NAVIGATION
CATEGORIES
REFERRENCE
LINKS
Software protection against cracks and piracy
27 answers - 372 bytes -
EXECryptor anticrack and antipiracy software protection tool is updated
to version 2.2.5
improved: full multithread support. now you can use crypt_* blocks
in threads without critical section.
improved: PowerBasic 8 compatible
improved antidebug and patch protection
For more info click here:
http://www.strongbit.comNo.1 | | 534 bytes |
| 
SoftComplete wrote:
EXECryptor anticrack and antipiracy software protection tool is updated
to version 2.2.5
improved: full multithread support. now you can use crypt_* blocks
in threads without critical section.
improved: PowerBasic 8 compatible
improved antidebug and patch protection
etc.
If you're reading this via Google then you can trivially report the P
as spam by clicking "Show ", then "Report Abuse" - it defaults
to spam (Google gets some things right!)No.2 | | 729 bytes |
|
Poldie wrote:
SoftComplete wrote:
EXECryptor anticrack and antipiracy software protection tool is updated
to version 2.2.5
improved: full multithread support. now you can use crypt_* blocks
in threads without critical section.
improved: PowerBasic 8 compatible
improved antidebug and patch protection
etc.
If you're reading this via Google then you can trivially report the P
as spam by clicking "Show ", then "Report Abuse" - it defaults
to spam (Google gets some things right!)
Definition of spam is: "Unwanted, unsolicited email"
And this is not a spam this is software NEWS that can be wanted and
interesting for this NEWSgroup visitorsNo.3 | | 854 bytes |
| SoftComplete said:
Poldie wrote:
>If you're reading this via Google then you can trivially report the P
>as spam by clicking "Show ", then "Report Abuse" - it defaults
>to spam (Google gets some things right!)
>
Definition of spam is: "Unwanted, unsolicited email"
From Wikipedia: "Spam (electronic), unsolicited or undesired bulk electronic
messages, such as e-mail spam."
And this is not a spam this is software NEWS that can be wanted and
interesting for this NEWSgroup visitors
Since it's nothing to do with IS C, it's unsolicited and undesired. A
Google Groups search for "EXECryptor" yields 193 hits, which makes it far
from a one-off advertisement. It's clearly an electronic message. So I
think it's fair enough to label it spam.No.4 | | 1488 bytes |
| "SoftComplete" <igor@softcomplete.comwrites:
Poldie wrote:
>SoftComplete wrote:
[Spammed advertisement disemvoweled for your protection.]
>XCrptr ntcrck nd ntprc sftwr prtctn tl s pdtd
>t vrsn 2.2.5
>>
> mprvd: fll mltthrd spprt. nw cn s crpt_* blcks
>n thrds wtht crtcl sctn.
> mprvd: PwrBsc 8 cmptbl
> mprvd ntdbg nd ptch prtctn
>>
>etc.
>>
>If you're reading this via Google then you can trivially report the P
>as spam by clicking "Show ", then "Report Abuse" - it defaults
>to spam (Google gets some things right!)
>
Definition of spam is: "Unwanted, unsolicited email"
And this is not a spam this is software NEWS that can be wanted and
interesting for this NEWSgroup visitors
Nonsense. The term spam applies both to e-mail and to Usenet postings
(and blog comments, and instant messaging, and so forth). In fact, I
think the term was applied to Usenet before it was applied to e-mail;
remember the green card lawyers? See the extremely active
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet newsgroup.
Your spammed advertisement is unwanted, uninteresting, and off-topic.
If you hadn't tried to claim that it's not spam, I probably would have
ignored it; instead, I've reported your abuse to Google.No.5 | | 728 bytes |
| In article <ln3bldncb9.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.orgwrote:
>Nonsense. The term spam applies both to e-mail and to Usenet postings
>(and blog comments, and instant messaging, and so forth). In fact, I
>think the term was applied to Usenet before it was applied to e-mail;
>remember the green card lawyers? See the extremely active
>news.admin.net-abuse.usenet newsgroup.
Yes. The green card lawyers (on Usenet) were the thing for which the term
"spam" was coined. And I've got the T-shirt to prove it.
I remember reading it that fateful day, and knowing that things had changed
irreversibly.No.6 | | 1179 bytes |
| gazelle@yin.interaccess.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
In article <ln3bldncb9.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.orgwrote:
>Nonsense. The term spam applies both to e-mail and to Usenet postings
>(and blog comments, and instant messaging, and so forth). In fact, I
>think the term was applied to Usenet before it was applied to e-mail;
>remember the green card lawyers? See the extremely active
>news.admin.net-abuse.usenet newsgroup.
>
Yes. The green card lawyers (on Usenet) were the thing for which the term
"spam" was coined. And I've got the T-shirt to prove it.
I remember reading it that fateful day, and knowing that things had changed
irreversibly.
Funny. The term "spam" officially has nothing to do with commercial
intent, only with repetitive content - whether a series of articles has
a Breidbart index over a set (and ever decreasing) value.
I wonder: what would be the Breidbart index of articles containing
nothing of value, just "Not portable. Can't discuss it here. Blah,
blah, blah."
RichardNo.7 | | 812 bytes |
| In article <438f01ae.166882741@news.xs4all.nl>,
Richard Bos <rlb@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nlwrote:
>Funny. The term "spam" officially has nothing to do with commercial
>intent, only with repetitive content - whether a series of articles has
>a Breidbart index over a set (and ever decreasing) value.
Cite? (or, to put it more succinctly, "Sez you")
>I wonder: what would be the Breidbart index of articles containing
>nothing of value, just "Not portable. Can't discuss it here. Blah,
>blah, blah."
Just about every post in this newsgroup has that as its content - generally
not phrased as well or as succinctly, but then again, we can't all be me,
now can we?No.8 | | 2542 bytes |
| rlb@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) writes:
gazelle@yin.interaccess.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>
>In article <ln3bldncb9.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>,
>Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.orgwrote:
>
>>Nonsense. The term spam applies both to e-mail and to Usenet postings
>>(and blog comments, and instant messaging, and so forth). In fact, I
>>think the term was applied to Usenet before it was applied to e-mail;
>>remember the green card lawyers? See the extremely active
>>news.admin.net-abuse.usenet newsgroup.
>>
>Yes. The green card lawyers (on Usenet) were the thing for which the term
>"spam" was coined. And I've got the T-shirt to prove it.
>>
>I remember reading it that fateful day, and knowing that things had changed
>irreversibly.
>
Funny. The term "spam" officially has nothing to do with commercial
intent, only with repetitive content - whether a series of articles has
a Breidbart index over a set (and ever decreasing) value.
Agreed (though I don't see anything in this thread that implies
otherwise). My working definition of e-mail spam is simply
unsolicited bulk e-mail; the content is irrelevant. Usenet spam is
generally defined in terms of its Breidbart index, which is also
insensitive to content.
I wonder: what would be the Breidbart index of articles containing
nothing of value, just "Not portable. Can't discuss it here. Blah,
blah, blah."
Strictly speaking, it's probably not far from the Breidbart index of
articles containing "If you want to post a followup via
groups.google.com ", which is why I haven't raised the issue. But
I would argue that each of the "If you want to post a followup"
articles is relevant in its context and is directed as a specific
response to a particular article. It's also very commonly followed by
an actual discussion of whatever issue is being discussed. And thanks
to Chris F.A. Johnson, I think they can now be replaced by a pointer
to <>. (I would normally be hesitant
to depend on a web link in a Usenet article, but anyone who needs the
advice is obviously using a web browser anyway.)
The "Blah, blah, blah" followups, since only one person posts them,
are easily addressed by killfiles. In my opinion, they're merely
obnoxious, not spam.No.9 | | 1274 bytes |
| 2005-12-01, Keith Thompson wrote:
rlb@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) writes:
[snip]
>I wonder: what would be the Breidbart index of articles containing
>nothing of value, just "Not portable. Can't discuss it here. Blah,
>blah, blah."
>
Strictly speaking, it's probably not far from the Breidbart index of
articles containing "If you want to post a followup via
groups.google.com ", which is why I haven't raised the issue. But
I would argue that each of the "If you want to post a followup"
articles is relevant in its context and is directed as a specific
response to a particular article. It's also very commonly followed by
an actual discussion of whatever issue is being discussed. And thanks
to Chris F.A. Johnson,
Thank Ed Morton, who suggested it (in comp.unix.shell).
I think they can now be replaced by a pointer
to <>. (I would normally be hesitant
to depend on a web link in a Usenet article, but anyone who needs the
advice is obviously using a web browser anyway.)
That page also has a link to Google's feature-request form, in
which there is a checkbox for "Default quoting of previous message
in replies".No.10 | | 226 bytes |
|
Your spammed advertisement is unwanted, uninteresting, and off-topic.
If you hadn't tried to claim that it's not spam, I probably would have
ignored it; instead, I've reported your abuse to Google.No.11 | | 1184 bytes |
| str2@ukr.net said:
>
>
>Your spammed advertisement is unwanted, uninteresting, and off-topic.
>If you hadn't tried to claim that it's not spam, I probably would have
>ignored it; instead, I've reported your abuse to Google.
>>
As for me instead to fink I tried EXECryptor and foud it really good.
Lots of things look good on the surface.
Also I tried to find its cracks, keygens. Threre is nothing.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The question I would ask of
independent expert cryptanalysts is this: "have the EXECryptor people
approached you, offering to pay you a reasonable sum to perform an
independent analysis of their product, and guaranteeing to make available
to you any information that you consider necessary for conducting that
analysis properly?" I suspect the answer is "no".
So I think
it can be included in the top range of aplication protection tools. So
this 'spam' became useful for me :)
More fool you, if you're willing to trust an un-analysed security product.No.12 | | 1183 bytes |
| str2@ukr.net writes:
>Your spammed advertisement is unwanted, uninteresting, and off-topic.
>If you hadn't tried to claim that it's not spam, I probably would have
>ignored it; instead, I've reported your abuse to Google.
[snip]
As for me instead to fink I tried and foud it really good.
Also I tried to find its cracks, keygens. Threre is nothing. So I think
it can be included in the top range of aplication protection tools. So
this 'spam' became useful for me :)
I've deleted the name of the product to avoid giving it any more free
advertising.
Commercial spam (both e-mail and Usenet) can sometimes work because
it's so cheap to send out huge numbers of messages that you can make a
profit even if only a tiny fraction of the people who see it respond
to it. That tiny fraction of responders are partly responsible for
the existence of spam.
By responding positively, you encourage the spammer to continue
spamming, potentially damaging a forum where most of us just want to
discuss the C programming language. Please don't do that.No.13 | | 520 bytes |
| Keith Thompson said:
I've deleted the name of the product to avoid giving it any more free
advertising.
Just to add to Keith's words, and to make it clear that this is not an
isolated event: the spammer in question has also posted his advertisement
in at least one cryptography hobbyist Web forum, although he has never
participated in any of the discussions on that forum. He's just a spammer
(and his product has all the hallmarks of snake oil). Best ignored or
reported.No.14 | | 3229 bytes |
|
Richard Heathfield wrote:
str2@ukr.net said:
As for me instead to fink I tried EXECryptor and foud it really good.
Lots of things look good on the surface.
Also I tried to find its cracks, keygens. Threre is nothing.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The question I would ask of
independent expert cryptanalysts is this: "have the EXECryptor people
approached you, offering to pay you a reasonable sum to perform an
independent analysis of their product, and guaranteeing to make available
to you any information that you consider necessary for conducting that
analysis properly?" I suspect the answer is "no".
I wrote to EXECryptor team to ask them about independent detailed test
of their product. Their product is based on the scheme that has been
developed by them and as this is their intellectual property they don't
give access to EXECryptor source code nor to encryption technology
generally described on their site Code Morphing page
I searched by Internet and found several good reviews. Furthermore
there's many programming people discuss it on different forums and
their feeds about EXECryptor are good.
Also I read a few crackers disscussions about. I made conclusion that
EXECryptor protection is real pain for them and they cannot brake it.
More fool you, if you're willing to trust an un-analysed security product.
At the moment I haven't yet bought EXECryptor I've just downloaded its
trial and I will try and test it in practice.
I've deleted the name of the product to avoid giving it any more free
advertising.
Are you stingy? :))
Commercial spam (both e-mail and Usenet) can sometimes work because
it's so cheap to send out huge numbers of messages that you can make a
profit even if only a tiny fraction of the people who see it respond
to it. That tiny fraction of responders are partly responsible for
the existence of spam.
These guys' tool is very far from wide public products like different
sreensavers, games etc It has narrow sepcialization. So promoting it
by common advertising channels will not bring their target audience.
The example is me. If I EXECryptor top advertised on an shareware site
even on download.com I would neve pay attention to it. Further I've ad
blocker at my PC. And I looked for such a professional protection just
in programmer's discussions and groups.
