Easy Photo Grabber v1.3 serial key or number

Keystroke logging, often referred to as keylogging or keyboard capturing, is the action of recording (logging) the keys struck on a keyboard, typically covertly, so that person using the keyboard is unaware that their actions are being monitored. Data can then be retrieved by the person operating the logging program. A keystroke recorder or keylogger can be either software or hardware.

While the programs themselves are legal,^[1] with many of them being designed to allow employers to oversee the use of their computers, keyloggers are most often used for stealing passwords and other confidential information.^[2][3]

Keylogging can also be used to study human-computer interaction. Numerous keylogging methods exist: they range from hardware and software-based approaches to acoustic analysis.

Application[edit]

Software-based keyloggers[edit]

A keylogger example of a screen capture, which holds potentially confidential and private information. The image below holds the corresponding keylogger text result.

A logfile from a software-based keylogger, based on the screen capture above.

Software-based keyloggers are computer programs designed to work on the target computer's software.^[4] Keyloggers are used in IT organizations to troubleshoot technical problems with computers and business networks. Families and business people use keyloggers legally to monitor network usage without their users' direct knowledge. Even Microsoft publicly admitted that Windows 10 operation system has a built-in keylogger in its final version “to improve typing and writing services”.^[5] However, malicious individuals can use keyloggers on public computers to steal passwords or credit card information. Most keyloggers are not stopped by HTTPS encryption because that only protects data in transit between computers, thus the threat being from the user's computer.

From a technical perspective, there are several categories:

• Hypervisor-based: The keylogger can theoretically reside in a malwarehypervisor running underneath the operating system, which thus remains untouched. It effectively becomes a virtual machine. Blue Pill is a conceptual example.
• Kernel-based: A program on the machine obtains root access to hide in the OS and intercepts keystrokes that pass through the kernel. This method is difficult both to write and to combat. Such keyloggers reside at the kernel level, which makes them difficult to detect, especially for user-mode applications that don't have root access. They are frequently implemented as rootkits that subvert the operating system kernel to gain unauthorized access to the hardware. This makes them very powerful. A keylogger using this method can act as a keyboard device driver, for example, and thus gain access to any information typed on the keyboard as it goes to the operating system.
• API-based: These keyloggers hook keyboard APIs inside a running application. The keylogger registers keystroke events as if it was a normal piece of the application instead of malware. The keylogger receives an event each time the user presses or releases a key. The keylogger simply records it.
  • Windows APIs such as , , etc. are used to poll the state of the keyboard or to subscribe to keyboard events.^[6] A more recent example simply polls the BIOS for pre-boot authentication PINs that have not been cleared from memory.^[7]
• Form grabbing based: Form grabbing-based keyloggers log web form submissions by recording the web browsing on submit events. This happens when the user completes a form and submits it, usually by clicking a button or hitting enter. This type of keylogger records forms data before it is passed over the Internet.
• Javascript-based: A malicious script tag is injected into a targeted web page, and listens for key events such as . Scripts can be injected via a variety of methods, including cross-site scripting, man-in-the-browser, man-in-the-middle, or a compromise of the remote web site.^[8]
• Memory-injection-based: Memory Injection (MitB)-based keyloggers perform their logging function by altering the memory tables associated with the browser and other system functions. By patching the memory tables or injecting directly into memory, this technique can be used by malware authors to bypass Windows UAC (User Account Control). The Zeus and SpyEye trojans use this method exclusively.^[9] Non-Windows systems have protection mechanisms that allow access to locally recorded data from a remote location.^{[clarification needed]} Remote communication may be achieved when one of these methods is used:
  • Data is uploaded to a website, database or an FTP server.
  • Data is periodically emailed to a pre-defined email address.
  • Data is wirelessly transmitted employing an attached hardware system.
  • The software enables a remote login to the local machine from the Internet or the local network, for data logs stored on the target machine.

Keystroke logging in writing process research[edit]

Keystroke logging is now an established research method for the study of writing processes.^[10][11] Different programs have been developed to collect online process data of writing activities,^[12] including Inputlog, Scriptlog, and Translog.

Keystroke logging is legitimately used as a suitable research instrument in several writing contexts. These include studies on cognitive writing processes, which include

• descriptions of writing strategies; the writing development of children (with and without writing difficulties),
• spelling,
• first and second language writing, and
• specialist skill areas such as translation and subtitling.

Keystroke logging can be used to research writing, specifically. It can also be integrated into educational domains for second language learning, programming skills, and typing skills.

Related features[edit]

Software keyloggers may be augmented with features that capture user information without relying on keyboard key presses as the sole input. Some of these features include:

• Clipboard logging. Anything that has been copied to the clipboard can be captured by the program.
• Screen logging. Screenshots are taken to capture graphics-based information. Applications with screen logging abilities may take screenshots of the whole screen, of just one application, or even just around the mouse cursor. They may take these screenshots periodically or in response to user behaviors (for example, when a user clicks the mouse). A practical application that is used by some keyloggers with this screen logging ability, is to take small screenshots around where a mouse has just clicked; thus defeating web-based keyboards (for example, the web-based screen keyboards that are often used by banks), and any web-based on-screen keyboard without screenshot protection.
• Programmatically capturing the text in a control. The Microsoft WindowsAPI allows programs to request the text 'value' in some controls. This means that some passwords may be captured, even if they are hidden behind password masks (usually asterisks).^[13]
• The recording of every program/folder/window opened including a screenshot of every website visited.
• The recording of search engines queries, instant messenger conversations, FTP downloads and other Internet-based activities (including the bandwidth used).

Hardware-based keyloggers[edit]

A hardware-based keylogger.

A connected hardware-based keylogger.

Hardware-based keyloggers do not depend upon any software being installed as they exist at a hardware level in a computer system.

