Steven Seagal wrote:Not seriously, but I wanted to give it a go, and various tools, like PE Explorer, seem to stall on Steem.exe.
Then I tried with IDA Pro, and it gives messages saying the executable might be protected. Is it possible? I think the authors used the free Borland C++ compiler. It would be surprising if it included protection features.
Steven Seagal wrote:I thought about it. Why should the Steem authors open their source? After all, the WinSTon author opened his source and not much happened. It's a shame. So,rather than try and reverse engeneer Steem, I've loaded the WinSTon source in VC6 (still my IDE anyway), and begun tinkering in it, like making a debug build that works with MFC, transforming C into C++, etc.
I'll let you all know if it leads to something useful...
Steven Seagal wrote:I thought about it. Why should the Steem authors open their source? After all, the WinSTon author opened his source and not much happened. It's a shame.
Ato wrote:In my experience, not releasing source code is because of either or both of two reasons:
1. The source code sucks (add big time if you like) and the company/developer is alergic to/afaraid of criticism/questions about the code quality.
2. The company/developer believe that they have invented the quantum hyper drive algorithm in their software and want to keep it secret for dubious reasons.
SofiST wrote:I can add some mine ideas:
4. Code self likely sucks not much, but listings (sources) are ugly, not well commented and similar. Before publishing they'd need invest some time to make it nicer and more usable.
5. Pure lazynes and lack of care (maybe combined with disappointment in community) - some people even never replies on mails, PMs .
6. There are some dirty tricks in code to achieve some things, what is not according to programming schools, books.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests