Mailenable License Key Generator

RandomKeygen is a free mobile-friendly tool that offers randomly generated keys and passwords you can use to secure any application, service or device. KEY RandomKeygen - The Secure Password & Keygen Generator.

I'm currently involved in developing a product (developed in C#) that'll be available for downloading and installing for free but in a very limited version. To get access to all the features the user has to pay a license fee and receive a key. That key will then be entered into the application to 'unlock' the full version. As using a license key like that is kind of usual I'm wondering:. How's that usually solved?.

How can I generate the key and how can it be validated by the application?. How can I also avoid having a key getting published on the Internet and used by others that haven't payed the license (a key that basically isn't 'theirs'). I guess I should also tie the key to the version of application somehow so it'll be possible to charge for new keys in feature versions. Anything else I should think about in this scenario? Worldfree4u jab tak hai jaan ws. Caveat: you can't prevent users from pirating, but only make it easier for honest users to do the right thing. Assuming you don't want to do a special build for each user, then:.

Generate yourself a secret key for the product. Take the user's name. Concatentate the users name and the secret key and hash with (for example) SHA1. Unpack the SHA1 hash as an alphanumeric string. This is the individual user's 'Product Key'. Within the program, do the same hash, and compare with the product key. If equal, OK.

But, I repeat: this won't prevent piracy I have recently read that this approach is not cryptographically very sound. But this solution is already weak ( as the software itself has to include the secret key somewhere), so I don't think this discovery invalidates the solution as far as it goes.

Just thought I really ought to mention this, though; if you're planning to derive something else from this, beware. I would think that by the time someone is hacking your code (possibly at the assembly level) to find your secret key, they are probably also at the level that they can just bypass your checks entirely. I don't think there's a method of registration so secure that it can survive a good hacker running the program locally. As the original comment said, it's really all about anything that makes it one step harder than simply copying the file. A lot of games these days have given up on copy protection and simply take the game content online, in which case the code is out of the hacker's hands. – Dec 4 '12 at 22:56.

There are many ways to generate license keys, but very few of those ways are truly secure. And it's a pity, because for companies, license keys have almost the same value as real cash. Ideally, you would want your license keys to have the following properties:. Only your company should be able to generate license keys for your products, even if someone completely reverse engineers your products (which WILL happen, I speak from experience). Obfuscating the algorithm or hiding an encryption key within your software is really out of the question if you are serious about controlling licensing. If your product is successful, someone will make a key generator in a matter of days from release. A license key should be useable on only one computer (or at least you should be able to control this very tightly).

A license key should be short and easy to type or dictate over the phone. You don't want every customer calling the technical support because they don't understand if the key contains a 'l' or a '1'. Your support department would thank you for this, and you will have lower costs in this area. So how do you solve these challenges?. The answer is simple but technically challenging: digital signatures using public key cryptography. Your license keys should be in fact signed 'documents', containing some useful data, signed with your company's private key. The signatures should be part of the license key.

The product should validate the license keys with the corresponding public key. This way, even if someone has full access to your product's logic, they cannot generate license keys because they don't have the private key. A license key would look like this: BASE32(CONCAT(DATA, PRIVATEKEYENCRYPTED(HASH(DATA)))) The biggest challenge here is that the classical public key algorithms have large signature sizes.

RSA512 has an 1024-bit signature. You don't want your license keys to have hundreds of characters.

One of the most powerful approaches is to use elliptic curve cryptography (with careful implementations to avoid the existing patents). ECC keys are like 6 times shorter than RSA keys, for the same strength. You can further reduce the signature sizes using algorithms like the Schnorr digital signature algorithm (patent expired in 2008 - good:) ). This is achievable by product activation (Windows is a good example). Basically, for a customer with a valid license key, you need to generate some 'activation data' which is a signed message embedding the computer's hardware id as the signed data.

