![]() ![]()
![]() CRACK PROGRAM USING OLLYDBG 2 0 DRIVERSBut device drivers could even download data from internet without constent. Let me just say it could happen but I always like using safe habits like encryption on important data in my apps which prevent from anything getting ahold of it including device drivers. It can even take control of other device drivers and control them or your devices directly on computer if the hacker is pro but then it would be easier to guess who he is To prove its a legit driver like the driver guys are taught for testing their drivers. CRACK PROGRAM USING OLLYDBG 2 0 INSTALLThe only thing i would think of would be a pain is a malicous driver that is installed by malware which could go on until you wipe the system because a driver is at kernel level and can bypass antivirus and most security checks and can self install a certificate Now a programmer could use code injection but their have been safe guards CRACK PROGRAM USING OLLYDBG 2 0 UPDATEThat reminds me of DOS attacks they teach you in networking class. As stated above if you update your program to support newer methods of protection it will be very hard to get hacked which include but limited to encryption especially.ĭOS (Denial of service) attacks is where the attacker or hacker attempts to shutdown your web service by sending massive pings or data to your web server in a short period of time. ![]() CRACK PROGRAM USING OLLYDBG 2 0 CRACKERThe Anti-Reverse Engineering guide also suggested that using "inline" can helps confusing a cracker because in-lining doesn't outputs the detail of a function call to the debugger. I've read a few articles about it, and it seems that some user reviews that "inline" may saves overhead in function calls in the application, although it may also increase size of the header file. Would setting a breakpoint in the applicationĭoes good or it'll just benefits the cracker.Īlso, I would like to know more of how "inline" in C++ works. I tried reading a few time, I still couldn't understand the "Breakpoint" part. On the other hand, I'm having a slight trouble understanding the link to an anti-reverse engineering guide that rp_suman gave to me. But I'm curious, how can the attacker bypasses these protections, especially the part where the application checks for a debugger, and exits when a debugger is detected I'd been browsing for a while and there are plenty of post that suggested the same thing. Greater than the value of the application. All you can hope for is to raise the bar high enough that cracking your program is not worth the trouble - to make the effort of cracking Should I catch up to that? Do reassure me if they're really "can't be bypassed"! Thanks!Ī determined attacker will be able to bypass whatever protection you can come up with. Just asking suggestions.īut I'd been thinking lately, crackers/hackers do get smarter, would one day, they would be able to bypass these protections oneĭay? I know there a lot of tips in the first guide, but "if" one day, crackers do find a way to getting into an application, how Among them, I also found some articles saying that applicationĬompiles with a debugging symbol that allowed crackers to make use of them.īut no matter what are the methods behind software cracking, are there any ways to prevent things from being debugged or de-assembled by them in the term of coding? I'm not really asking a question here. I'm not a cracker, nor do I want to be one, but I can see that it isn't really hard to squeeze informations from the application. Though, I'm not really very sure how this is going on, so I wouldĪppreciate if someone would correct me on this.īecause of this fact, I tried debugging my own application. Though I didn't want to go to theĭetail to keep my hands clean, as far as I read, a cracker have to "reverse-engineer" the application to crack it.Īnd as far as I know, this is done by using debugging programs or an interactive disassembler to either "debug" the application and modifying it or decompile the application straight-away. I'd been spending time to kinda "researching" how people crack software. But I'm getting very concerned about this matter. I am probably no-fit to really discuss a topic and I may have also posted in the wrong category. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |