Welcome Guest.   Make a donation to an author on the site August 28, 2014, 06:16:46 PM  *

Please login or register.
Or did you miss your validation email?


Login with username and password (forgot your password?)
Why not become a lifetime supporting member of the site with a one-time donation of any amount? Your donation entitles you to a ton of additional benefits, including access to exclusive discounts and downloads, the ability to enter monthly free software drawings, and a single non-expiring license key for all of our programs.


You must sign up here before you can post and access some areas of the site. Registration is totally free and confidential.
 
Your Support Funds this Site: View the Supporter Yearbook.
   
   Forum Home   Thread Marks Chat! Downloads Search Login Register  
Pages: Prev 1 [2]   Go Down
  Reply  |  New Topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: Best Executable Compressor Programs  (Read 17383 times)
f0dder
Charter Honorary Member
***
Posts: 8,774



[Well, THAT escalated quickly!]

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #25 on: April 28, 2006, 02:05:17 PM »

Whoa, I thought UPX was dead tongue
Logged

- carpe noctem
masu
Member
**
Posts: 401

View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #26 on: April 28, 2006, 02:11:42 PM »

me, too
but obviously their forum is still dead Sad
Logged

Find+Run Robot 2.90.01
Windows 7
app103
That scary taskbar girl
Global Moderator
*****
Posts: 5,171



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #27 on: April 30, 2006, 01:37:20 AM »

if you were using this protector back in the old days you'd definintely see a difference in speed. i guess we all take advantage of the fact that new processor speeds all but hides these overactive protectors.

And how long ago were these 'old days'? I am concerned about this as I have one of those older, slower, low ram pc's and I wouldn't want to slow things down any more than it already is, considering that I won't release any software that isn't suitable for use on that pc.

I care about those that are stuck with old crap and can't afford the latest & greatest. I don't want to cheat them. Someone has to remember them...they are still out there, and they still have the need for software, and it wasn't long ago that I was among them with nothing but a P1, 233mhz, 64mb ram, running WinME as my one & only pc. (less than 6 months ago, and I was stuck on it for more than 2 years)

I am also concerned not about the one compressed app, but what kind of performance issues one would have if they ran numerous compressed apps at the same time on a pc like that. If it could cause a problem, I don't want to contribute to it by compressing mine.
Logged

f0dder
Charter Honorary Member
***
Posts: 8,774



[Well, THAT escalated quickly!]

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #28 on: April 30, 2006, 02:48:12 AM »

Quote
I am also concerned not about the one compressed app, but what kind of performance issues one would have if they ran numerous compressed apps at the same time on a pc like that. If it could cause a problem, I don't want to contribute to it by compressing mine.

You definitely shouldn't compress programs that will run multiple instances. With uncompressed programs, all code and data that isn't written to will be shared among multiple instances of the program. With compressed programs, ALL code/data in your app will be private to each instance.

Use a good tool like Process Explorer to check the "private bytes" of your app in compressed vs. uncompressed mode.
Logged

- carpe noctem
masu
Member
**
Posts: 401

View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #29 on: May 01, 2007, 06:01:57 AM »

UPX 3.0 is out now  Thmbsup


Quote
Changes in 3.00 (27 Apr 2007):
  * watcom/le & tmt/adam: fixed a problem when using certain filters

Changes in 2.93 beta (08 Mar 2007):
  * new formats Mach/i386 and Mach/fat support Mac OS X i686 and
    Universal binaries [i686 and PowerPC only]
  * dos/exe: LZMA is now also supported for 16-bit dos/exe. Please note that
    you have to explicitly use '--lzma' even for '--ultra-brute' here
    because runtime decompression is about 30 times slower than NRV -
    which is really noticeable on old machines.
  * dos/exe: fixed a rarely occuring bug in relocation handling
  * win32/pe & arm/pe: better icon compression handling

Changes in 2.92 beta (23 Jan 2007):
  * new option '--ultra-brute' which tries even more variants
  * slightly improved compression ratio for some files when
    using '--brute' or '--ultra-brute'
  * bug fixes

Changes in 2.91 beta (29 Nov 2006):
  * assorted bug fixes
  * arm/pe: fix "missing" icon & version info resource problem for wince 5
  * win32/pe & arm/pe: added option --compress-icons=3 to compress all icons

Changes in 2.90 beta (08 Oct 2006):
  * LZMA algorithm support for most of the 32-bit and 64-bit file formats;
    use new option '--lzma' to enable
  * new format: BSD/elf386 supporting FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD
    via auto-detection of PT_NOTE or EI_OSABI
  * arm/pe: all the NRV compression methods are now supported
    (only NRV2D is missing in thumb mode)
  * linux/elf386, linux/ElfAMD: remember /proc/self/exe in environment
  * major source code changes: the runtime decompression stubs are now
    built from internal ELF objects

http://upx.sourceforge.net/
Logged

Find+Run Robot 2.90.01
Windows 7
Curt
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 6,333

see users location on a map View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #30 on: April 15, 2010, 11:17:18 AM »

I use EXECryptor to protect and compress  (....)
(...) anyway, for these reasons i'd never use execryptor.

Mail from Agnitum support because of my complaint against false positives:

Quote
Dear Curt,

Thank you for your message.

These files are detected as suspicious because they are packed by a packer widely appreciated by malware authors (Execryptor), but the files themseves are clean. You can add them to program exclusions by right-clicking on them in the scanning results window.

We are sorry for the inconvenience.

--
All the best,
Svetlana Goncova
Agnitum Support
Logged
kyrathaba
N.A.N.Y. Organizer
Honorary Member
**
Posts: 3,010



while(! dead_horse){beat}

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #31 on: October 17, 2010, 12:19:28 PM »

Anyone know of a freeware .NET packer for 32/64-bit .NET applications?  I found, and downloaded, MPress 1.27, but AVG says it's infected with 2 virii.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2010, 12:21:13 PM by kyrathaba » Logged

Win 7 Home Premium 64bit-SP1 AMD Athlon II X2 220 Socket AM3 (938) @ 2.1GHz 6GB RAM Firefox 26.0
_________________________________________________________________________________________

I'm fighting against patent trolls. Join me and tell your representative to support the #SHIELDAct: https://eff.org/r.b6JJ /via @EFF

My DC page: http://kyrathaba.dcmembers.com | My blog: http://williambryanmiller.com/ | Proofreading Service: http://bit.ly/1fQSqQP

kyrathaba
N.A.N.Y. Organizer
Honorary Member
**
Posts: 3,010



while(! dead_horse){beat}

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #32 on: October 17, 2010, 12:38:19 PM »

Perhaps someone could confirm that MPress is/is not actually virus-laden?  Virus Total results were that 8 of 43 engines found virus/malware?  Yet even Primewares hosts this freeware.
Logged

Win 7 Home Premium 64bit-SP1 AMD Athlon II X2 220 Socket AM3 (938) @ 2.1GHz 6GB RAM Firefox 26.0
_________________________________________________________________________________________

I'm fighting against patent trolls. Join me and tell your representative to support the #SHIELDAct: https://eff.org/r.b6JJ /via @EFF

My DC page: http://kyrathaba.dcmembers.com | My blog: http://williambryanmiller.com/ | Proofreading Service: http://bit.ly/1fQSqQP

4wd
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 3,289



see users location on a map View Profile Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #33 on: October 17, 2010, 07:52:50 PM »

Outpost Security Suite reports no virus and doesn't complain when I run it.  Output files are considered clean also.

JottiScan result
Logged

Four wheel drive: Helping you get stuck faster, harder, further from help...........and it's no different on this forum Evil
kyrathaba
N.A.N.Y. Organizer
Honorary Member
**
Posts: 3,010



while(! dead_horse){beat}

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #34 on: October 17, 2010, 09:14:04 PM »

Interesting...

Total Virus shows 8 of 43 engines giving the thumbs down to "MPress".  But your Outpost Security Suite, and my MalWare Bytes and Spybot Search and Destroy say it's okay.  Wonder if I dare test it with one of my .NET executables?
Logged

Win 7 Home Premium 64bit-SP1 AMD Athlon II X2 220 Socket AM3 (938) @ 2.1GHz 6GB RAM Firefox 26.0
_________________________________________________________________________________________

I'm fighting against patent trolls. Join me and tell your representative to support the #SHIELDAct: https://eff.org/r.b6JJ /via @EFF

My DC page: http://kyrathaba.dcmembers.com | My blog: http://williambryanmiller.com/ | Proofreading Service: http://bit.ly/1fQSqQP

f0dder
Charter Honorary Member
***
Posts: 8,774



[Well, THAT escalated quickly!]

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #35 on: October 22, 2010, 01:30:39 PM »

Anyone know of a freeware .NET packer for 32/64-bit .NET applications?  I found, and downloaded, MPress 1.27, but AVG says it's infected with 2 virii.
Don't bother. Really, don't bother. The false A/V positives is reason enough (damn those bastards!), and the gains usually aren't worth it. I wonder about the penalties, though... I suspect you already get some "pessimization" wrt. multiple instances not sharing code in .NET because of the JIT'ed nature, but there's other potential pessimization as well, like reflecting over assemblies.

What's your perceived need of executable compression anyway?

Hypocrisy? - While I'm generally pretty much against executable compression, I do employ it on fSekrit. I'm defending it with "people might need to store their password file online as a single file, and grab it over slow links", but I've been considering whether to keep compressing for future releases.
Logged

- carpe noctem
4wd
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 3,289



see users location on a map View Profile Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #36 on: October 22, 2010, 06:42:46 PM »

What's your perceived need of executable compression anyway?

The only place I use it is to maximise free space on my "tool" flash drive.
Logged

Four wheel drive: Helping you get stuck faster, harder, further from help...........and it's no different on this forum Evil
kyrathaba
N.A.N.Y. Organizer
Honorary Member
**
Posts: 3,010



while(! dead_horse){beat}

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #37 on: October 28, 2010, 09:26:42 PM »

To be honest, I don't really have a perceived need for compression.  I've actually wondered, with the storage/performance of PCs nowadays, why compression of executables?  They say it speeds up execution, but how much, really?

I guess I've just been looking for a compressor of .NET apps out of curiosity, really.
Logged

Win 7 Home Premium 64bit-SP1 AMD Athlon II X2 220 Socket AM3 (938) @ 2.1GHz 6GB RAM Firefox 26.0
_________________________________________________________________________________________

I'm fighting against patent trolls. Join me and tell your representative to support the #SHIELDAct: https://eff.org/r.b6JJ /via @EFF

My DC page: http://kyrathaba.dcmembers.com | My blog: http://williambryanmiller.com/ | Proofreading Service: http://bit.ly/1fQSqQP

f0dder
Charter Honorary Member
***
Posts: 8,774



[Well, THAT escalated quickly!]

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #38 on: October 29, 2010, 04:00:08 AM »

Hm, speeds up execution...

The application will load from disk a bit faster - in theory. Thing is, Windows does demand-paged execution, meaning it won't load parts of your application from disk until they're used. This is defeated by exe compression, since the entire module will be loaded at once (I'm not sure how much of a .NET assembly is loaded under normal execution... so perhaps this isn't such a big problem).

There's additional CPU usage because of the decompression, but the decompressors are fast - even on older machines, the time to decompress the additional data is a lot lower than reading data from disk (but again, we're ignoring demand-paging here).

HOWEVER, in reality, your executable is likely to load a lot less slower on a lot of end-user systems, regardless. Why? Anti-malware software. When doing on-demand scanning of executables, the anti-malware software has to decompress the executable before it can scan it - and for safety reasons, it can't just execute the executable's own decompressor, it has to have specific support for the exe-packer used, or run (slow!) sandboxed code emulation.
Logged

- carpe noctem
Pages: Prev 1 [2]   Go Up
  Reply  |  New Topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  
   Forum Home   Thread Marks Chat! Downloads Search Login Register  

DonationCoder.com | About Us
DonationCoder.com Forum | Powered by SMF
[ Page time: 0.054s | Server load: 0.09 ]