EnCodeIt

[AgentSmith15]

I just have to comment and say the GUI looks really good.

I just want to thank you for want you are doing

[taurus905]

SmOke_N,

You've got me on the edge of my seat.

I hope you decide to release your new version of EnCodeIt.

I feel that your method of obfuscation is the best and easiest way to protect AutoIt scripts.

Thanks for all the time and thought you put in to this great application.

And most of all, thanks for sharing.

taurus905

[SmOke_N]

SmOke_N,

You've got me on the edge of my seat.

I hope you decide to release your new version of EnCodeIt.

I feel that your method of obfuscation is the best and easiest way to protect AutoIt scripts.

Thanks for all the time and thought you put in to this great application.

And most of all, thanks for sharing.

taurus905

It's a buggy little shit! But for the most part I believe I've worked them out.

I put off my own project for 2 weeks to re-write it, and the walls are crumbling down around me... No telling what this damn things cost me money wise from phone calls I've missed (when I told my secretary to take a message, I think she thought I wasn't Ever intrested in talking to these people.

I'm torn though... On one hand, I want to give back to the community, on the other, I want others too also... I know it all starts somewhere, and Jon/Larry/Jdeb/Valik/Nutster/Holger/Gary/Tylo/MHz/Valuater/DaveF/jpm/SvenP ... God I know I'm missing others (the crappy part of mentioning names is you know you'll leave someone out you didn't mean too.) have set a good example to that. I don't want any money personally, but I've seriously been thinking of making this a donation program because of previous reasons mentioned (People who would want it) if I release the new one at all.

[t0ddie]

why not release it for free, with an option to donate if you want to.

also, no offense, but i find this contradictory.

The only people I can see this benefiting is:

1. People that are making programs for profit... and they should pay.

2. People that are making not so nice progs, and they should pay (with their lives)

3. People that don't want to share

so since you obfuscated this script, which number describes you best? 1,2,3 or all of them?

btw looking forward to the new release to see if it still gives me errors on my program such as the old obfuscator did. you going to release it? heh

Edited August 31, 2006 by t0ddie

[SmOke_N]

why not release it for free, with an option to donate if you want to.

also, no offense, but i find this contradictory.

so since you obfuscated this script, which number describes you best? 1,2,3 or all of them?

btw looking forward to the new release to see if it still gives me errors on my program such as the old obfuscator did. you going to release it? heh

Have you ever written anything for or contributed in any way to AutoIt?

The best part about me writing it, is I can choose what "I" am going to do with it, regardless of what the few or the masses think. Was the 2 weeks I took out of my time not worth a donation for a script you so passionatly want to use this on?

No offense? I take alot of offense to that, because as you so loudly pointed out to Valik yesterday, that you didn't think he read your post at all, it's quite apparent after reading that question, that you haven't read this one either and why it's obfuscated.

It works with all the COM/Object scripts I've tested as well as others... So I would reckon it would probably work with yours as well.

You know, I don't think I will release it... just let this thread die, and you guys rock on with the original (or write one yourself).

[PartyPooper]

That's a good question... The only people I can see this benefiting is:

1. People that are making programs for profit... and they should pay.

2. People that are making not so nice progs, and they should pay (with their lives)

3. People that don't want to share

I'm assuming you are talking about EnCodeIt here. How about -

4. People who write Freeware but don't want to release the software as Open Source

[SmOke_N]

I'm assuming you are talking about EnCodeIt here. How about -

4. People who write Freeware but don't want to release the software as Open Source

See that's a gooden.

[Valuater]

...

I'm torn though... On one hand, I want to give back to the community, on the other, I want others too also...

...

The best part about me writing it, is I can choose what "I" am going to do with it, regardless of what the few or the masses think. Was the 2 weeks I took out of my time not worth a donation for a script you so passionatly want to use this on?

...

Man.... do I know where you're comming from!

What ever you decide... dont let anyone make you feel "gulty" about anything

8)

[Ontosy]

Have you tried to just run it ?

_StringEncrypt() is a standard UDF in string.au3.

so you need a statement :#include<String.au3>

also to me it do same error with _StringEncrypt() function.

Error: Unknown function name.

i have included:

#include<String.au3>

it works if not is obfuscated.

[SmOke_N]

also to me it do same error with _StringEncrypt() function.

Error: Unknown function name.

i have included:

#include<String.au3>

it works if not is obfuscated.

What version of AutoIt are you using... One of the new ones wasn't including all the includes properly.

[Ontosy]

What version of AutoIt are you using... One of the new ones wasn't including all the includes properly.

v3.2.0.1 or beta v3.2.1.1

it is working if not obfuscated.

[t0ddie]

@ smoke_N

1. People that are making programs for profit... and they should pay.

2. People that are making not so nice progs, and they should pay (with their lives)

3. People that don't want to share.

4. People who write Freeware but don't want to release the software as Open Source

had option 4 been there I would have said nothing.

I was using only those 3 reasons YOU provided for making my assumption of the reason you obfuscated YOUR script since YOU were the one who wrote those reasons.

I wasnt trying to make you feel guilty. I didnt mean to be negative, just trying to have a sense of humor and be facetious at the same time. not even considering any other reasons why you might have obfuscated it.

also, pointing out something Vaglik said means nothing to me. completely worthless IMO as a reference as his statements come from arrogance and are aimed at making himself look "better" than you in one way or another.

I merely meant that on ONE of my scripts, the old encode it did not work.

I was hoping the newer version would, as i DO like your script AND use it even though its obfuscated.

thanks for making this contribution.

p.s. just because i have not released an autoit program in the autoit forums doesnt mean i dont contribute.

i post in the forums, im a member of the community, although i dont read alot of posts on here, i have replied and even solved some peoples problems.

I dont want to start an argument.

whether you release the new version or not, Its a very nice program.

EDIT: I would want the code to obfuscate only one program I have made since it is public. and if it does not work on the actual script I need it to work on, then no. I would not be willing to pay for it. I may be willing to consider make a donation for developing it since i have used it on some programs, thats just appreciation of my own will.

most programs have a try before you buy option anyways. trialware. things can be cracked.. donations are just a good way to go about it IMHO.

Also i never said i was "passionate" about the program. i do like it, maybe even enough to send you a dollar. but not enough to pay 15 dollars for it. hypothetically of course.

with an optional donation you can get all kinds of amounts, even small amounts are better than perhaps, whatever you would normally charge for it.

Edited September 4, 2006 by t0ddie

[Valik]

t0ddie, each post you make exposes your stupidity to another group of users. You should really stop posting on this forum because you are just an embarrassment to yourself.

Specifically I'm referring to this:

also, pointing out something Vaglik said means nothing to me.

Nowhere since you stuck your nose into this thread do I see Smoke making any mention of anything I've said. All I see is this statement:

No offense? I take alot of offense to that, because as you so loudly pointed out to Valik yesterday, that you didn't think he read your post at all, it's quite apparent after reading that question, that you haven't read this one either and why it's obfuscated.

It would appear Smoke is referencing something you said (to me), not something I said.

Congratulations on making yourself look even stupider, if that is possible.

Incidentally, I hope your recent habit of typing "Vaglik" is some foolish attempt to insult me. Otherwise, once again, I bring forth an example of your stupidity in that you can't even write my username correctly which is sad given that it is only 5 letters.

At any rate, keep your replies in your head. I don't imagine Smoke wants his thread hijacked and I don't imagine any of us want to see your failed attempt at rebuttal. The smartest thing you can do in this situation is not reply.

[Hello12345]

v3.2.0.1 or beta v3.2.1.1

it is working if not obfuscated.

I got the same problem.

---------------------------
AutoIt Error
---------------------------
Line 0  (File "C:\Documents and Settings\XXX|Desktop\Schedule.exe"):

If StringRegExp($7AB8BA58D83E01DA[1], $7AB8B8A8D63E01DA) And Number($7AB8BA58D83E01DA[1]) <> $7AA8BAA8D83E0EDA And Number($7AB8BA58D83E01DA[1]) <> $7AB7BAA8D83E01DA Number($7AB8BA58D83E01DA[1]) <> $76B86AA8D83E01DA Then
If StringRegExp($7AB8BA58D83E01DA[1], $7AB8B8A8D63E01DA) And Number($7AB8BA58D83E01DA[1]) <> $7AA8BAA8D83E0EDA And Number($7AB8BA58D83E01DA[1]) <> ^ ERROR

Error: Variable used without being declared.
---------------------------
OK   
---------------------------

But i have enabled must declare variables.

any idea what is the problem??

thanks

I using autoit v3.2.1.1 beta

[Jos]

Looks like you are missing an AND:

If StringRegExp($7AB8BA58D83E01DA[1], $7AB8B8A8D63E01DA) And Number($7AB8BA58D83E01DA[1]) <> $7AA8BAA8D83E0EDA And Number($7AB8BA58D83E01DA[1]) <> $7AB7BAA8D83E01DA And Number($7AB8BA58D83E01DA[1]) <> $76B86AA8D83E01DA Then

Edited September 4, 2006 by JdeB

[SmOke_N]

@Hello, seems Jdeb has found your issue... Did you run Au3Check before you obfuscated or was this a product after obfuscation?

@t0ddie

EDIT: I would want the code to obfuscate only one program I have made since it is public. and if it does not work on the actual script I need it to work on, then no. I would not be willing to pay for it. I may be willing to consider make a donation for developing it since i have used it on some programs, thats just appreciation of my own will.

most programs have a try before you buy option anyways. trialware. things can be cracked.. donations are just a good way to go about it IMHO.

Also i never said i was "passionate" about the program. i do like it, maybe even enough to send you a dollar. but not enough to pay 15 dollars for it. hypothetically of course.

with an optional donation you can get all kinds of amounts, even small amounts are better than perhaps, whatever you would normally charge for it.

No arguement from me...

Try before you buy in my humble opinion is just an open invitation to crackers to crack your registration process. Logically (not that it's so), seems to me that people are less likely to ask someone after they've paid for it... hey ... you mind showing me my money was waisted and crack this program so no one else has to pay for it?

Also, in your circumstance... you're arguement being that you don't want to pay for something that doesn't work on what you want it to... I can understand that, but in the same aspect, you clearly stated you only wanted to use it on "1" program. How obligated does someone feel paying for something they are only ever going to use once?

Donation:

The donation thought wasn't for the "development", because without AutoIt ... and people like Valik/Jdeb/Larry/LxP/Cameronsdad/jpm/MHz/... and many others, I wouldn't have had a clue where to even start the project to begin with. So the donation was for AutoIt in itself, not to line my own pocket.

You say you like it enough to send a dollar, what an insult to yourself more so than me. That basically says to me, your code isn't worth more than a buck to you or the public... if that's the case, then you obviously don't need EnCodeIt anyway, and all your arguements thus far are wasted bandwidth and you truly are the butt of a Valik Quote.

[t0ddie]

I said hypothetically, as in users, meaning more than just myself, and 1 dollar was a hypothetical amount.

no argument here. dont care for the cynical reply, but thats just me.

I was just adding my opinion before. take it as you will.

im not going to quote anyone any further and throw the topic off any more.

@vaglik LOL

[SmOke_N]

I said hypothetically, as in users, meaning more than just myself, and 1 dollar was a hypothetical amount.

no argument here. dont care for the cynical reply, but thats just me.

I was just adding my opinion before. take it as you will.

im not going to quote anyone any further and throw the topic off any more.

@vaglik LOL

The way you placed hypothetical was after $15 not before $1.00.... so it reads the $15 is hypothetical... meaning you have no idea what I would charge for it, which sounds right.

[SmOke_N]

EnCodeIt 2.0

[Hello12345]

@Hello, seems Jdeb has found your issue... Did you run Au3Check before you obfuscated or was this a product after obfuscation?

yes, the script worked fine before obfuscation

Edit:

it works fine with 2.0

thanks

Edited September 5, 2006 by Hello12345