MuCruncher by Epilogue
screenshot added by reed on 2004-11-05 08:10:31
platform :
type :
release date : november 2004
  • 7
  • 7
  • 0
popularity : 63%
  • 0.50
alltime top: #8125
added on the 2004-11-05 07:44:59 by deathy deathy

popularity helper

increase the popularity of this prod by spreading this URL:

or via: facebook twitter pinterest tumblr


This exe-packer may not be valid for some demo parties, as it writes a temp file. It does this so that it can work with both regular and .net exe files. It's compression ratio averages about 70%. The only exe packer I've found to be better is MEW11 (by about an additional 2% compression on average), which doesn't do .net files.
added on the 2004-11-05 07:46:41 by deathy deathy
It's compression ratio averages about 70%.

saying things like that is like showing lameness
The only exe packer I've found to be better is MEW11

ask ryg for kkrunchy and you will forget about these toys ^^

and yes, temp file SUCKS BIGTIME
added on the 2004-11-05 10:42:47 by apricot apricot
do exe packers really belong here?
added on the 2004-11-05 12:10:43 by keops keops
nërall: kkrunchy isn't the best packer, but MuCruncher is easy to use and its compression is better than UPX or FSG.
ryg: i don't think that your tool is the best for compression, why do you do not release it for free usage?
LZMA based compressors is the future of making good intros. Mew11 rulez too.
rulez added on the 2004-11-05 16:02:20 by bux bux
i always try any new exe packers i find on my 64ks, cos any free bytes back for no effort is a bonus.
unfortunately, on the exe of fresh!, kkrunchy's 64k goes against 75k on mucruncher (even after fiddling with the settings somewhat). so unless there's some magical settings im missing that saves 10k, sorry - you lose bigtime, and as usual kkrunchy rules.
and it looks like we have to continue looking for more bytes the old fashioned way. =)
added on the 2004-11-05 16:31:19 by smash smash
either that, or ask ryg for a newer kkrunchy ;P
Yes, I have always figured kkrunchy does better, but I don't have it to compare against. Also, does kkrunchy do .net exes? My own needs are to do .net exes, which is why I wrote this. My first .net exe packer (which was .net only) used Arithmetic Coding/PPM but it was much too slow. This one I wrote in C for speed and used LZMA because I was not happy with PPM compression. I am going to write a .net only version of MuCruncher that will not create a temp file, but for now this packer met my needs.

For how I derived the compression average, I tested it against a set of 15 files, and used the same files to test against other crunchers. 5 small (<225k) files, 5 medium (<4M) files and 5 lars (>7M) files. I could've posted the exact breakdown, but I didn't think that was necessary.

Regarding exe packers belong in the demotool category, every OTHER exe packer on pouet is listed there... I verified this before putting it in this category because I wasn't sure it was the right category either. A category for utils might be good.

Bux - Thanks for your kind words. Seems like these are rare on pouet. heheheheheheheh.
added on the 2004-11-06 00:00:43 by deathy deathy
packers are tools. intro-tools.
added on the 2004-11-06 01:06:47 by ninja ninja
Useful tool!
rulez added on the 2004-11-06 01:08:07 by Zplex Zplex
fuck. yes it belongs. can't people read .NET .NET .NET ? do they know any other .NET .NET .NET packer ? useful to me.
rulez added on the 2004-11-06 10:56:36 by stil stil
cool to see a .net-packer :)
rulez added on the 2004-11-06 19:37:24 by kusma kusma
bah, could you please move this kkrunchy-or-not debate somewhere else? because it certainly doesn't belong here...

and bux (whoever you are): first, comments on kkrunchys pack ratio are somewhat out of place when you don't have it, no? and second, kkrunchy is available to anyone who asks me, but i'll not put it onto some webpage for everyone - it's much too fiddly to use for that, and i have more important things to do than answering hate-mail of people who ignore warnings and then wonder why their compressed executables don't run anymore.
added on the 2004-11-06 21:09:11 by ryg ryg
deathy, at least you compressed your megalong nickname perfectly! :P
exe-packers rulez! and LZMA algo works great as far as i see with MEW performance :)
rulez added on the 2004-11-18 17:28:08 by Zest Zest
I tryed this stuff on a small engine techdemo from me.
I gived the stuff to other pplz, but they reported that virus detectors gives alert to my .exe-s with this message:
I suggest the writer of this compressing program to contact with Kaspersky Lab, and tell them to remove mucruncher compressed stuffz from virus list.
rulez added on the 2006-06-09 00:17:14 by Geri Geri
I contacted with Kaspersky Anti Virus.


I getted this reply in mail:

These files are detected and there are real dropper for real malware.

Regards, Sergey Golovanov
Virus Analyst, Kaspersky Lab.

Ph.: +7(095) 797-8700
E-mail: newvirus@kaspersky.com
http://www.kaspersky.com http://www.viruslist.com"

So what's the true?
What MuCruncher stores to the compressed .exe-s?
added on the 2006-06-09 22:04:07 by Geri Geri
Hello. Sorry for slow attention, I am in discussion with Kaspersky on this now.
added on the 2006-07-01 11:26:48 by deathy deathy
Just an update - I don't know whether Kaspersky is going to follow through with their end, but I've submitted enough details for them.

That said, MuCruncher2 should be released soon.
added on the 2006-08-27 02:03:43 by deathy deathy
MuCruncher2 has just been posted to scene.org, as soon as it is done validating I will post the prod here. In the future, use MuCruncher2 for your .net exe-packing needs, it is better than MuCruncher1 in that it doesn't use a temporary file and is completely written in .net - it even works with XNA programs.
added on the 2006-09-02 22:25:09 by deathy deathy
Great! You have rescued us! ;)
rulez added on the 2010-08-29 00:15:58 by BiTL BiTL

submit changes

if this prod is a fake, some info is false or the download link is broken,

do not post about it in the comments, it will get lost.

instead, click here !

[previous edits]

add a comment