Bad Quick Batch File Compiler usage

Convert your BATch files into EXEcutable format in one click.
Post Reply
J Dark Shadow
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: N/A

Bad Quick Batch File Compiler usage

Post by J Dark Shadow » Sat Aug 04, 2007 9:22 pm

I've known QBFC for a year now, and today something happened to me...I know that some people use Quick Batch File Compiler to make bad programs. My computer frozed earlier today (as usual lol), and when my Windows started, I had an error message popup, something about "program.exe" in the "C:\WINDOWS\java" directory. So I went to take a look and see what the hell was "program.exe", but the "java" folder was empty. Then I thought maybe it's hidden, so I want to the folder options to unhide all hidden files and folders...then I saw some files hidden in the "java" folder. There was "program.exe" of course, "regkeyadd.reg", "kill.exe" and another EXE file I think it was called "start prog.exe". But the thing is that both "program.exe" and "start prog.exe" had the default icon of QBFC, so I was wondering if they batch files compiled with QBFC. So I right clicked each file and clicked "Decompile with QuickBFC", and I got prompted by a password window, which means that it was created with QBFC otherwise I would have got an error message saying that it wasn't created with QBFC. I didn't know the password, but I could take a look at the source code anyway (I'm sure some of you guys know how too, and dear support, is there anyway you guys could fix this in the next QBFC version update?). Then when I saw that "program.exe" was adding the "regkeyadd.reg" file in the registry and was killing a bunch of EXE process and stopping some services. That's I realized it was some sort of trojan or something...so I went on Google to get info about each EXE file that it was killing, and they were Antivirus processes, I think all popular ones were on the list, same thing for the services. So ok, I could erase the bad files and the registry key...but some people are using QBFC to make a malicious tool in which points to disable the security on peoples computers...this sucks! I think QBFC is a great program, but I know that some people have been using it for bad purposes...and who ever does that, just stop it's not cool. It's just to say, please people, use QBFC for good purposes only, not nasty things...I'm sure there are many ways you can help people instead of giving them problems. Anyways, let me know what you think guys.



J Dark Shadow

sKurt
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 5:37 am

Re: Bad Quick Batch File Compiler usage

Post by sKurt » Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:44 am

J Dark Shadow wrote:I've known QBFC for a year now, and today something happened to me...I'm sure there are many ways you can help people instead of giving them problems. Anyways, let me know what you think guys.

J Dark Shadow
Hmmm Just what do you think they should do? People use compilers all the time to make such files. C++ C# Pascal, Batch, Basic, Python, Java on and on. QBFC has nothing to do with these people or how they use their program compiler.

I Know! Lets make everyone sign a paper stating they won't do bad things to good peoples PCs!

J Dark Shadow
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: N/A

Reply

Post by J Dark Shadow » Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:54 am

Yeah, the paper thing is a great idea! loll. No...I'm just saying, there's a lot of programs I wrote and I don't need to write shit stuff. I know people will always have fun writing viruses: hey, it's the computer war game, kinda fun, but a lil bit less fun when you get hit yourself...anyways.



J Dark Shadow

support
Site Admin
Posts: 399
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 1:05 pm

Post by support » Mon Aug 13, 2007 3:57 pm

From this year we will offer latest versions of QBFC only for registrered customers. Trial versions will be available for all, but in most cases will be detected by Antivirus software as suspicious applications.

J Dark Shadow
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: N/A

...

Post by J Dark Shadow » Mon Aug 13, 2007 4:36 pm

yeah but is there any way you could protect your batch file source code in the next version of QBFC? Because right now seems like the password thing is now enough :S...

support
Site Admin
Posts: 399
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 1:05 pm

Re: ...

Post by support » Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:23 pm

J Dark Shadow wrote:yeah but is there any way you could protect your batch file source code in the next version of QBFC? Because right now seems like the password thing is now enough :S...
We already removed decompilation in latest version.

J Dark Shadow
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: N/A

...

Post by J Dark Shadow » Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:16 am

1 - When I right click a QBFC file to decompile it, it says This file is protected with "passwrod" instead of "password"...

2 - And the source code of any QBFC file can be seen even if it's been compiled with a password...just start the application and while it's running, head to the TMP folder and that's it.



J Dark Shadow

sKurt
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 5:37 am

Re: ...

Post by sKurt » Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:17 am

J Dark Shadow wrote:
2 - And the source code of any QBFC file can be seen even if it's been compiled with a password...just start the application and while it's running, head to the TMP folder and that's it.

J Dark Shadow
Fixed in 2.5 It also used to 'decompile' its internal files to the same place.

i.e. if you included a file say COPY.COM then it would decompile your .BAT into TMP as well as the includes so you would have

MYFILE.BAT and COPY.COM in \TMP

J Dark Shadow
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: N/A

Post by J Dark Shadow » Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:55 am

humm you really mean version 2.5, not version 2.1.5.0 right?

sKurt
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 5:37 am

Post by sKurt » Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:10 am

J Dark Shadow wrote:humm you really mean version 2.5, not version 2.1.5.0 right?
The About box on mine says;

2.5.0.6

:shock:

J Dark Shadow
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: N/A

Post by J Dark Shadow » Tue Aug 21, 2007 6:12 am

ok, I have a lower version then.



J Dark Shadow

Post Reply