• Firmware-based: BIOS-level firmware that handles keyboard events can be modified to record these events as they are processed. Physical and/or root-level access is required to the machine, and the software loaded into the BIOS needs to be created for the specific hardware that it will be running on.^[14]
• Keyboard hardware: Hardware keyloggers are used for keystroke logging utilizing a hardware circuit that is attached somewhere in between the computer keyboard and the computer, typically inline with the keyboard's cable connector. There are also USB connectors based Hardware keyloggers as well as ones for Laptop computers (the Mini-PCI card plugs into the expansion slot of a laptop). More stealthy implementations can be installed or built into standard keyboards so that no device is visible on the external cable. Both types log all keyboard activity to their internal memory, which can be subsequently accessed, for example, by typing in a secret key sequence. A hardware keylogger has an advantage over a software solution: it is not dependent on being installed on the target computer's operating system and therefore will not interfere with any program running on the target machine or be detected by any software. However, its physical presence may be detected if, for example, it is installed outside the case as an inline device between the computer and the keyboard. Some of these implementations can be controlled and monitored remotely using a wireless communication standard.^[15]
• Wireless keyboard and mouse sniffers: These passive sniffers collect packets of data being transferred from a wireless keyboard and its receiver. As encryption may be used to secure the wireless communications between the two devices, this may need to be cracked beforehand if the transmissions are to be read. In some cases, this enables an attacker to type arbitrary commands into a victim's computer.^[16]
• Keyboard overlays: Criminals have been known to use keyboard overlays on ATMs to capture people's PINs. Each keypress is registered by the keyboard of the ATM as well as the criminal's keypad that is placed over it. The device is designed to look like an integrated part of the machine so that bank customers are unaware of its presence.^[17]
• Acoustic keyloggers: Acoustic cryptanalysis can be used to monitor the sound created by someone typing on a computer. Each key on the keyboard makes a subtly different acoustic signature when struck. It is then possible to identify which keystroke signature relates to which keyboard character via statistical methods such as frequency analysis. The repetition frequency of similar acoustic keystroke signatures, the timings between different keyboard strokes and other context information such as the probable language in which the user is writing are used in this analysis to map sounds to letters.^[18] A fairly long recording (1000 or more keystrokes) is required so that a big enough sample is collected.^[19]
• Electromagnetic emissions: It is possible to capture the electromagnetic emissions of a wired keyboard from up to 20 metres (66 ft) away, without being physically wired to it.^[20] In 2009, Swiss researchers tested 11 different USB, PS/2 and laptop keyboards in a semi-anechoic chamber and found them all vulnerable, primarily because of the prohibitive cost of adding shielding during manufacture.^[21] The researchers used a wide-band receiver to tune into the specific frequency of the emissions radiated from the keyboards.
• Optical surveillance: Optical surveillance, while not a keylogger in the classical sense, is nonetheless an approach that can be used to capture passwords or PINs. A strategically placed camera, such as a hidden surveillance camera at an ATM, can allow a criminal to watch a PIN or password being entered.^[22][23]
• Physical evidence: For a keypad that is used only to enter a security code, the keys which are in actual use will have evidence of use from many fingerprints. A passcode of four digits, if the four digits in question are known, is reduced from 10,000 possibilities to just 24 possibilities (10⁴ versus 4! (factorial of 4)). These could then be used on separate occasions for a manual "brute force attack".
• Smartphone sensors: Researchers have demonstrated that it is possible to capture the keystrokes of nearby computer keyboards using only the commodity accelerometer found in smartphones.^[24] The attack is made possible by placing a smartphone near a keyboard on the same desk. The smartphone's accelerometer can then detect the vibrations created by typing on the keyboard and then translate this raw accelerometer signal into readable sentences with as much as 80 percent accuracy. The technique involves working through probability by detecting pairs of keystrokes, rather than individual keys. It models "keyboard events" in pairs and then works out whether the pair of keys pressed is on the left or the right side of the keyboard and whether they are close together or far apart on the QWERTY keyboard. Once it has worked this out, it compares the results to a preloaded dictionary where each word has been broken down in the same way.^[25] Similar techniques have also been shown to be effective at capturing keystrokes on touchscreen keyboards^[26][27][28] while in some cases, in combination with gyroscope^[29][30] or with the ambient-light sensor.^[31]
• Body keyloggers: Body keyloggers tracks and analyze body movements to determine which keys were stroke. The attacker needs to be familiar with the keys layout of the tracked keyboard to correlate between body movements and keys position. Tracking audible signals of the user' interface (e.g. a sound the device produce to informs the user that a keystroke was logged) may reduce the complexity of the body keylogging algorithms, as it marks the moment at which a key was pressed.^[32]

History[edit]

In the mid-1970s, the Soviet Union developed and deployed a hardware keylogger targeting typewriters. Termed the "selectric bug", it measured the movements of the print head of IBM Selectric typewriters via subtle influences on the regional magnetic field caused by the rotation and movements of the print head.^[33] An early keylogger was written by Perry Kivolowitz and posted to the Usenet newsgroup net.unix-wizards, net.sources on November 17, 1983.^[34] The posting seems to be a motivating factor in restricting access to on Unix systems. The user-mode program operated by locating and dumping character lists (clients) as they were assembled in the Unix kernel.

In the 1970s, spies installed keystroke loggers in the US Embassy and Consulate buildings in Moscow.^[35][36] They installed the bugs in Selectric II and Selectric III electric typewriters.^[37]

Soviet embassies used manual typewriters, rather than electric typewriters, for classified information—apparently because they are immune to such bugs.^[37] As of 2013, Russian special services still use typewriters.^[36][38][39]

Cracking[edit]

Writing simple software applications for keylogging can be trivial, and like any nefarious computer program, can be distributed as a trojan horse or as part of a virus. What is not trivial for an attacker, however, is installing a covert keystroke logger without getting caught and downloading data that has been logged without being traced. An attacker that manually connects to a host machine to download logged keystrokes risks being traced. A trojan that sends keylogged data to a fixed e-mail address or IP address risks exposing the attacker.

