[PELock]

String and file encryption for VB.NET developers. StringEncrypt page allows you to encrypt strings and files using randomly generated algorithm, generating a unique decryption code (polymorphic code) in the selected programming language. Simple & fast - try it yourself!

Example:

Code

' encrypted with StringEncrypt (v1.3.0) [Visual Basic .NET]
' EncryptedString = "Visual Basic .NET string encryption"
Dim epTlz() As Integer = { &H8ED9, &H3BD9, &HF1D8, &HAFD8, &H63D8, &H38D8, &H44D8, &HC2D7,
                           &H85D7, &H33D7, &HFDD6, &HA3D6, &HC4D6, &H76D6, &H16D6, &HC1D5,
                           &H90D5, &H84D5, &HF1D4, &HB0D4, &H76D4, &H3FD4, &HFAD3, &HBDD3,
                           &HC4D3, &H21D3, &HFAD2, &HC7D2, &H76D2, &H2DD2, &HF4D1, &HB0D1,
                           &H63D1, &H35D1, &HF6D0 }
Dim EncryptedString As String
Dim BePuQ As Integer

Dim blvjn As Integer
For blvjn = 0 To 34
  BePuQ = epTlz(blvjn)
  BePuQ -= 1
  BePuQ = (((BePuQ And &HFFFF) >> 13) Or (BePuQ << 3)) And &HFFFF
  BePuQ += blvjn
  BePuQ -= &HF74C
  BePuQ += blvjn
  BePuQ -= &H2E7B
  BePuQ = (((BePuQ And &HFFFF) >> 8) Or (BePuQ << 8)) And &HFFFF
  BePuQ = Not BePuQ
  BePuQ = BePuQ Xor blvjn
  BePuQ += 1
  BePuQ += blvjn
  BePuQ = ((BePuQ << 13) Or ( (BePuQ And &HFFFF) >> 3)) And &HFFFF
  EncryptedString = EncryptedString + ChrW(BePuQ And &HFFFF)
Next blvjn

MessageBox.Show(EncryptedString)

WebApi
h**ps://github.com/PELock/StringEncrypt-WebAPI

[0xDEAD10CC]

I don't really see any great benefit here truthfully. By the very looks of that VB.NET code too even though I have barely touched VB.NET in 5 or more years, it's sloppily generated. If you rely on this and obfuscation to protect your strings I'd happily dump every last secret string in your binary with ease..

[PELock]

1. Benefits - to automate string encryption (via WebAPI)
2. Code is beautifully generated (show me better if you say it's 'sloppily generate')
3. How else would you like to encrypt generic strings? This one is polymorphic.

[0xDEAD10CC]

1. Benefits - to automate string encryption (via WebAPI)
2. Code is beautifully generated (show me better if you say it's 'sloppily generate')
3. How else would you like to encrypt generic strings? This one is polymorphic.

1. It's a pretty weak encryption (of which won't really prevent me from cracking your application)
2. I'm not talking about code formatting
3. There's lots of better methods I've seen already built into obfuscators

Any other noob questions?

[PELock]

1. It's a polymorphic string encryption, not AES, RC4 or ECC, it's not meant to be anti-cracking solution (who said that?)

2. So what are you talking about? It's fast, supports both strings and files, all arithmetic and bitwise operations are supported (xor, not, neg, rol, ror, shl, shr), supports both ansi/unicode, checks for every language keyword to not generate random label with the name of the restricted keyword, has Windows, online and PHP clients.

3. StringEncrypt supports C/C++, Delphi/Pascal, Java, JS, Ruby, Python, Haskell, MASM, FASM, VB.NET, C#, PowerShell, do you have obfuscators for all of them?

[BTC]

1. It's a pretty weak encryption (of which won't really prevent me from cracking your application)
2. I'm not talking about code formatting
3. There's lots of better methods I've seen already built into obfuscators

Any other noob questions?

I'm not sure you actually know what the OP posted here. The code is good, I have ideas to add but am too tired do real testing. I just don't see why you comment complaining about something then show in every single way possible you have no idea what this is. Its for polymorphic string encryption why are you here talking about cracking his "application". You troll

[Ajumma]

1. It's a polymorphic string encryption, not AES, RC4 or ECC, it's not meant to be anti-cracking solution (who said that?)

2. So what are you talking about? It's fast, supports both strings and files, all arithmetic and bitwise operations are supported (xor, not, neg, rol, ror, shl, shr), supports both ansi/unicode, checks for every language keyword to not generate random label with the name of the restricted keyword, has Windows, online and PHP clients.

3. StringEncrypt supports C/C++, Delphi/Pascal, Java, JS, Ruby, Python, Haskell, MASM, FASM, VB.NET, C#, PowerShell, do you have obfuscators for all of them?

Just curious, if it's not meant to be an anti-cracking method, why use it? What's the benefit of using something like this?
It prevents a normal noobie from looking at my program and seeing the plaintext password, which you should not do in the first place anyways, but if it's not irreversible then what's the point of using it?

I'm just a noob, so please explain :D

[0xDEAD10CC]

I'm not sure you actually know what the OP posted here. The code is good, I have ideas to add but am too tired do real testing. I just don't see why you comment complaining about something then show in every single way possible you have no idea what this is. Its for polymorphic string encryption why are you here talking about cracking his "application". You troll

I know exactly what they posted which is the only reason why I replied to the thread. This is basic is what it is, and if it wasn't bad code then the encrypted string variable would be initialized to an empty string before concatenation.

Dim EncryptedString As String = String.Empty

1. It's a polymorphic string encryption, not AES, RC4 or ECC, it's not meant to be anti-cracking solution (who said that?)

2. So what are you talking about? It's fast, supports both strings and files, all arithmetic and bitwise operations are supported (xor, not, neg, rol, ror, shl, shr), supports both ansi/unicode, checks for every language keyword to not generate random label with the name of the restricted keyword, has Windows, online and PHP clients.

3. StringEncrypt supports C/C++, Delphi/Pascal, Java, JS, Ruby, Python, Haskell, MASM, FASM, VB.NET, C#, PowerShell, do you have obfuscators for all of them?

Nobody uses all of those languages all at once. I only need one good one for the language I'm using.

All of this would be relatively easy to make, using lookup tables isn't new, lots of those languages are similar in syntax. The first time I tested the live API too it gave me a variable name "123456", so obviously they didn't think of the most obvious problems, rather than only keeping a list of keywords to check against.

Polymorphic encryption is meaningless without context too. I also mentioned cracking because I don't see there being any usefulness to this across a wide band of uses. It's a public service too.

Just being straight honest, believe what some of you kids will.

[PELock]

"All of this would be relatively easy to make"

Didn't find any similar solution, except poor XOR codecs. But that's not the point. If you read the website you would know what's its purpose, I'm not going to repeat myself just because you are lazy.

" it gave me a variable name "123456""

You could just hit generate again, random things are random, you know?

[Aristocles]

It reminds me of goold old https://zerosum0x0.blogspot.com/2017/08/...tring.html

Nice stuff, however if its not free / does not include a free plan i'm gonna report the thread since it shall be in marketplace

have a nice day :-)

[0xDEAD10CC]

"All of this would be relatively easy to make"

Didn't find any similar solution, except poor XOR codecs. But that's not the point. If you read the website you would know what's its purpose, I'm not going to repeat myself just because you are lazy.

" it gave me a variable name "123456""

You could just hit generate again, random things are random, you know?

Well, the person above me found a very similar solution if you ask me.

The fact that you've found no similar solution doesn't mean this is by any means good. It also doesn't indicate that you even know how to search properly, or that you looked very hard. The website clearly says it is to prevent something like a basic hex editor from exposing the data. How is that not an attempt to protect against cracking/reverse-engineering?

"123456" was my very first try with the web service, which is pretty sad to begin with. As I said, the generated code is poor, there's conditions that the web service fails to check, and this is not going to prevent any good reverse engineer from dumping the data. Be as naive as you want about these facts, I wouldn't pay for this.

[PELock]

Very similar solution? We are up since 2013, the solution you "found" is from 2017 and supports only 1 programming language, doesn't support UNICODE, doesn't support file encryption, doesn't have WebAPI, GUI clients.

I bet you wouldn't be able to crack it, because your analytic skills are way below checking basic facts like the dates.

You are troll.

[Aristocles]

Very similar solution? We are up since 2013, the solution you "found" is from 2017 and supports only 1 programming language, doesn't support UNICODE, doesn't support file encryption, doesn't have WebAPI, GUI clients.

I bet you wouldn't be able to crack it, because your analytic skills are way below checking basic facts like the dates.

You are troll.

Mister Wójcik, 0xDEAD10CC is also a reputable member & not only on this board, and I think all of this is a misunderstanding.

🤝

[0xDEAD10CC]

Very similar solution? We are up since 2013, the solution you "found" is from 2017 and supports only 1 programming language, doesn't support UNICODE, doesn't support file encryption, doesn't have WebAPI, GUI clients.

I bet you wouldn't be able to crack it, because your analytic skills are way below checking basic facts like the dates.

You are troll.

Lol - Why would it not support unicode? 🤨

If you know how to deal with bytes, the decrypted bytes will still be the same of that of the unicode text bytes as input, even if you give it "shellcode" for the input string. It's up to the programmer using the string to use the string as though it is unicode and not just a single byte charset, otherwise the null terminator would end the string early. The fact that it supports shellcode means you can just insert the unicode bytes in UTF16-LE or BE; whatever you need... Explain how I can't use this for unicode text, please... I don't care if it only supports 1 language either, even psuedocode would be enough for me to translate it to any language I know in < 2 mins.

At least the blogger was smart enough to realize that it didn't need a web API or GUI clients. That's overkill and especially for something like this. And I can find issues and errors with your web service without even trying that hard.



404 right there.

Do you really think any good programmer is actually going to use or buy this? I'm just being blatantly straightforward here since nobody else is.

[PELock]

You found 404 error on non-existent page. And you found a raw JSON response code.

You are truly a hackerman :)

If you have to do everything manually - what's the point of it? Try my solution instead :)

---

Mister Wójcik, 0xDEAD10CC is also a reputable member & not only on this board, and I think all of this is a misunderstanding.

🤝

Well, he bragged about other solutions invented years after mine.

He found 404 error on a non existent page and he thinks this is a bug.

He found out about raw JSON response codes and he thinks this is a bug.

You should really re-think about your view on this guy ;)