you use a very long complicated key by using brute force with the current hardware today. I am not ragging on anyone here, but please don't use unapproven encryption for any real purposes. Never ever say something is unhackable/uncrackable, it is truly an impossible claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_ ... n_Standard

Then crack it, decode it; get someone else to decode it, or else I'll assume you're just wanting to chat about anything in general. Which is fine really but some people are busy trying to make plugins, really.

[deraudrl]

...but some people are busy trying to make plugins, really.

And what exactly does this contribute to that process? SMH

[djbrynte]

People calm down i just do as Rex says. Get rid of The saving connection. For demo version. Old stuff always work. No saving. Will do The job.

Then its uncrackable If they dont rebuild The synth with The dll.

[deraudrl]

People calm down i just do as Rex says. Get rid of The saving connection. For demo version. Old stuff always work. No saving. Will do The job.

Then its uncrackable If they dont rebuild The synth with The dll.

Ok, that looks like English...it even sounds like English when I read it out loud. But I didn't understand any of it.

Explain please?

[Spogg]

I was discussing the issue separately with Johan. I suggested that one way forward would be to create a trial/demo version that, for instance, wouldn’t save presets. Just remove Save preset(s) link. Then you supply a full version on payment.
A hacker can’t add code to a dll to make something work that’s not actually there in the code.

Cheers

Spogg

[tulamide]

Ok, that looks like English...it even sounds like English when I read it out loud.

Please don't get this wrong, but I hope I won't read references to the quality of using the English language. We are such a mix from all over the world, like France, Italy, Germany, Hungary, Brazil, Sweden, etc. Not all of us had the same training on the language as others and I rather prefer to ask for clarifying the content (it is sometimes hard to understand), then to comment on the language use. People could stop asking for help, just because they are aware of their poor language skills, and that's not good.

[k brown]

The addition of occasional bursts of noise to the audio out of the demo version would also be easy to do, no?

As I saw it, the issue with djbrynte's post was not down to language/syntax, but more that it simply left out too much information to get the suggestion across.

[pshannon]

I will agree to the comment of the parts of missing capabilities and/or limited features like removing saving would be a good method. A cracker won't bother bother with adding these features to an already compiled code. I did show earlier in one of these many threads about this subject on what I found in 5 minutes, not sure if anyone read it.
I was challenged by him to crack it, so I spent 5 minutes and found it extremely easy to replicate the patterns for this method of text scrambling. Again, "Only use proven methods" for security. There are always smarter people out there behind the scenes that people may not realize and Yes they have thought of everything that you have and more!
BTW The most annoying protection I have ever seen, was the screen contrast/brightness changes very subtly. If you were disassembling the code, it is so subtle you will most likely miss it until you can't see the application any longer. Poof in the end, it is invisible!! Good luck with cracking that or using the app any longer!!

The "English" insult comment? Please never judge anyone on how well they write/right/wright. That is just plain/plane/plains ignorant to assume their/there english is a reflection of how they can process math/code. I know I make mistakes in my comments all the time. I like to focus on the content, but try to respond correctly. For me, I can't type on a phone if my life depended on it!! My eyes have gotten bad after 40 and I hate auto correct with fat thumbs! I get frustrated sometimes and just hit send, assuming the person on the other side can decipher what I wrote. If not, their problem. lol

People from around the world will use different ways of expressing english vs how the people in states do.

[deraudrl]

I was discussing the issue separately with Johan. I suggested that one way forward would be to create a trial/demo version that, for instance, wouldn’t save presets. Just remove Save preset(s) link. Then you supply a full version on payment.
A hacker can’t add code to a dll to make something work that’s not actually there in the code.

Cheers

Spogg

Ah. A bit of context helps a lot.

[deraudrl]

As I saw it, the issue with djbrynte's post was not down to language/syntax, but more that it simply left out too much information to get the suggestion across.

Precisely. And my abject apologies if my comment was taken otherwise.

(FYI, it's the same wording I use when native-English speakers suddenly break out into "word salad", something that used to happen a lot at my job.)