Trojans[edit]

Researchers^[who?] devised several methods for solving this problem.^{[clarification needed]} They presented a deniable password snatching attack in which the keystroke logging trojan is installed using a virus or worm.^[40][41] An attacker who is caught with the virus or worm can claim to be a victim. The cryptotrojan asymmetrically encrypts the pilfered login/password pairs using the public key of the trojan author and covertly broadcasts the resulting ciphertext. They mentioned that the ciphertext can be steganographically encoded and posted to a public bulletin board such as Usenet.^{[citation needed]}

Use by police[edit]

In 2000, the FBI used FlashCrest iSpy to obtain the PGPpassphrase of Nicodemo Scarfo, Jr., son of mob boss Nicodemo Scarfo.^[42] Also in 2000, the FBI lured two suspected Russian cybercriminals to the US in an elaborate ruse, and captured their usernames and passwords with a keylogger that was covertly installed on a machine that they used to access their computers in Russia. The FBI then used these credentials to hack into the suspects' computers in Russia to obtain evidence to prosecute them.^[43]

Countermeasures[edit]

The effectiveness of countermeasures varies because keyloggers use a variety of techniques to capture data and the countermeasure needs to be effective against the particular data capture technique. In the case of Windows 10 keylogging from Microsoft it is enough to change some privacy settings on your computer.^[44] For example, an on-screen keyboard will be effective against hardware keyloggers, transparency will defeat some—but not all—screen loggers and an anti-spyware application that can only disable hook-based keyloggers will be ineffective against kernel-based keyloggers.

Also, keylogger program authors may be able to update the code to adapt to countermeasures that may have proven to be effective against them.

Anti-keyloggers[edit]

An anti-keylogger is a piece of software specifically designed to detect keyloggers on a computer, typically comparing all files in the computer against a database of keyloggers looking for similarities which might signal the presence of a hidden keylogger. As anti-keyloggers have been designed specifically to detect keyloggers, they have the potential to be more effective than conventional antivirus software; some antivirus software do not consider keyloggers to be malware, as under some circumstances a keylogger can be considered a legitimate piece of software.^[45]

Live CD/USB[edit]

Rebooting the computer using a Live CD or write-protected Live USB is a possible countermeasure against software keyloggers if the CD is clean of malware and the operating system contained on it is secured and fully patched so that it cannot be infected as soon as it is started. Booting a different operating system does not impact the use of a hardware or BIOS based keylogger.

Anti-spyware / Anti-virus programs[edit]

Many anti-spyware applications can detect some software based keyloggers and quarantine, disable or cleanse them. However, because many keylogging programs are legitimate pieces of software under some circumstances, anti-spyware often neglects to label keylogging programs as spyware or a virus. These applications can detect software-based keyloggers based on patterns in executable code, heuristics and keylogger behaviors (such as the use of hooks and certain APIs).

No software-based anti-spyware application can be 100% effective against all keyloggers.^{[citation needed]} Also, software-based anti-spyware cannot defeat non-software keyloggers (for example, hardware keyloggers attached to keyboards will always receive keystrokes before any software-based anti-spyware application).

However, the particular technique that the anti-spyware application uses will influence its potential effectiveness against software keyloggers. As a general rule, anti-spyware applications with higher privileges will defeat keyloggers with lower privileges. For example, a hook-based anti-spyware application cannot defeat a kernel-based keylogger (as the keylogger will receive the keystroke messages before the anti-spyware application), but it could potentially defeat hook- and API-based keyloggers.

Network monitors[edit]

Network monitors (also known as reverse-firewalls) can be used to alert the user whenever an application attempts to make a network connection. This gives the user the chance to prevent the keylogger from "phoning home" with his or her typed information.

Automatic form filler programs[edit]

Automatic form-filling programs may prevent keylogging by removing the requirement for a user to type personal details and passwords using the keyboard. Form fillers are primarily designed for web browsers to fill in checkout pages and log users into their accounts. Once the user's account and credit card information has been entered into the program, it will be automatically entered into forms without ever using the keyboard or clipboard, thereby reducing the possibility that private data is being recorded. However, someone with physical access to the machine may still be able to install software that can intercept this information elsewhere in the operating system or while in transit on the network. (Transport Layer Security (TLS) reduces the risk that data in transit may be intercepted by network sniffers and proxy tools.)

One-time passwords (OTP)[edit]

Using one-time passwords may be keylogger-safe, as each password is invalidated as soon as it is used. This solution may be useful for someone using a public computer. However, an attacker who has remote control over such a computer can simply wait for the victim to enter his/her credentials before performing unauthorized transactions on their behalf while their session is active.

Security tokens[edit]

Use of smart cards or other security tokens may improve security against replay attacks in the face of a successful keylogging attack, as accessing protected information would require both the (hardware) security token as well as the appropriate password/passphrase. Knowing the keystrokes, mouse actions, display, clipboard, etc. used on one computer will not subsequently help an attacker gain access to the protected resource. Some security tokens work as a type of hardware-assisted one-time password system, and others implement a cryptographic challenge-response authentication, which can improve security in a manner conceptually similar to one time passwords. Smartcard readers and their associated keypads for PIN entry may be vulnerable to keystroke logging through a so-called supply chain attack^[46] where an attacker substitutes the card reader/PIN entry hardware for one which records the user's PIN.

On-screen keyboards[edit]

Most on-screen keyboards (such as the on-screen keyboard that comes with Windows XP) send normal keyboard event messages to the external target program to type text. Software key loggers can log these typed characters sent from one program to another.^[47] Additionally, keylogging software can take screenshots of what is displayed on the screen (periodically, and/or upon each mouse click), which means that although certainly a useful security measure, an on-screen keyboard will not protect from all keyloggers.^{[citation needed]}

Keystroke interference software[edit]

Keystroke interference software is also available.^[48] These programs attempt to trick keyloggers by introducing random keystrokes, although this simply results in the keylogger recording more information than it needs to. An attacker has the task of extracting the keystrokes of interest—the security of this mechanism, specifically how well it stands up to cryptanalysis, is unclear.

Speech recognition[edit]

Similar to on-screen keyboards, speech-to-text conversion software can also be used against keyloggers, since there are no typing or mouse movements involved. The weakest point of using voice-recognition software may be how the software sends the recognized text to target software after the recognition took place.

Handwriting recognition and mouse gestures[edit]

Also, many PDAs and lately tablet PCs can already convert pen (also called stylus) movements on their touchscreens to computer understandable text successfully. Mouse gestures use this principle by using mouse movements instead of a stylus. Mouse gesture programs convert these strokes to user-definable actions, such as typing text. Similarly, graphics tablets and light pens can be used to input these gestures, however, these are less common every day.

The same potential weakness of speech recognition applies to this technique as well.

Macro expanders/recorders[edit]

With the help of many programs, a seemingly meaningless text can be expanded to a meaningful text and most of the time context-sensitively, e.g. "en.wikipedia.org" can be expanded when a web browser window has the focus. The biggest weakness of this technique is that these programs send their keystrokes directly to the target program. However, this can be overcome by using the 'alternating' technique described below, i.e. sending mouse clicks to non-responsive areas of the target program, sending meaningless keys, sending another mouse click to the target area (e.g. password field) and switching back-and-forth.

Deceptive typing[edit]

Alternating between typing the login credentials and typing characters somewhere else in the focus window^[49] can cause a keylogger to record more information than they need to, but this could be easily filtered out by an attacker. Similarly, a user can move their cursor using the mouse while typing, causing the logged keystrokes to be in the wrong order e.g., by typing a password beginning with the last letter and then using the mouse to move the cursor for each subsequent letter. Lastly, someone can also use context menus to remove, cut, copy, and paste parts of the typed text without using the keyboard. An attacker who can capture only parts of a password will have a larger key space to attack if he chose to execute a brute-force attack.

Another very similar technique uses the fact that any selected text portion is replaced by the next key typed. e.g., if the password is "secret", one could type "s", then some dummy keys "asdf". Then, these dummies could be selected with the mouse, and the next character from the password "e" is typed, which replaces the dummies "asdf".

These techniques assume incorrectly that keystroke logging software cannot directly monitor the clipboard, the selected text in a form, or take a screenshot every time a keystroke or mouse click occurs. They may, however, be effective against some hardware keyloggers.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

All cracks and keygens are made by enthusiasts and professional reverse engineers

IMPORTANT NOTICE: All staff like keygens and crack files are made by IT university students from USA, Russia, North Korea and other countries. All the files were checked by professors and were fully verified for compatibility with Windows OS, MAC OS and *nix systems like Linux and Unix

Fetching...done. Download Easy Photo Grabber v1.3 crack/keygen with serial number

Troi Grabber Plug-in 2.3

Troi Grabber Plug-in 2.3 adds support for FileMaker Pro 12 and 13, with examples in the .fmp12 format. It also adds the EasyInstallTroiPlugins.fmp12 example which demonstrates how to automatically install the plug-in directly from a container field.

See the Version history below for a complete list of changes in this and earlier versions.

Version history

Version 2.3 for FileMaker 10 through 12 (April 19th, 2012)

• Made compatible and tested with FileMaker Pro 12.
• Made small change to the bundle (on Mac OS X) and FileVersion resource (on Windows) so it now reflects the correct version number.
• Fixed a bug in Grab_GrabImage and QuickTimeClassic, which could cause the grabbing an image to fail with error code $$-2020.
• Added new switch “-GetPluginInstallPath” to the Grab_Version function: This switch will return the path where a plug-in is installed, for example “/Mac HD/Users/User Name/Library/Application Support/FileMaker/Extensions/Troi_Grabber.fmplugin”.
• (in the FileMaker Pro 12 formatted download only) Added new example file EasyInstallTroiPlugins.fmp12, which contains the plug-ins and can install the plug-in from within FileMaker Pro 12.

Version 2.2.1 for FileMaker 9 through 11 (September 12th, 2011)

• Made compatible and extensively tested with FileMaker Pro 11.
• Tested and made compatible with Mac OS X Lion 10.7: in our testing we have found no issues with Mac OS X Lion.
• Added new switch “-GetRegistrationState” to the Grab_Version function: This switch allows you to check if the plug-in is currently registered.
• Added new switch to the Grab_Version function: “-UnregisterPlugin”. This will remove the registration data. The plug-in will be in a unregistered state after this. See the “Temporary Register Grabber Plug-in” script in the file RegiFunc.fp7 for an example use.
• (Mac OS X) Fixed a bug in Grab_OpenMovieGrabWindow where the FileMaker window would not be updated until you moved the mouse.
• Fixed a bug in Grab_OpenMovieGrabWindow where an empty dialog title could potentially cause a crash.
• Added extra switches for the Grab_CropImage and the Grab_GrabImage function: “-CodecMinQuality”, “-CodecLowQuality”, “-CodecNormalQuality”, “-CodecHighQuality” and “-CodecMaxQuality”, describing the wanted quality of the image result.
• Fixed a bug in Grab_Initialise, which could cause the preview to be shown in the wrong window (only while running in FileMaker Pro 11v3).
• Improved example files, including to show the Grabber icon in dialogs.
• Made several internal improvements.

Version 2.2 for FileMaker 9 through 10 (November 16th, 2009)

• (Windows) First final version.
• (Mac OS X) When using the Grab_CropImage function the original image name is now preserved (if the image has no name it is still set to “GrabberCroppedImage.jpg”). The image name will be used by the FileMaker application for an initial suggested filename when exporting the field contents.
• (Mac OS X) added extra imageName parameter to the Grab_OpenImageGrabWindow function, which allows specification of a custom image name for the returned grabbed image. This is an optional parameter.
• (Mac OS X) added extra imageName parameter to the Grab_GrabImage function, which allows specification of a custom image name for the returned grabbed image. This is an optional parameter.
• (Mac OS X) Fixed a bug in Grab_OpenImageGrabWindow and Grab_OpenMovieGrabWindow where the Grabber window would open at a random location on the screen.
• (Mac OS X) When using Classic QuickTime the default name of the returned image is now set to GrabberImage.jpg.
• (Mac OS X) Made some internal changes to the Grab_OpenImageGrabWindow and Grab_OpenMovieGrabWindow functions: the modal dialog is now run as a real Cocoa runloop.

