1

Topic: Protection/licensing for.NET

We conduct small researches in respect of high-grade support.NET in our product. It will Would be desirable to learn how much the given tool in respect of adding to ready application on.NET buns in the form of protection against integrity/licensing/activation reversinga/package/control is claimed. P.S. For those a coma is interesting I can throw off test application on C# which is packed and shows possibility of ours SDK on a licensing example (basically all functions SDK already are completely implemented). By the way that all code of ours  too is written on C# including .

2

Re: Protection/licensing for.NET

Hello, drVan, you wrote: V> it is conducted small researches in respect of high-grade support.NET in our product. It will Would be desirable to learn how much the given tool in respect of adding to ready application on.NET buns in the form of protection against integrity/licensing/activation reversinga/package/control is claimed. V> P.S. For those a coma is interesting I can throw off test application on C# which is packed and shows possibility of ours SDK on a licensing example (basically all functions SDK already are completely implemented). By the way that all code of ours  too is written on C# including . In due time  to use noname protectors, it is more than problems and  than a profit. All the same  they after couple of years. Only the system, though also simple but reliable.

3

Re: Protection/licensing for.NET

NW> In due time  to use noname protectors, it is more than problems and  than a profit. Well I would not began to name vmprotect ... NW> All the same  they after couple of years. The doctor abruptly invented all, this technology still endures us generally vmprotect is higher , , ,  and even like tesla. And  I do not see there fading signs. NW> only the system, though also simple but reliable. Break infections... I will not translate all poppies-versions in any way on vmp, here them break. Similar  stand the untouched. : no, it is not connected. Was, but for a long time already is not present. For power it is insulting

4

Re: Protection/licensing for.NET

Hello, ov, you wrote: ov> break infections... I will not translate all poppies-versions in any way on vmp, here them break. Similar  stand the untouched. And if through AppStore to sell? To the majority of users AppStore and in a head such  does not come to be engaged. But here if there applications are not present, probability "and  I it with " will take great.

5

Re: Protection/licensing for.NET

ov>> break infections... I will not translate all poppies-versions in any way on vmp, here them break. Similar  stand the untouched. KP> and if through AppStore to sell? To the majority of users AppStore and in a head such  does not come to be engaged. But here if there applications are not present, probability "and  I it with " will take great. There is a row of the reasons on which  I do not consider: - it is difficult to sell a subscription to updates. They like there something made recently in this respect, but it is necessary to hold two different mechanisms under Windows and under a poppy; - 30 % the commission it all the same ; - a price range at me above the average appstor-program; - publish an update not at once, there can be problems with   and so I am simple on a site spread; - is not present  about buyers, I can not remind them of prolongation of licenses and it only that  was recalled, actually even more problems was. As a result it appeared to work in the old manner is easier: through Google and the logger. I remember, when  only appeared, to me periodically wrote type "I now I buy only in , from you I will not buy". For half a year a nonsense , take and do not complain

6

Re: Protection/licensing for.NET

Hello, ov, you wrote: ov> I remember, when  only appeared, to me periodically wrote type "I now I buy only in , from you I will not buy". For half a year a nonsense , take and Hm do not complain... In my case probability that I will buy application not in AppStore 10 times less as it is superfluous . Though Photoshop, Dropbox and other it is necessary to "forgive" to everyones

7

Re: Protection/licensing for.NET

Hello, drVan, you wrote: V> it is conducted small researches in respect of high-grade support.NET in our product. It will Would be desirable to learn how much the given tool in respect of adding to ready application on.NET buns in the form of protection against integrity/licensing/activation reversinga/package/control is claimed. , you were late with this idea of years so on 10. Generally.NET development left in a web, and that that was on a desktop, besides generally, the different "gray" hogwash like high overshoes-zhmotikov for  and an other hogwash which very quickly dirties to you the signature of your protector.

8

Re: Protection/licensing for.NET

KP> Hm... In my case probability that I will buy application not in AppStore 10 times less as it is superfluous . It if is alternative KP> Though everyone Photoshop, Dropbox and other it is necessary to "forgive" aha

9

Re: Protection/licensing for.NET

TBM> Imho, you were late with this idea of years so on 10. Generally.NET development left in a web, and that that was on a desktop, besides generally, the different "gray" hogwash like high overshoes-zhmotikov for  and an other hogwash which very quickly dirties to you the signature of your protector. There is such business, but unless for server-side applications licensing and protection is not required? Not nevertheless there from zero it is written under the task, there are also ready box decisions... Though there, of course, normally other money and other relation to breaking, yes.

10

Re: Protection/licensing for.NET

Hello, ov, you wrote: ov> it if is alternative Is, Rutreker is called. Not broken applications does not happen, would be to break for the sake of what.

11

Re: Protection/licensing for.NET

Hello, ov, you wrote: ov> well I would not began to name vmprotect ... , bought DR, too was not , however died

12

Re: Protection/licensing for.NET

I> Armadillo bought DR, too was not , however died all sometime die, what there. Protector lifetime is influenced by some factors. The main things I would name  and complexity of support from the author. At  all very not bad is both with the first and with  as the idea of a tangling of the code is not anchored especially to a platform and does not demand alteration with an output of new Windows. As a result we receive a product which effectively works, moreover and to the author leaves time for life. Well and that to such product not to live? They  x86/x64, went aside . Though now, probably, it is necessary aside webassembly to look already

13

Re: Protection/licensing for.NET

Hello, drVan, you wrote: V> it is conducted small researches in respect of high-grade support.NET in our product. It will Would be desirable to learn how much the given tool in respect of adding to ready application on.NET buns in the form of protection against integrity/licensing/activation reversinga/package/control is claimed. For Java + ARM + ARM64 do. In the long term MIPS + x86. A niche huge -  applications.

14

Re: Protection/licensing for.NET

Hello, drVan, you wrote: V> it is conducted small researches in respect of high-grade support.NET in our product. It will Would be desirable to learn how much the given tool in respect of adding to ready application on.NET buns in the form of protection against integrity/licensing/activation reversinga/package/control is claimed.  a product urgency, since now an epoch of services, mobile applications (which very few people writes on.NET Xamarin). Applications under Windows spread through Windows Store.

15

Re: Protection/licensing for.NET

Hello, white_znake, you wrote: _> Applications under Windows spread through Windows Store. ?

16

Re: Protection/licensing for.NET

Hello, drVan, you wrote: V> it is conducted small researches in respect of high-grade support.NET in our product. It will Would be desirable to learn how much the given tool in respect of adding to ready application on.NET buns in the form of protection against integrity/licensing/activation reversinga/package/control is claimed. At us self-hand-written protection.  NET are built in convenient crypto-classes, all is written for 2-3 hours. It for . Protection we do not use any, let break , the main thing  cannot make. And generally, in 2016 to be soared with protection is  idiocy. To you pirates free of charge untwist the program, and you - protection... Those who wants  and do not find they be leave to the competitor. Let it is better  our product, let and  - recommend to friends, colleagues and ... PS. Somebody generally conducted research,  protection increases a gain? We here will of a case delivered experiment. . At us is old  a product which brings ten years exactly N kilodollars in a month. Earlier the product super has been protected,  are constructed on the dissymetric cipher,  a purchased protector...  was not generally. Then we removed protection (from a word absolutely). The grunted versions roll now on everyone . The gain only grew, traffic too.