SOFTWARE PROTECTION SCHEME TESTING
Find the weakpoints in your shareware & commercial programs before crackers do.
I'm now available for software protection scheme testing for software compiled with PBDLL/PBCC/PBWIN (not PBDOS at this stage sorry), starting at just US$30 for:
- A simple analysis.
- A working 'crack'.
- A 'crack' report.
- A counter-measure report.
If I can't break it, you don't pay for it, and I use the time-proven payment escrow system at Rentacoder.com so it's secure and risk-free for both parties.
To get started:
Simply send me an email here: 
Attach your compiled program and any other related files in a ZIP file, and I'll get back to you within 2 working days with full details. Confidentiality assured.
Please note that you may be asked to provide proof that you're the developer of the program, as we only provide this service to owners/developers of the software.
Questions & Answers
Q. Are PB exe's easier to crack than exe's compiled in C/C++/assembly?
A. Actually, no. Protection schemes in PB executables are generally a bit harder to crack than executables compiled with C/C++/assembly compilers. There are several reasons for this, but the main one is that there are no debuggers that are aware of the special format of PB executables, whereas most debuggers are able to provide a wealth of extra information when confronted with an exe that was compiled with a common C++ compiler such as Microsoft Visual Studio. Another reason is that C/C++/assembly compilers compile the program 'as is', whereas PB exe's have a tiny runtime library built into the exe which the main code in the program calls upon throughout. This runtime library is undocumented, so that provides a challenge in itself to any would-be cracker. There's also a good chance that the would-be cracker has never encountered a PB-compiled exe before, so they'll be going into unknown waters. In other words, you can feel safer using a PowerBASIC compiler than any other compiler - I do. However, it's up to you to add security features, this isn't the job of the compiler.
Q. Should I use an exe compressor?
A. Please don't use an executable compressor (such as UPX, ASPack etc) before sending me your program, as although this will slow me down by adding an extra ten minutes or so to dump and rebuild the exe it won't affect the final results in any way, so it serves neither of us any purpose. The safe approach is to use exe compressors to make your exes smaller but don't rely on them for security, as they can all be unpacked, regardless of how many anti-debug and other tricks they have.
Q. Can any software protection be cracked?
A. Given enough time, yes. Slowing down potential crackers is one of the key factors in creating protection schemes, as many crackers will simply give up if they don't make a breakthrough within a few hours.