[vb6]password protection

I'm writing this right here because i'm so BOOOOREEEDDDDDDD And i wanna program but can't because i'm not home so here this is

What you need
1 text box - txtPassword
1 Command button - cmdSubmit

Option Explicit



Private Sub cmdSubmit_click()

      If (txtPassword.text = ("Password")) Then

            Call Msgbox ("Access granted",vbinformation,"Success")

      Else

            Call Msgbox ("Access denied",vbinformation,"Error")

     End if

End Sub

This is easily by-passable >.< No offense but it is.

I know this is. I have an encryption one I made when I first started and it's really hard to bypass but this is just for noobs.

Hey chad, when you get back home, dont forget to add me.

ontopic : this is easy to bypass, but useful to somepeople. I want to see the encrypted one when you get home ;D

How would you bypass it?

Also, you don't need the () around "Password"

GAMEchief wrote:

How would you bypass it?

Also, you don't need the () around "Password"

You can bypass it with hex editing and stuff. not quite sure, because I've never done it, but I know that you need a hex editor.

Also, the Brackets help contain data

They aren't required though :p

Bman wrote:

Hey chad, when you get back home, dont forget to add me.

ontopic : this is easy to bypass, but useful to somepeople. I want to see the encrypted one when you get home ;D

This is helpful to a beginner... (Like 1st or second program...)

Yeah I am interested in that too, If you don't mind...

I want to see how you encrypted it...

GAMEchief wrote:

How would you bypass it?

Also, you don't need the () around "Password"

I know it's not needed but it's good programming practice and it's also cleaner.

GAMEchief wrote:

How would you bypass it?

Also, you don't need the () around "Password"

Simple hex editing. And there are specific programs for changing strings and stuff like that in programs.

GAMEchief wrote:

How would you bypass it?

Also, you don't need the () around "Password"

Believe it or not the password would actually appear in plaintext if you opened it in any text editor.

I know it's not needed but it's good programming practice and it's also cleaner.

The standard is actually to not use parenthesis where they aren't required, because it's cleaner without them. >_>

Believe it or not the password would actually appear in plaintext if you opened it in any text editor.

A compiled EXE would? lawl.

The standard is actually to not use parenthesis where they aren't required, because it's cleaner without them. >_>

It is cleaner and better practice. Don't know who or were you were told that your not suppose to use them but it is cleaner. Helps keep information organized.

Chad wrote:

It is cleaner and better practice. Don't know who or were you were told that your not suppose to use them but it is cleaner. Helps keep information organized.

lol. Not around strings, you don't. You use them around functions, operators, etc., but not around something that isn't part of a group.
It's debatable as to whether or to use them around a multiple if statement:
if ((part1 == 2) && (part2 == 3))
versus
if (part1 == 2 && part2 == 3)
Because it groups the sections of the if statement.
However, a single string isn't being grouped with anything but itself. The point of grouping is so that you can see what all that string/statement/whatever is a part of. It's obviously a part of itself and doesn't need parenthesis to denote that.

GAMEchief wrote:

lol. Not around strings, you don't. You use them around functions, operators, etc., but not around something that isn't part of a group.
It's debatable as to whether or to use them around a multiple if statement:
if ((part1 == 2) && (part2 == 3))
versus
if (part1 == 2 && part2 == 3)
Because it groups the sections of the if statement.
However, a single string isn't being grouped with anything but itself. The point of grouping is so that you can see what all that string/statement/whatever is a part of. It's obviously a part of itself and doesn't need parenthesis to denote that.

Honestly I want to know why your trying to fight back in a simple subject that you could have let go. You program the way you want to, messy. I'll program the way I want, Clean. End of discussion.

Because you're implying that your method is in any way standard or cleaner.

GAMEchief wrote:

Because you're implying that your method is in any way standard or cleaner.

I think he is just saying that it is another way of coding he can state that he likes it one way rather than the other, Maybe it may be cleaner to him, maybe you don't like to use it and thats fine.

Its kinda like the " 'Blah Blah Blah " function some people like to leave notes, I personally don't because it adds lines, and looks nicer without them to me... But thats me...

It's just all based on opinion... He may see it as cleaner but who cares (No offence meant to either of you)...

That's fine if it's his programming preference. I've had my share of strange coding habits over the years. It was his response of saying that it's "good programming practice" and "cleaner" that threw me off, as I've never heard of anyone doing that for any language. It's certainly not standard.

GAMEchief wrote:

That's fine if it's his programming preference. I've had my share of strange coding habits over the years. It was his response of saying that it's "good programming practice" and "cleaner" that threw me off, as I've never heard of anyone doing that for any language. It's certainly not standard.

Yeah there isn't any more practice for putting more parenthesis, I caught that earlier too...

But the cleaner part is based on opinion...

Any post about the parenthesis after this is spam.

What is possibly the point of this "password protection"?

Nat wrote:

What is possibly the point of this "password protection"?

To only allow people with the password to run the program, but as previously stated it is very easily bypassed.

Chris wrote:

To only allow people with the password to run the program, but as previously stated it is very easily bypassed.

Haha no I understood that obviously, just poking fun at how easily bypassed it is.

Nat wrote:

Haha no I understood that obviously, just poking fun at how easily bypassed it is.

If you under stood it then why did you post?

Chad wrote:

If you under stood it then why did you post?

Nat wrote:

just poking fun at how easily bypassed it is.

@Nat,
The main point of it being that most people won't know how to bypass it.

Oh alright. Sorry didn't understand that.

Nat wrote:

What is possibly the point of this "password protection"?

If people don't know the password then they can't access your program...

Because most likely they won't know how to brute force the program or anything...