[VB.Net] Make a Inbuilt keylogger

(07-26-2011, 11:13 PM)blowdoof Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

(01-19-2011, 09:56 PM)The 7th Sage Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

yea, i'll post one later.

if you won't, i will :-)

note - to avoid abuse, i'll only post the essential...haha..

Hidden Content

You must

[To see links please register here]

or

[To see links please register here]

to view this content.

You just copied that from someplace which is obvious because you didn't include the definition of HookProc along with several other API's that this would need. As well it also doesn't look like a really optimized method anyways. It's not really the essentials anyways, the essential part is overriding WndProc.

Edit: It wouldn't be abuse anyways since it's available basically everywhere, but not many actually understand Windows Messages and how they are interpreted.

I'd suggest not to comment too much on code you didn't post and don't exactly understand.
You ask for the definition of HookProc? Well, that tells me you don't know what you're talking about. Let me give you 1 of a million possible definitions for HookProc:

Hidden Content

You must

[To see links please register here]

or

[To see links please register here]

to view this content.

And

it would need several other API's

? No it doesn't. In it's simplest way, you'd only have to import the win32 library
This code was posted as an example, never meant to be a copy/paste code for anyone, just a starting point on learning about winhooks.
I'm curious about your 'optimized' code for above methods. And yes, i admit, i do reuse code. Why reinvent the wheel? That's also a part of being a programmer, reuse of code.

I'd suggest not to comment too much on code you didn't post and don't exactly understand.

I can guarantee I understand it better than you do, so don't word it this way.

You ask for the definition of HookProc? Well, that tells me you don't know what you're talking about. Let me give you 1 of a million possible definitions for HookProc:

It tells me I don't know what i'm talking about because you can't declare something in your "own" code? Don't be such an idiot. This is like saying that I don't know what i'm talking about for asking you what a variable is, and for the reason that it could be a number of things.

? No it doesn't. In it's simplest way, you'd only have to import the win32 library

SetWindowsHookEx is an API nutcase, and in it's basic form this is still fairly lame even with the little bit of code you've provided, and claiming trying to hide it from "abuse". So don't tell me when I don't know what i'm talking about when you've only just proved you don't understand your "own" code. You stand in the wrong place to claim that I don't know what i'm talking about skid.

Why reinvent the wheel?

To make it better? We'd be stuck with only a Mac if people didn't try to reinvent something new.

That's also a part of being a programmer, reuse of code.

lol let me ask you what you do for a job?

hiiii how to add the application windows startup registry uatmaticaly when installing?

So you're claiming you don't reuse code? Well i guess you're using your own framework as well? Something you've surely learned to do at school. (at least, i did)
Since you'd like to write everything yourself, i wonder what you do for a living? You must have lots of spare time
And i'm also waiting for your optimized methods of above code.

So you're claiming you don't reuse code? Well i guess you're using your own framework as well?

Well in that case I guess we all should be writing programs in 1's and 0's then hey? lol what a sad excuse to try and get me to have a second thought here about what I said. This is common sense. You use C++, and you're using Libraries, your own IDE compiler is written in a language that writes your code for you down to another language down to something that your machine can read as binary, so it's unavoidable.

Since you'd like to write everything yourself, i wonder what you do for a living? You must have lots of spare time

I am a programmer. I've worked with various hardware, and also now Crestron.

And i'm also waiting for your optimized methods of above code.

What so you can show me how to "abuse" code? And show me how to re-use code too since you have something a little more updated than what you claim to have been re-using as the code you've posted? lol

Well in that case I guess we all should be writing programs in 1's and 0's then hey

A framework is not a compiler. In fact, a framework does exactly what i've posted before and you claim not to do: let you reuse code that was written before. And don't tell me you don't do it.

What so you can show me how to "abuse" code?

I've only asked you to prove your statement. It's easy to say code is inaccurate, but it's worthless unproven. And me re-using your code? Why should i. Don't even understand why you're reacting on a 1 year old thread anyway.

Sorry never heard of Creston before, but sounds interesting. What exactly do you write? Hardware interaction or software applications?

(05-01-2012, 11:47 AM)blowdoof Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

Well in that case I guess we all should be writing programs in 1's and 0's then hey

A framework is not a compiler. In fact, a framework does exactly what i've posted before and you claim not to do: let you reuse code that was written before. And don't tell me you don't do it.

What so you can show me how to "abuse" code?

I've only asked you to prove your statement. It's easy to say code is inaccurate, but it's worthless unproven. And me re-using your code? Why should i. Don't even understand why you're reacting on a 1 year old thread anyway.

Sorry never heard of Creston before, but sounds interesting. What exactly do you write? Hardware interaction or software applications?

Although :whistle: Where did I say .NET Framework was a compiler? I said most modern languages are really just other lower level languages that interpret convert keywords back to something which can be read by the computer down to binary. BUT, my main point, the methods in these languages are mostly libraries which other programmers have already written out. Obviously those methods get re-used, because they do what they were intended to do.

And don't tell me you don't do it.

Yeah, I use .NET, but I hardly re-use my code. Lots of things become standard and similar, and probably repetative, but I don't have a need to build my own libraries or classes or functions for re-use, unless i'm absolutely sure that it's optimized, then i'd probably go ahead and build a dll for it. But I don't really do this, because most of what I do specifically in .NET is a hobby, and i'm always re-optimizing my previous code anyway and trying new ways. .NET Framework 4.5 is out, so there will be even better methods to use anyways all the time. Asynchronous methods will also be twice as easy apparently.

Not to mention it really depends on what you are programming as to what may be the best method to use.

Don't even understand why you're reacting on a 1 year old thread anyway

It's been bumped and the only newest activity in the programming areas, so i'm always commenting on whatever new comes up in these parts :smile:

Sorry never heard of Creston before, but sounds interesting. What exactly do you write? Hardware interaction or software applications?

This would be mainly automation that I do. C# or Java (don't enjoy Java as much) or the choice of C++ as well, and mainly reading bytes through an RS-232 input or USB down to an electronic device.

[To see links please register here]

I fully agree that the methods used should be optimized for the final goal. I hate those repetitive tasks however, kind of monkey work (and sometimes we just have to do it :sad: ). Because i write lots of financial apps and other similar stuff, i tend to reuse as much as possible where i can (but only those parts that have been optimized. And i must since i'm self-employed, time=money, etc...). Have to admit that i do it more often in web languages then .net for example.
Will have to digg deeper into the .net 4.5, especially since you mention easier async methods. (can be a real pain in the ass while debugging or writing testcases). time is somewhat lacking currently to check out new things.

Writing new routines for crestron sounds much more challenging then those 1000 cruds i have to deal with

very nice tutorial!! thanks for this i will try it out!