This is usually done over the internet, but only ONCE: the product sends the license key and the computer hardware id to an activation server, and the activation server sends back the signed message (which can also be made short and easy to dictate over the phone). From that moment on, the product does not check the license key at startup, but the activation data, which needs the computer to be the same in order to validate (otherwise, the DATA would be different and the digital signature would not validate). Note that the activation data checking do not require verification over the Internet: it is sufficient to verify the digital signature of the activation data with the public key already embedded in the product. Well, just eliminate redundant characters like '1', 'l', '0', 'o' from your keys. Split the license key string into groups of characters.

Besides what has already been stated. Any use of.NET applications are inherently breakable because of the intermediate language issues.

A simple disassembly of the.NET code will open your product to anyone. They can easily bypass your licensing code at that point. You can't even use hardware values to create a key anymore. Virtual machines now allow someone to create an image of a 'licensed' machine and run it on any platform they choose. If it's expensive software there are other solutions.

If it's not, just make it difficult enough for the casual hacker. And accept the fact that there will be unlicensed copies out there eventually.

If your product is complicated, the inherent support issues will be create some protection for you. The only way to do everything you asked for is to require an internet access and verification with a server. The application needs to sign in to the server with the key, and then you need to store the session details, like the IP address. This will prevent the key from being used on several different machines. This is usually not very popular with the users of the application, and unless this is a very expensive and complicated application it's not worth it. You could just have a license key for the application, and then check client side if the key is good, but it is easy to distribute this key to other users, and with a decompiler new keys can be generated. I've implemented internet-based one-time activation on my company's software ( that requires a license key that refers to a license stored in the server's database.

The software hits the server with the key and is given license information that is then encrypted locally using an RSA key generated from some variables (a combination of CPUID and other stuff that won't change often) on the client computer and then stores it in the registry. It requires some server-side coding, but it has worked really well for us and I was able to use the same system when we expanded to browser-based software.

It also gives your sales people great info about who, where and when the software is being used. Any licensing system that is only handled locally is fully vulnerable to exploitation, especially with reflection in.NET.

But, like everyone else has said, no system is wholly secure. In my opinion, if you aren't using web-based licensing, there's no real point to protecting the software at all. With the headache that DRM can cause, it's not fair to the users who have actually paid for it to suffer.

When mass shootings like those in and, take place, we all want answers. We want to know why someone would do such a thing and how to keep it from happening again.

Increase Systems Performance by gaining back resourcesMicrosoft, windows, hack, trick,network, repair, troubleshoot Make your computer Faster. Kms office 2010 activator torrent.

One of the explanations politicians. “I think it’s the human inclination to explain this behavior as the result of mental illness, because it’s very hard to understand that individuals do not have to be mentally ill to do something frightening and tragic,” forensic psychologist J. That perspective remains fundamentally flawed.

Not only does it scapegoat a vulnerable population, it’s just inaccurate. Americans want someone to blame. People hug after the mass shooting at the country music festival in Las Vegas. Ethan Miller/Getty Images Mass shootings are complicated. Researchers spend a lot of time trying to determine predictors.

“The whole notion of mental illness and mass shootings is so poorly understood,”, a forensic psychiatrist at Georgetown University. “It’s like dealing with people in a parallel dimension.” Most Americans want to, something legislation can control. Found that 89% of gun owners and non-gun owners thought people with mental illness should have their access restricted. But experts say that just wouldn’t solve the problem. “Most gun violence — 98% — is not attributable to people with mental illness,”.

Most mentally ill people aren’t violent against others. A young girl leaves flowers on crosses named for the victims outside the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. Mark Ralston /AFP/Getty Images If we cured schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar, violent crime in the U.S. Would fall by only 4%, according to. “People with mental illness are people, and the vast majority aren’t any more of a risk than anyone else,” he said. The National Institute of Health that surveyed about 10,000 people in five urban areas from 1980-85. It asked if respondents had met criteria for mental illnesses and if they’d hit, punched, pushed, shoved, or otherwise violently attacked someone.