By responding positively, you encourage the spammer to continue
spamming, potentially damaging a forum where most of us just want to
discuss the C programming language. Please don't do that.
Generally I guess that any commercial post in usergroups is called as
'spam'
But:
1. This is not Vra or p**is enlargement advert. :)) This is enough
relevant subjet.
2. The message text "smells" like rather a software news than an
advetising.
3. Advertising in google groops is spam. This is rule. But all rule is
prooved by exception. :-) And as for me, I'd consider this post as the
'exception" :)No.15 | | 3127 bytes |
| str2@ukr.net said:
I wrote to EXECryptor team to ask them about independent detailed test
of their product. Their product is based on the scheme that has been
developed by them and as this is their intellectual property they don't
give access to EXECryptor source code nor to encryption technology
generally described on their site Code Morphing page
This is a fairly standard response from snake oil merchants. Those who take
security seriously are very willing to engage highly-experienced
cryptanalysts to conduct an independent white-box security analysis of
their product.
I searched by Internet and found several good reviews.
Yeah, and I searched by Internet and found this:
"Snake alert![*]
This spam is trying to sell pure snake oil!
- too many obviously wrong assertions;
- use of meaningless terminology (ex. "disassembled into nondeterminate
transformations");
- failure to use terminology that is commonly used by most of program
obfuscation and IP protection research papers. That among other things
shows that they are extremely clueless about state of modern research;
- to much promises about secret proprietary algorithms (ex. their HardKey
algorithm was never-ever mentioned on cryptology ePrint or CiteSeer, and
the only thread on sci.crypt that was mentioned HardKey died immediately
after the first question about algorithm description and/or security
proof)"
Furthermore
there's many programming people discuss it on different forums and
their feeds about EXECryptor are good.
I saw an ad for it appear on a crypto forum, where it lasted a few minutes
before it was deleted, presumably because the people who actually used the
forum didn't want to have it cluttered up with spam.
>Commercial spam (both e-mail and Usenet) can sometimes work because
>it's so cheap to send out huge numbers of messages that you can make a
>profit even if only a tiny fraction of the people who see it respond
>to it. That tiny fraction of responders are partly responsible for
>the existence of spam.
>
These guys' tool is very far from wide public products like different
sreensavers, games etc It has narrow sepcialization. So promoting it
by common advertising channels will not bring their target audience.
Tough cookies. It doesn't give them the right to abuse Usenet or discussion
forums hosted by, in many cases, individuals who *pay* for their bandwidth.
But:
1. This is not Vra or p**is enlargement advert. :)) This is enough
relevant subjet.
It sure as eggs is eggs ain't to do with K&R or IS C programming.
2. The message text "smells" like rather a software news than an
advetising.
It's not news about C.
3. Advertising in google groops is spam.
This isn't Google Groups. This is Usenet. You're making roughly the same
mistake as people who use Internet Explorer and think that it *is* the
Internet.No.16 | | 2066 bytes |
| str2@ukr.net writes:
[snip]
>I've deleted the name of the product to avoid giving it any more free
>advertising.
Please learn to post properly. I wrote the above, but you didn't
attribute it to me.
[snip]
>By responding positively, you encourage the spammer to continue
>spamming, potentially damaging a forum where most of us just want to
>discuss the C programming language. Please don't do that.
>
Generally I guess that any commercial post in usergroups is called as
'spam'
Usenet spam is generally defined as a posting whose Breidbart Index
exceeds some specified value. I actually don't know whether the
advertisement that started this thread qualifies as spam in that
sense. It does appear to have been sent to at least 8 different
newsgroups.
It may or may not be spam. It is certainly off-topic garbage.
But:
1. This is not Vra or p**is enlargement advert. :)) This is enough
relevant subjet.
No.
2. The message text "smells" like rather a software news than an
advetising.
This newsgroup discusses the C programming language. It is not a
forum for software announcements that have nothing to do with the
language.
3. Advertising in google groops is spam. This is rule. But all rule is
prooved by exception. :-) And as for me, I'd consider this post as the
'exception" :)
First, this is not groups.google.com. This is Usenet, to which
groups.google.com provides an interface.
Second, exceptions don't prove rules; they disprove them. A Google
search for "the exception proves the rule" will give you numerous
explanations of the misconception.
Finally, this post was not even vaguely topical for this newsgroup.
