[MatiasMunk]

Using the updated one now, thanks <3.
I just love this thing!

[Crabrat]

Nice share, could be extremely useful. You're a credit around here DragonHunter :)

[DragonHunter]

Added a scenario why you should use LiteCode

So for example a scenario without LiteCode:
1. You start ur crypter and u login
2. You fillin some settings and u press crypt
3. The crypter will now crypt your .exe but all the code is stored in the .exe and so if you bypass the login you're still able to crypt your file

A scenario with LiteCode:
1. You start ur crypter and u login
2. You fillin some settings and u press crypt
3. The crypter will now send his .exe you wanted to crypt + settings to the server so now at server side hes able to crypt your file and sending back the FUD .exe
This way you don't need the code at the crypter.exe so if they will bypass your login system they wouldn't be able to crypt ther file
And now you can even update the crypter remotely incase it will become detectable 🤝

[.CRz]

one of the biggest advantages of this system is that you can update as you want without having an updater xD, you can update anytime you want without your custumers notice. and that is truly awsome

[MatiasMunk]

@Cyber, that is exactly what I'm using it for ;)
I'm working on a game atm, I'm using LiteCode for that.
Then people don't have to download new versions everytime.
But they just come straight in there :)

[DragonHunter]

Ok people I added support for delegates which is now also in the SVN
what your able todo now is in short:
1. You are at the server side and you call a method TestDelegate and you give your private method as delegate
2. When TestDelegate method is being called in client side the client is able to call the delegate which will go back to the server and call your private method

this way you can just call BeginInvoke methods which require a callback method or BeginSend/BeginReceive from the Socket class

Example code - Server Side:

PHP Code


<?php 
LiteServer server = new LiteServer(539);
    server.onClientConnect += (Client client) =>
    {
    ITest test = client.GetSharedClass<ITest>("test", typeof(TestClass));
    string ret = test.TestDelegate(":O", (string val) =>
    {
    return "some value...";
    });
    Console.WriteLine(ret);
    } 


Example code - Client Side:

PHP Code


<?php 
[RemoteExecution]
  public string TestDelegate(string SomeValue, TestDel CallMe)
  {
    return "Value from server side: " + CallMe("some string from Client Side :)");
  } 


output at server side:
Value from server side: some value...

[BaussHacker]

It's useful, but again useless.

You only request some data from the server, however you never handle anything for the client. You still need to handle your application clientside, which you can still do.

This is not helping against cracking, but against reverse-engineering/reflecting.

Great job tho! As always you make impressive projects.

[dreamer66]

Of course it helps vs cracking, take a look at Diablo III and why it hasn't been cracked yet (at least not by the scene).

The only issue, as Diablo III suffered from that as well was the amount of requests and the sheer raw power a server needed to have in order to accommodate all the requests without failing. And that is without taking in account the DDoS attacks a small company will encounter.

[DragonHunter]

SSP bug fix:
Fixed a critical bug, Packets were receiving before you could set the onReceiveData event

This is now also fixed in LiteCode, E.g. You call a remote method "test.TestCall();" the packet is being sent for calling that method but the event is not set yet at the client or server
So the packet is being processed in SSP but he was not able to call the onReceiveData since it was still NULL

This bug most of the time only happen'd tho using it at localhost

[Incorporate]

And this is a project I planned on doing over the Summer, except mine wasn't as complicated as this :(

[Deobfuscated]

It's useful, but again useless.

You only request some data from the server, however you never handle anything for the client. You still need to handle your application clientside, which you can still do.

This is not helping against cracking, but against reverse-engineering/reflecting.

Great job tho! As always you make impressive projects.

[img]http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120213055636/uncyclopedia/images/5/52/Double-facepalm.jpg[/img]

[jinxat]

Sounds interesting gonna give this a try, Thanks!

[Fake.]

Added a scenario why you should use LiteCode

So for example a scenario without LiteCode:
1. You start ur crypter and u login
2. You fillin some settings and u press crypt
3. The crypter will now crypt your .exe but all the code is stored in the .exe and so if you bypass the login you're still able to crypt your file

A scenario with LiteCode:
1. You start ur crypter and u login
2. You fillin some settings and u press crypt
3. The crypter will now send his .exe you wanted to crypt + settings to the server so now at server side hes able to crypt your file and sending back the FUD .exe
This way you don't need the code at the crypter.exe so if they will bypass your login system they wouldn't be able to crypt ther file
And now you can even update the crypter remotely incase it will become detectable 🤝

Sneaky. I did this successfully a while back, but nowhere near in as much depth. Great job :)
Windows servers are often hard to find though (compared to Linux).

[Tritium]

Somebody already got this running on a windows vps?
Got any problems or was is as easy as compiling and starting?
Would be interested in this but don't want to waste money on a server when I cant get it working...

[DragonHunter]

just doing a so others can see it :P