Utorrent is Make with MFC ??

[bratao]

Its compress by PEcompact2

but it make in C++ and Mfc, im right ??

[vurlix]

Pure bare-bones C++ with no cruft. No MFC. No Boost. No Standard Library.

This has been discussed a few times.

[slayers]

vurlix, by programing in this way aren't you making it all too easy for someone to make a hacked version of uTorrent?

I really can't understand why all the curiosity around the subject other than to get information on how to decompile it.

[ph0rn]

Maybe people are curious because it's the first client that has these characteristics.

[BlackLion]

vurlix, by programing in this way aren't you making it all too easy for someone to make a hacked version of uTorrent?

I really can't understand why all the curiosity around the subject other than to get information on how to decompile it.

I wouldnt be surprised if that is exactly the reason it isnt open source, by keeping it closed this way they have complete control over the quality and integrity of their creation, if something amiss DOES happen, we all will know where it came from. Vurlix and ludde are big enough people it seems to accept this responsibility. The threats of potential spyware/adware/malware from not being open source is a weak intimidation/invalidation psychology IMO, and you KNOW if there is something not right in the program it will show up almost immediately. Been quiet so far. That was my thing in the beginning, like, HOW can they make it so SMALL and so GOOD?? Im a convert. Obviously they are talented coders, this is evidence of that, and its a challenge to the folk that have nothing else better to do with their time other than to attempt to ruin what they couldnt come up with. Keep doing what you are doing Ludde and Vurlix. Im loving it.

[UTorrentUser]

vurlix, by programing in this way aren't you making it all too easy for someone to make a hacked version of uTorrent?

I really can't understand why all the curiosity around the subject other than to get information on how to decompile it.

I wouldnt be surprised if that is exactly the reason it isnt open source, by keeping it closed this way they have complete control over the quality and integrity of their creation, if something amiss DOES happen, we all will know where it came from. Vurlix and ludde are big enough people it seems to accept this responsibility. The threats of potential spyware/adware/malware from not being open source is a weak intimidation/invalidation psychology IMO, and you KNOW if there is something not right in the program it will show up almost immediately. Been quiet so far. That was my thing in the beginning, like, HOW can they make it so SMALL and so GOOD?? Im a convert. Obviously they are talented coders, this is evidence of that, and its a challenge to the folk that have nothing else better to do with their time other than to attempt to ruin what they couldnt come up with. Keep doing what you are doing Ludde and Vurlix. Im loving it.

Dit-fucking-to. Well said mate.

[MrTufty]

Yup. Open Source is not necessarily the answer to all the world's problems, which unfortunately seems to be quite a common attitude. If a greater quality of code can be achieved by keeping the source private, then that's perfectly fine by me!

Ludde and Vurlix are my new icons as programmers

[slayers]

My concern is exactly that. That it REMAINS closed source. It is closed source today due to the simple fact that the source is not published. But what prevents someone from decompiling the exe to derive the source code? It's a very small exe so maybe the challenge isn't that great if you know what your dealing with. They know the compressing scheme, the language and other details. Is it really impossible?

I'm over my head here since I don't code any longer, but I remember that there were ways to derive the source if the exe is was not too complicated (specially if it hasn't custom libraries and such). And if most of it is already in a low level language like Assembly it just might make the challenge feasible.

The more people ask for details (and get it), the more I think someone is really trying to do just that. Can someone prove me dead wrong so I can be at rest?

[vurlix]

Reverse engineering uTorrent would take many, many years to achieve, if at all possible. It's programmed in high level C++ and compiled into highly optimized machine code. There is no easy way to reverse this.

[slayers]

I rest my case.

[BlackLion]

Reverse engineering uTorrent would take many, many years to achieve, if at all possible. It's programmed in high level C++ and compiled into highly optimized machine code. There is no easy way to reverse this.

LOL with all due respect Vurlix, no KIDDING???? LOLOLOLOL as small and as efficient as it is, could it be any different?? Thank you for validating my earlier statement.

[KrMolot]

Pure bare-bones C++ with no cruft. No MFC. No Boost. No Standard Library.

This has been discussed a few times.

Why not assembler?

[Grauw]

Reverse engineering uTorrent would take many, many years to achieve, if at all possible. It's programmed in high level C++ and compiled into highly optimized machine code. There is no easy way to reverse this.

That sounds a bit exaggerated . I've disassembled some funky stuff programmed in Assembly, and it may be more difficult than code utilising common code structures but not that much more difficult. Actually, especially for such kind of code it is very educational, you can see exactly what kind of programming tricks are used .

But it would probably take more time than would be worth the effort. Disassembling is quite a tedious task. If someone wants to mimic (parts of) µTorrent, I'd say it's easier to start from scratch. The BitTorrent protocol is open, and it's not as if there is a secret art to keeping Windows software small, and code efficiently. It's just that most programmers don't take the effort, or they use Java .

~Grauw

[BlackLion]

Why not assembler?

This is why.......

-snip- I've disassembled some funky stuff programmed in Assembly-snip-

-snip-But it would probably take more time than would be worth the effort.-snip

-snip-It's just that most programmers don't take the effort-snip

There is no easy way to reverse this.