Analysts found that people meeting criteria for schizophrenia, major depression, and bipolar did become more likely to report violent behavior. But the share of overall violence explained by serious mental illness fell between 3 and 5.3%. Another factor explains violent outbursts better. Substance abuse and maltreatment can predict violence. This Connecticut State Police photo shows Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooter Adam Lanza as a child.

Connecticut State Police via Getty Images that mentally ill people with no substance abuse issues, who experienced no maltreatment as children, and never lived in adverse environments showed a lower risk of violence than the general population. “If you add any one of those three, it doubles,” Swanson explained. “If you add any two, it doubles again all three, your risk triples.” Subsequent research found that while non-substance-abusing mentally ill people have only a slightly higher risk of violence, that abuse hugely increases it. Prior arrests may also predict future outbursts. Two women embrace beside a memorial for victims of the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Fla. Spencer Platt/Getty Images, studies on found prior police records in 80- 90% of murderers.


That contrasts 15% of American adults overall. In a study of domestic murderers, 46% of the perpetrators had a restraining order against them at some point. Domestic violence precedes family murders more than 90% of the time. Compared to those with no criminal record, handgun purchasers with at least one misdemeanor conviction stand more likely to commit a new offense after they buy a gun., only those previously convicted of violent misdemeanors from owning firearms. The sole consistent similarity among mass shooters? A Newtown, Conn vigil remembering those killed in the Las Vegas shooting Spencer Platt/Getty Images, fixing the mental health system won’t stop mass murders, but researchers did find one consistent correlation.

“It would be ridiculous to hope that doing something about the mental-health system will stop these mass murders,” said Michael Stone, a forensic psychiatrist at the Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons. In a 2016 paper, Stone found that just two out of 10 mass killers had a serious mental illness diagnosis.

The rest carried personality or antisocial disorders or were disgruntled, jilted, humiliated, or full of intense rage. He called them unlikely to become identified or helped by the mental-health system, reformed or not. Another researcher explained why.

Most mass shooters don’t seek treatment for their issues. Family members cry at a prayer vigil for the Colorado mass shooting victims. Aaron Ontiveroz-Pool/Denver Post via Getty Images Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox. “The thing about mass killers is that they externalize blame,”. “All the disappointments, all the failures, the broken relationships, are because other people treated them wrong. They don’t see themselves as being inadequate and flawed.”, “very few of persons sic in the risky category of having anger traits combined with gun access had ever been hospitalized for a mental-health problem.” mass killers tend to share a few key characteristics — “depression, resentment, social isolation, the tendency to externalize blame, fascination with graphically violent entertainment, and a keen interest in weaponry.” The problem remains that the general population shares many of those characteristics. Just because an introverted doesn’t make him likely to shoot up a school.

Requiring therapists to report could have an adverse effect. People embrace at a memorial for victims of the church shooting in Charleston, S.C.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images that if laws required therapists to report their threatening patients to gun registries — — people who want guns can avoid therapy. That means more potentially violent people, not fewer. Attempting to flag angsty young males as future killers might push them closer toward violence, rather than away from it. The researcher further noted difficulties in linking psychopathic killers with the mental health system.

After studying mass shooters for decades, he concluded that the same things motivate killers as any angry person: revenge, money, power, a sense of loyalty, and a desire to create terror. How do we stop rage-filled men from killing? Assault rifles hang on the wall for sale at Blue Ridge Arsenal. Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images that shows countries with higher gun ownership rates see more gun deaths.

“It is a gun issue,”. “There are very few mass murderers who are certifiably crazy.” The U.S.

Has one of the highest rates of death by firearm in the developed world, according to. Globally, more restrictive gun laws lead to fewer mass murders. In Australia, for example, four mass shootings occurred between 1987 and 1996. After those incidents, As a result, Parliament passed stricter gun laws. Australia hasn’t seen a mass shooting since. Would more restrictive gun laws prevent mass shootings entirely? Maybe, maybe not.

But a wealth of research demonstrates flaws in blaming mental illness. Let’s look elsewhere for solutions. Follow on Facebook!