Version 2.1 for FileMaker 9 through 10 (October 6th, 2009)

• Created Windows (beta) version with TWAIN technology.
• Added new Grab_SetWindowPosition function to set the position of the grabber window on the screen.
• Added new Grab_SetWindowSize function to set the size of the grabber window.
• Added new switch “-ImageQuality=x.y” for the function Grab_OpenImageGrabWindow. This will set the compression factor of the saved image. 0.0 is the minimum and 1.0 is the maximum quality (0.9 is default).
• Improved example file RecordMovie_QTKit.fp7. Added better error handling. Also added an option to be able to save each video recording in a new record, with the movie file getting a serial number, for example myMovie12.mov.
• Added new switch “-GetVideoCompressionOptionsList” for the function Grab_GetDeviceInfo. This will return a list of possible compression options available for recording video when using the QTKit technology. Also added the scripts for this in the example file RecordMovie_QTKit.fp7.
• Improved example file GrabImage_QTKit.fp7: added a script to export all grabbed images to disk.
• Improved the grabbing window (QTKit): the preview will resize to the correct aspect ratio of the video device.
• Updated incorrect text in the file “All Grabber Examples.fp7”.

Version 2.0 for FileMaker Pro 9 and 10 (June 29th, 2009)

• Final release.
• Made small corrections to the example files.

Version 1.9b0 beta for FileMaker Pro 9 and 10 (June 9th, 2009)

• The plug-in is now compatible with FileMaker Pro 9 and 10 (older versions of FileMaker are not supported).
• Converted to the function API of FileMaker Pro 7. It is now also a Universal plug-in which runs natively on PowerPC and Intel Macs.
• Added a new technology: QTKit. This technology allows you to grab images and movies in a separate window.
• Also converted the ‘classic’ grabbing functions, to work with FileMaker 9 and 10: in this case the preview is still shown inside the window. The functions return better results, making use of the FileMaker Pro 7 API. For example the grabbed images (instead of using the clipboard) are now returned as a binary type, allowing for easy setting into a container field.
• Added several other new functions.
• Added new Grab_VersionAutoUpdate function, which is part of an emerging standard for FileMaker plug-ins of third party vendors of plug-ins. The version number is returned in the format aabbccdd where every letter represents a digit of the level, so versions can be easily compared.

Classic versions for FileMaker Pro 4 to 6

Version 1.5 (April 18th, 2002)

• Added an “-EnableHighQuality” switch as 5th parameter for certain VideoGrabbers.
• Grab-GetTimecode now also returns a duration timecode when there is no timecode track.

Version 1.4b1(March 3rd, 2000)

• Tested with FileMaker 5.5 and ported to Mac OS X. The Mac version of the plug-in is now a so called ‘Super Fat’ plug-in that will run on Mac OS 8, 9 and Mac OS X.
• Added Grab-RecordMovie function for Mac OS and Mac OS X.
• Added Grab-GetTimecode function for Mac OS and Mac OS X.

Version 1.2.1 (August 16th, 2000)

• Fixed bug in demo file where the settings would not be stored in a global.

Version 1.2 (November 4th, 1999)

• Added Compatibility for FileMaker Pro 5.

Version 1.1 (June 30th, 1999)

• Final release.
• Rotate and Cropping functions (Mac Only).

Version 1.0.1b1 (March 31th, 1999) (first Windows version)

• Fixed a bug with the centering of the image when switching from PAL to NTSC (or reverse).
• Improved User Guide on page 11-12.

Version 1.0 (November 09th, 1998) first release

• Changing screen resolution is handled properly.
• Grab-DoSettingsDialog now returns a proper error code when there is no preview running.
• Grab-Stop returns an error code 0.
• sample scripts now checks for more error codes.
• added Trade Show sample.
• fixed a bug on 68k machines which disposed of a pointer improperly.