The fact that it was an advertisement, posted by someone who has never
posted anything here other than off-topic advertisements, makes it
particularly offensive.No.17 | | 810 bytes |
| Sirs,
I didn't want say I encourage this post here. I would like just to say
that the fact they announced their product in this USENET group doesn't
mean its Snake I try EXECryptor and I find it very strong
protection. As for "off topic" for C language group I cannot agree with
your opinion. This tool protects applications written in C/C++
language.
Maybe this looks like I maintain them in their advertisement but I
really don't. I want just to say that their product is not bad and
their posting is not a crime. As for me if I had not been interested in
a tool like this and found this thread I would not be irritated and
would just ignored it and instead to call it "spam", "free advetising",
"snake oil" and make any abuse reportsNo.18 | | 719 bytes |
| str2@ukr.net wrote:
Sirs,
I didn't want say I encourage this post here. I would like just to say
that the fact they announced their product in this
USENET group doesn't
mean its Snake I try XXXXXXXXX and I find it very strong
protection.
As for "off topic" for C language group I cannot agree with
your opinion. This tool protects applications written in C/C++
language.
For writing C programs,
I use a 04-Aug-93 59G7980 IBM Lexmark Model M keyboard.
It's the best!!
I also have a pair of IBM 1391401's from 1988
with a few Alt Ctrl keys replaced
and one from 1990 in mint condition,
which I intend to use if my blue label one ever breaks.No.19 | | 565 bytes |
| str2@ukr.net said:
Sirs,
I didn't want say I encourage this post here. I would like just to say
that the fact they announced their product in this USENET group doesn't
mean its Snake
That is true. It's definitely spam, but it is only probably snake oil.
As for "off topic" for C language group I cannot agree with
your opinion. This tool protects applications written in C/C++
language.
Irrelevant. My fixed disk stores applications written in C. That doesn't
mean my fixed disk is topical here.No.20 | | 369 bytes |
| Richard Heathfield <invalid@invalid.invalidwrote:
str2@ukr.net said:
I didn't want say I encourage this post here. I would like just to say
that the fact they announced their product in this USENET group doesn't
mean its Snake
That is true. It's definitely spam,
Yes. *Counts* Five, now.
RichardNo.21 | | 589 bytes |
| str2@ukr.net wrote:
Sirs,
I didn't want say I encourage this post here. I would like just to say
that the fact they announced their product in this USENET group
doesn't mean its Snake
That's true. However, as is said on comp.lang.c++ about job postings,
the people doing this advertising were either clueless about what's
topical or just didn't care. Neither is a particularly good trait for
developers of critical products to display.
Also, read my .sig below for important information about your own posts.
BrianNo.22 | | 1340 bytes |
| str2@ukr.net writes:
I didn't want say I encourage this post here. I would like just to say
that the fact they announced their product in this USENET group doesn't
mean its Snake I try EXECryptor and I find it very strong
protection.
Perhaps, but that's really not the point. I don't *care* whether this
product is good, bad, or indifferent. If the people selling it
advertise it by spamming Usenet, I won't use it.
If you want to discuss the quality of the product, please find a
newsgroup or other forum where it's appropriate. This isn't it.
As for "off topic" for C language group I cannot agree with
your opinion. This tool protects applications written in C/C++
language.
Then you're just wrong. We have very well established standards of
topicality in this newsgroup; apparently you're not familiar with
them.
Maybe this looks like I maintain them in their advertisement but I
really don't. I want just to say that their product is not bad and
their posting is not a crime.
Nobody says it's a crime. It's just incredibly rude.
I suggest you quit while you're behind. You're not going to win this
argument. But if you insist on continuing, please read this:
<>No.23 | | 1434 bytes |
|
Richard Heathfield wrote:
str2@ukr.net said:
>
>
>
>Your spammed advertisement is unwanted, uninteresting, and off-topic.
>If you hadn't tried to claim that it's not spam, I probably would have
>ignored it; instead, I've reported your abuse to Google.
>>
As for me instead to fink I tried EXECryptor and foud it really good.
Lots of things look good on the surface.
Also I tried to find its cracks, keygens. Threre is nothing.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The question I would ask of
independent expert cryptanalysts is this: "have the EXECryptor people
approached you, offering to pay you a reasonable sum to perform an
independent analysis of their product, and guaranteeing to make available
to you any information that you consider necessary for conducting that
analysis properly?" I suspect the answer is "no".
So I think
it can be included in the top range of aplication protection tools. So
this 'spam' became useful for me :)
More fool you, if you're willing to trust an un-analysed security product.
