[smoothy023]

Hi there as I have been bumping into some threads wich share an encrypter for the generated executable files I tried many of those
and first of all I want to thank the programmers behind this.

although a wide phenomenon with these encrypters is that when they are made public they are not FUD so my question is as follows:

I would like to make one private and one public to contribute to this website.
is there anyone wich is willing to help me? any push in the right direction is welcome the idea is to program in C++ but are there any better ones?

Maybe the way the algorithm is set up and wich Encryption technique is wished?

Thanks in advance!

Greetz, smoothy023

[smoothy023]

Hi there as I have been bumping into some threads wich share an encrypter for the generated executable files I tried many of those
and first of all I want to thank the programmers behind this.

although a wide phenomenon with these encrypters is that when they are made public they are not FUD so my question is as follows:

I would like to make one private and one public to contribute to this website.
is there anyone wich is willing to help me? any push in the right direction is welcome the idea is to program in C++ but are there any better ones?

Maybe the way the algorithm is set up and wich Encryption technique is wished?

Thanks in advance!

Greetz, smoothy023

[Frooxius]

If you want to make something public and still make it somewhat safe, then don't make a specific encrypter, but rather create a configurable basis: code that will take care of loading the data to be encrypted from the PE executable (and/or others and that's tautology I know...), but not the encryption itself - instead every programmer will provide his own code to encrypt data and also to decrypt data. Your generic encrypted will call this code to encrypt the data and then it will take care of the rest - creating encrypted executable with a portion of code that will prepare decryption written by you, then injecting the decryption code provided by user and then finally giving control the the decrypted code in memory.

The point is, that you write code for EVERYTHING, except encryption and decryption code itself, which will every programmer provide himself. This way, his work will be a lot easier and the encryption/decryption algorithm sources can remain unpublished. The encryption/decryption code shouldn't care about anything else - it will be fed the data that need to be encrypted/decrypted and it will output encrypted/decrypted data will go.

Furthermore, the basis itself should provide a lot of configuration options and the produces decryption code should be highly configurable, so the actual code (written by you - the basis) can be changed a lot to prevent easy detection (for example shuffle it a bit with randomly generated jump instructions and block sizes x3 ).

[smoothy023]

Hi Frooxius,

Thanks for your reply and wich program are we talking about or is this irrelevant? as in Visual Basic I am used to using Modules in wich you can change the strings wich used to bypass PunkBuster because this defuse the standard function of it because it scanned certain DLL's for functions mostly used by public tutorials etc..

The thing I keep thinking of is what if I would re-program certain functions such as setWindowHook(); (not like really re-program it but just some strings) would that work? because as far as my knoweledge goes AV's dismantle and debug everything in an outcoming..

Let me hear your thoughts

Greetings, Smoothy023

[smoothy023]

Hi Frooxius,

Thanks for your reply and wich program are we talking about or is this irrelevant? as in Visual Basic I am used to using Modules in wich you can change the strings wich used to bypass PunkBuster because this defuse the standard function of it because it scanned certain DLL's for functions mostly used by public tutorials etc..

The thing I keep thinking of is what if I would re-program certain functions such as setWindowHook(); (not like really re-program it but just some strings) would that work? because as far as my knoweledge goes AV's dismantle and debug everything in an outcoming..

Let me hear your thoughts

Greetings, Smoothy023

[Frooxius]

Erm... we're talking about the program you want to make - executable file encrypter - take the executable file, encrypt the machine code as well as stored data (or some kind of bytecode?) using some encryption algorithm and inject a decrypter code, which will take care of extracting the stuff before executing.

Doesn't really protect the program code from being analyzed by skilled people, but still increases the security a bit, especially if you provide the generic solution I mentioned.

AV's dismantle and debug everything in an outcoming..

Really? Which ones? O.O I would TOTALLY love if AV found and fixed all bugs in my and everyone's software. Maybe they're getting so paranoid, that they consider all bugs as potential threat?

On more serious note, yes, they often try to emulate the code, however they're not all powerful and can't run every part of the code in every possible scenario with every possible input, so if you use this to conveniently hide the code you don't want them to see, then you might succeed for a while. Unless they get better of course. It's constant battle.

I have no idea why you want to erm "change just some strings". It's especially weird if you do it with functions that are part of Windows libraries (are you going to replace them or what? O.o), I think that any modification of these parts of system would raise a few digital eyebrows. x3

Well now I actually have no idea of what your mental image of ".exe encrypter", so maybe you should enlighten me about your goals with this (I actually got feeling that your response is quite irrelevant to the initial topic, since we (well you) started the topic of irrelevantness. Such funny word. Irrelevantness).

[Frooxius]

Erm... we're talking about the program you want to make - executable file encrypter - take the executable file, encrypt the machine code as well as stored data (or some kind of bytecode?) using some encryption algorithm and inject a decrypter code, which will take care of extracting the stuff before executing.

Doesn't really protect the program code from being analyzed by skilled people, but still increases the security a bit, especially if you provide the generic solution I mentioned.

AV's dismantle and debug everything in an outcoming..

Really? Which ones? O.O I would TOTALLY love if AV found and fixed all bugs in my and everyone's software. Maybe they're getting so paranoid, that they consider all bugs as potential threat?

On more serious note, yes, they often try to emulate the code, however they're not all powerful and can't run every part of the code in every possible scenario with every possible input, so if you use this to conveniently hide the code you don't want them to see, then you might succeed for a while. Unless they get better of course. It's constant battle.

I have no idea why you want to erm "change just some strings". It's especially weird if you do it with functions that are part of Windows libraries (are you going to replace them or what? O.o), I think that any modification of these parts of system would raise a few digital eyebrows. x3

Well now I actually have no idea of what your mental image of ".exe encrypter", so maybe you should enlighten me about your goals with this (I actually got feeling that your response is quite irrelevant to the initial topic, since we (well you) started the topic of irrelevantness. Such funny word. Irrelevantness).

[smoothy023]

Hey there frooxius I really enjoyed reading that

Just to make sure I am not a very skilled programmer I have been using C++ alot but still got alot to learn..
you sure did teach me things within this topic so I thank you for that.

although I still need to do my research on how an .exe encrypter works exactly and how AV's work.

thanks for your time and sorry for the irrelevantness

greetz, smoothy023