Printable View
Prolly be easier to go to the office store and shoplift a copyQuote:
wanting to take proprietary software, modify it to "make it mobile"
of Photoshop. Six hunnad an fifty dollahs! Anyway I'm not
convinced that reverse engineering the installer is the same
as actually stealing the software. Like he said, it was
for "educational" purposes. Whaddayou a cynic? LOL
:cool:
PS The thread title was "how to make a program portable"
but maybe that should be "how to make software grow legs?"
:cool:
Hey Hey,
I'm going to weigh in here... although it may not make much sense, I'm fighting a rather nasty cold and I seem to be a little out of it but here it goes anyways..
Portable Apps are becoming more and more common these days - http://portableapps.com/ is just one example of that...
I myself have found portable apps handy on many occasions... However this thread seems to go beyond portable apps..
I'm going out on a limb here when I assume that the OPs first language is not English... if it is... God help us all. Regardless, the horrid writing style has created mass confusion.
The topics here seem to go from making a program portable, to bypassing installation policies, to reversing binaries.
The simple answer to the initial question is: You don't make a closed source, licensed program portable... That's not to say it doesn't happen but it's not worth the time and effort... If you have the source, it's relatively simple to make a program portable... which is why PortableApps.com works with OS software.
So to answer the OP in that aspect... Could you do it? Yes... Is anyone here going to tell you how to do it? Nope... It's 300 different steps and actions and we're not here to hold your hand. The school systems in North America already do enough hand holding, we're not here to do more of it.. Figure out what exactly you need to do and the research each of those steps...
Part II: Bypassing Installation Policy:
This is not appropriate discussion for AO... we're not going to tell some little skiddie how to bypass installation policy and install what they want or run what they want without installing it... That's not this sites purpose and it's a waste of the members time... This identifies the OP as nothing more than a skiddie... Which leads me to wonder if we need a policy to ban skiddies... I've seen a few of them lately... they're mostly useless.
Part III: Reversing Binaries/Reverse Engineering.
I'm a definate supporter of RE. Here's my analogy for it..
When I buy a car, I can look under the hood and figure out exactly how it works... I can then tweak and modify it to suit my needs... Perhaps a new exhaust system.... high end spark plugs... new rims and tires... low rider springs.... Why shouldn't I be able to do that with software... if I'm using something I want to know how it works and it's my right to find that out...
As for acdspit00. I chalk him up to being another skiddie.... no worth the waste of time.
Peace,
HT
acdspit00, it rather simple actually.
All you have to do is regulate the input of the binary datagram while it's installing the .dll for the location of the reference pointer of the file that is being installed. Once you have that, then all you need to do is refresh the input/output resources for the .ini file so that the .dll is linked to the datagram that is being used to refresh the read/open handler that is running. Once you have that, you can just plug in the source assembly code for the output module that manages the .ini file mentioned above. At this point, it becomes child's play.
Use the designated link control of the .ini file with the input/output handle in read only mode. This will ensure that all security mechanisms will see your module as part of the datagram module and won't cause any issues when you go to open the .dll reference pointer. Make sure that you flag the link that is pointing to the outsourced main module before you select the file lock because if you don't, the main security module will reset the link flag to 1 and you'll be screwed (but you know that already). Finally, just add the source of your new linked file datagram to the selected .ini file associated with the installation source code and you're done.
Let me know how it goes.
Ok so you want to make a program portable, do a google search for "Full guide to make portable programs". Download the file and run it, its a container program that has an explanation and the apps associated with it.
Does it work or is it the correct way? Dont know havent tried it.
Should your question be answered as HT did or the best of peoples knowledge? IMO yes.
Should they lecture you on legalities and what not? IMO no, give you the info let you decide what to do with it, you get arrested thats your problem.
If the info posted is illegal, let the mods decide what to do thats how i see it. If i ask a question, its for a reason. If you feel like giving me the correct info by all means i thank you. If not dont lecture me on legalities, obviously i dont care or am aware. Getting off topic and wandering there, rather annoying.
I like HT's answer. Even if i dont fully agree on it. Was probably the most helpful post in this whole damn thread. Shagdevil i have no clue what your talking about.
DarkSnake,
By your response alone, I can further jutsify my theory that understanding sarcasm has become somewhat of a lost art :rolleyes:
My response was pure jibberish (that was the point). If it made sense, then my next reponse would have been: seek help child.
This thread seemed like it was going nowhere good, so I thought I'd inject some abstract humor in the form of overly-verbose, techincal nonsense. My apologies for confusing you, I'll stick to more basic humor next time.
dang shagdevil,
That could explain why when i tried what you explained it only worked half the time. :D I have one word to say : Sysdif