I think this info source had analysed this product before write the
article about :)
You can no trust to EXECryptor team but as for me I trust to Software
Developer MagazineNo.24 | | 1995 bytes |
| str2@ukr.net writes:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>str2@ukr.net said:
>>Your spammed advertisement is unwanted, uninteresting, and off-topic.
>>If you hadn't tried to claim that it's not spam, I probably would have
>>ignored it; instead, I've reported your abuse to Google.
>>>
>As for me instead to fink I tried EXECryptor and foud it really good.
>>
>Lots of things look good on the surface.
>>
>Also I tried to find its cracks, keygens. Threre is nothing.
>>
>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The question I would ask of
>independent expert cryptanalysts is this: "have the EXECryptor people
>approached you, offering to pay you a reasonable sum to perform an
>independent analysis of their product, and guaranteeing to make available
>to you any information that you consider necessary for conducting that
>analysis properly?" I suspect the answer is "no".
>>
>So I think
>it can be included in the top range of aplication protection tools. So
>this 'spam' became useful for me :)
>>
>More fool you, if you're willing to trust an un-analysed security product.
>>
>
I think this info source had analysed this product before write the
article about :)
[url snipped]
You can no trust to [] team but as for me I trust to []
Magazine
(names deleted.)
We don't care. You've been told repeatedly that this is off-topic.
Stop talking about it here. (Richard probably shouldn't have indulged
you by talking about the software rather than just telling you to go
away.)No.25 | | 2255 bytes |
| str2@ukr.net said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>str2@ukr.net said:
>>
>>
>>
>>Your spammed advertisement is unwanted, uninteresting, and off-topic.
>>If you hadn't tried to claim that it's not spam, I probably would have
>>ignored it; instead, I've reported your abuse to Google.
>>>
>As for me instead to fink I tried EXECryptor and foud it really good.
>>
>Lots of things look good on the surface.
>>
>Also I tried to find its cracks, keygens. Threre is nothing.
>>
>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The question I would ask
>of independent expert cryptanalysts is this: "have the EXECryptor people
>approached you, offering to pay you a reasonable sum to perform an
>independent analysis of their product, and guaranteeing to make available
>to you any information that you consider necessary for conducting that
>analysis properly?" I suspect the answer is "no".
>>
>So I think
>it can be included in the top range of aplication protection tools. So
>this 'spam' became useful for me :)
>>
>More fool you, if you're willing to trust an un-analysed security
>product.
>>
>
I think this info source had analysed this product before write the
article about :)
Sure. Why not get Winnie the Pooh to review it too?
You can no trust to [] team but as for me I trust to Software
Developer Magazine
Where security matters, it makes sense to pick security experts. The regular
authors of magazine articles tend to be generalists who don't have time to
become experts in the fields they're writing about. (That doesn't mean you
don't get the occasional expert contributing to magazines, obviously.)
I would attribute little weight to such an article if it were /my/ code on
the line.No.26 | | 151 bytes |
| str2@ukr.net wrote:
You can no trust to EXECryptor team
No, we can indeed not trust you. Now stop spamming.
RichardNo.27 | | 732 bytes |
| Richard Heathfield wrote
(in article
<do67sn$nv6$1@>):
>You can no trust to [] team but as for me I trust to Software
>Developer Magazine
>
Where security matters, it makes sense to pick security experts. The regular
authors of magazine articles tend to be generalists who don't have time to
become experts in the fields they're writing about.
There are exceptions, but SDM isn't one of them. Now, if it
were looked at seriously in DDJ, I might pay attention. That is
an example of a magazine where the authors are typically very
well qualified. It may be one of the last remaining examples of
that particular trait in existence.
QUESTION ON "C/C++"
- Help Needed!
- What is the sentence mean?Thanks
- multiple storage classes: error
- Random vs. Sequential
- problem with encryption function sending hex values
- newbie-Why does an extra character appear?
- can we include and use different fonts in C programming
- Clocking proccesses' time
- Operator Precedence
- Need assistance with detecting improper input
- How to redefine arithmetic operators.
- C function for returning number of digits?
- direct string manuplation not working
- Why different from expectation
- realloc question
- can not figure out the problem
- Qualifier "volatile" - probably OT.
- function returning array of strings
- List of reentrant C library functions
- OT: To all United Trolls of C.L.C (UTC)