Basic protection. Make it more trouble than it is worth Making it good while you are doing it makes it all the better

[Niceguy]

Why not assembler?

assembly is slower to develop in, and generally much harder to maintain. also, compilers such as icc and vc does a very good job of optimizing code these days (and upcoming versions will improve even further). today however, a good seasoned assembly programmer will generally crank out code that is atleast as good or better than that of a compiler, but for 90% of the code in an application, those few cycles that he manages to shave off will amount to near nothing. the place where hand optimised assembly may still give bang for the buck is in cpu demanding, complex algorithms (in utorrents case that would be the sha1 hashing functionality for example), but even so the advantage of assembly will decrease as compiler evolution progress. add to that the advantage of being able to easily optimize for different cpu's and their capabilities (amd/intel, mmx/sse) by a simple recompile, then writing in assembly really becomes a hard sell.

it's funny, back when I was programming 68000 assembly on the good old Amiga, 'c' was sneered at as 'high-level'. and I for one felt back then that if you wanted to program in 'c' then you might aswell program in basic ^^. nowadays, 'c' is more or less the 'low level language', and new maintained languages such as java, c# etc are the new high-level breed.

btw, what compiler is used on utorrent? vc?

[bratao]

vurlix, No you wrong, its patethic and i already see many crack-me harder than this..

Any baby can unpack this..

i easyly change the UPLOAD= that you send to tracker to an *5 value, chage some string and go on..

And im not this such expericed cracker...

[BlackLion]

vurlix, No you wrong, its patethic and i already see many crack-me harder than this..

Any baby can unpack this..

i easyly change the UPLOAD= that you send to tracker to an *5 value, chage some string and go on..

And im not this such expericed cracker...

here we go....

not such experienced english user either. keep it. leave the man's program alone. make your own. dont go around attempting to spoil something that is good.

[Firon]

you could easily cheat with one of the open source clients by modifying the source and recompiling, big accomplishment you made here

or just use BitComet, they did the work for you already

[BlackLion]

you could easily cheat with one of the open source clients by modifying the source and recompiling, big accomplishment you made here

or just use BitComet, they did the work for you already

???? how do you figure....if the Comet was this resource efficient i'd still be using it. Im not...... the few puzze pieces that are missing from uTorrent arent enough for me to turn my box over to one program like that ever again. If its not Reason, Cakewalk or City of Heroes I aint doing it!!!!! In fact, i can now run those programs and contiinue to torrent, its as if it isnt there. Thanx Vurlix and ludde for giving me back my computer LOLOL

[Firon]

I meant that BitComet (some, all versions?) appears to cheat, and is banned from quite a few trackers I go to because of it. This guy wanted to hex edit uTorrent to make it report 5 times the upload value to the tracker.

[BlackLion]

I meant that BitComet (some, all versions?) appears to cheat, and is banned from quite a few trackers I go to because of it. This guy wanted to hex edit uTorrent to make it report 5 times the upload value to the tracker.

which is precisely why V and L are playing it close to the vest it seems to me.....too many h4ck3r wannabeez out there and they are trying to do a quality work here....if some idiot wanted to reverse it just so he could a) cheat on his ratio and in the process give a great client a bad name (see BitComet) he would have to work at it a bit....which may be more time/enengy/resources than is worth the result....which is exactly what I posted in the fourth reply in this same thread. The bottom line is IF there is someone that is talented enough to accomplish then that person is more than likely doing something positive rather than trying to convince other skript kiddiez of the size of his er, manhood. IF you get my drift.

[jroc]

The funny thing is u dont even have to hex edit anything to do a ratio cheat. The option is common in a couple of clients. Its in uTorrent too(Im not gonna say what it is tho ) It got me banned from 'the pig' cuz of a so called ratio cheat. Thats how I first learned a ratio cheat even existed. I say so called ratio cheat cuz to me a hack/cheat would trick the tracker into thinking u was uploading, or uploading a false value (ala the hex edit thing) when u wasnt. But I was uploading. (what I did involves real seeding/uploading, so how was I cheating?) And it was the right value. And I didnt hex edit anything. They just saw I had a 14.00 ratio on a torrent in one day and assumed. Oh well. (Im on 10Mbps down/800k up. They didnt wanna hear that either :cry: ).

Its ok tho. 'Dat demon dude' filled in the void of 'the pig' very well

[BlackLion]

in the process give a great client a bad name (see BitComet)

my point. The client didnt get you banned. You got you banned. I only have a < 1.250 on only one site I have ever dled from and that is cuz it sucked so bad I never returned. Seed.

[ddofborg]

Pure bare-bones C++ with no cruft. No MFC. No Boost. No Standard Library.

No external libs at all? It does look very good! I'd really like to see the code. I'm very curious how uT is written. If there is a chance to get more info about that, please let me know guys!

[chaosblade]

I doubt that, Even if your motives are innocent :]

And i still didnt see anyone being able to UNPACK uTorrent, let alone hack it. Pure BS :]