March 15th, 2002, 08:58 PM
Re: why shareware
Originally posted here by Casablanca
There actually no reason for making it shareware other than for advertising me . Ypu r absolutely right about having more protection if I wanted to make it demo/shareware properly... but I am not poficient enough in programming for that. I would have to learn some techniques first. Now, if someone wants to teach me, please do.
well first try making it not shareware because shareware is just another rls for me ;P
Make a demo which doesnt actualy have all the features in it which makes it pretty much impossible (or ****ing annoying) to crack.
Or, you could pack the hell out of it using some lame packer like asprotect (which claims to be unpackable, but definently is). That's what most shareware authors do.....relying on a packer/protector is normally like asking someone to crack your program for a challenge.
March 16th, 2002, 02:36 AM
Well, it sounds to me like the demo is better than the shareware...
One question... what does "rls" mean? (Real Lamer shite?... maybe?)
March 18th, 2002, 06:16 AM
if you only use the key one time, yes it would be a one time pad. But using it over and over is also an option, and nearly as secure. As long as the key never falls into the hands of someone else, yeah...it will be secure, simply because there is no "cheater" way to undo an XOR unless the pattern repeats. Also one other note to remember, if you transmit more than one message using this meathod, it gets slightly less secure with each message. "Technically" you can break it using two ciphertexts and a LOT of spare time, simply because you can XOR the word over and over on the key at different offsets and get "pieces" of the plaintext, which can then be used to obtain parts of the key, and try them against the other ciphertext. But anyway...enough about that....
March 18th, 2002, 03:21 PM
Hi again... Ihave been revising my code and realized I could modify it to make it clear and waste less memory. Now the main key is always of type double, although the user inputs it as an int. These reduces the extra variable I defined as x. The method Iterate() is now clearer to see because it needs no scaling as I had before.
Thank u all for your comments.
March 18th, 2002, 04:10 PM
This has been one of the best threads I've read in a long time. Very informative!
We the willing, led by the unknowing, have been doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much with so little for so long that we are now qualified to do just about anything with almost nothing.
March 18th, 2002, 04:45 PM
Fix one little problem
Right... this is the final version of the class TRHCryptor using the algorithm described. It fixes one little problem that occurs in the previous versions. Now, x is not allowed to be negative.
Thanx again to everyone.
March 19th, 2002, 04:14 AM
I think I remember the math problem you are using from somewhere, is it called a raki series?
March 19th, 2002, 07:23 AM
It's good to know... I never heard of it