How to the disks copy protected.
Babak Sehari
I was wondering, what copy protection techniques are avaliable, and how
effective are they? Has anyone have any experience in this area?
With highest regards,
Babak Sehari.
--
GUNNAR HORRIGMO
One of the easiest, and really very used ways of copyprotection, is to mark
a specific sector on the installation disk bad. This is very easy to get
around, though, if you have any knowledge of hw-hacking, but most 'normal'
users (yes those lowly key-punchers) don't. Whatever you do, please do
_not_ use a hardware key. These were very popular a few years ago, and they
STINK!!
MAIL-mail: gun...@sofus.dhhalden.no SNAIL-mail: Gunnar Horrigmo
gun...@fenris.dhhalden.no Oskleiva 17
N-1772 Norway
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: The above posting may seem like insignificant rubbish at
first glance, but if you read between the lines, you will be
surprised to discover the annals of Burt Bacharach, world peace,
Oxford Advanced Readers Dictionary, quantum physics made easy, and an
easy-to-use step-by-step walkthrough on how to make a time travelling
device that actually works.
Matt Block
Uh oh...
Umm, there are a number of copy protection schemes. Some involve
modifying the physical media, and some involve encryption schemes, &c.
All of the ones that have existed over the course of computing have
been successful for a time. I recall, however, near monthly releases of new
ways to "crack" the copy protection scheme of the latest releases. The fact
is, none of them are completely secure, or anywhere near it. Some are more or
less difficult to crack, and some have already been cracked.
I guess what I am saying is that your question is difficult, if not
impossible, to answer. What exactly do you want to know? Do you need a good
one for a project you are working on? How secure must it be? Are you trying
to crack one that someone else has used? I can probably make suggestions,
assuming the activity is strictly legal. (In general, it is a BAD idea,
legally, to tamper with copy protection. It can also lead to corruption of
files which you necessarily do not have back ups of (being as they are copy
protected,) which can be devestating.) Do you have absolutely no ideas for
practical applications, and are merely curious?
Please clear up those questions, and I'll try to help as much as I
can.
Incidentally, the "Uh oh..." at the top is indicative of the dread
anyone who has watched their friends hacking equipment be carted off feels
when they are asked how to hack. The area you are broaching is wrought with
dangers, many of which include breaking the law, or at least addressing it
(from one side or the other.)
Matt
Babak Sehari
>Matt
I have written a program and I want to market it. I would like certain degree
of protection, since my main custmers are individuals and not the
cooperations. I know laser hole burning method, and hardware key method,
however, my software is going to cost only $15.00, so I can not afford that.
Also, at this low price I can not afford people make too many copy of my
software. Well, I guess say upto %20 illigal copying is ok by me.
However, I do not want someone to get a copy of PCTools and copy my software.
Off course, I never meant to forbid the true hackers from copying, since they
can develope a better program anyway.
With highest regards,
Babak Sehari.
--
Joel Kolstad
>
>I have written a program and I want to market it. I would like certain degree
>of protection, since my main custmers are individuals and not the
>cooperations. I know laser hole burning method, and hardware key method,
>however, my software is going to cost only $15.00, so I can not afford that.
>Also, at this low price I can not afford people make too many copy of my
>software. Well, I guess say upto %20 illigal copying is ok by me.
>
>However, I do not want someone to get a copy of PCTools and copy my software.
>Off course, I never meant to forbid the true hackers from copying, since they
>can develope a better program anyway.
I wouldn't bother with the copy protection, if I were you. If you program
is any good, the pirates will have stripped the protection and will be
distributing the stripped version is well under a week.
Hardware methods prevent J. Random Loser from using his Copy II PC to pirate
your software, but doesn't stop anyone who knows a few people with enough
connections to "real" pirates who _will_ be able to defeat your "check for the
hole" code.
You may want to price your software (depending on what it is) a tad
higher... a price change from $15 to $25 probably would turn off very few
potentials buyers, and that way you could tolerate more pirates (whose
numbers don't change with the price).
As for the 20% pirating figure... ha, ha. Of course, a lot of pirates just
have this "thing" about having pirated software, even if they never use it,
so perhaps that really wouldn't count towards 20%. Even so, 20% is awfully
low.
---Joel Kolstad
P.S. -- I assume you're talking PC software. If you're talking UNIX,
HP-48, or something else somewhat obscure, copy protection might be a
slightly more viable alternative.
Ketil Albertsen,TIH
> I guess what I am saying is that your question is difficult, if not
>impossible, to answer. What exactly do you want to know? Do you need a good
>one for a project you are working on? How secure must it be? Are you trying
>to crack one that someone else has used? I can probably make suggestions,
>assuming the activity is strictly legal. (In general, it is a BAD idea,
>legally, to tamper with copy protection. It can also lead to corruption of
>files which you necessarily do not have back ups of (being as they are copy
>protected,) which can be devestating.) Do you have absolutely no ideas for
>practical applications, and are merely curious?
> Please clear up those questions, and I'll try to help as much as I
>can.
May we interpret this as an offer to volunteer as editor for a
"Copy protection FAQ" ? I am quite sure that I am not alone welcoming such
an initiative! *I* will volunteer to ask some of the questions, if you will
provide the answers :-)
Ketil Albertsen
Bill Mayhew
photocopying the manual is offset by simplicity of purchasing
the package for only $15. Also, consider offering an inexpensive
but attractive perc for registered users. For instance, a coffee
mug. You could produce and mail the incentive for a couple of
dollars, so consider pricing the product at $17.95.
You're lucky if only 20% of the instances of your program in use
are non-licensed users.
The best approach is to estimate your loss and accomodate that into
your price structure. Sure it hurts legitimate users, but too bad.
Retailers have to charge off loss to shoplifters onto paying
customers; the software industry is the same.
Unless your product is exceptionally unique, using an ostensibly
copy-proof disk will just send your customers to the competetion.
--
Bill Mayhew NEOUCOM Computer Services Department
Rootstown, OH 44272-9995 USA phone: 216-325-2511
w...@uhura.neoucom.edu (140.220.1.1) 146.580: N8WED
Einar Indridason
>May we interpret this as an offer to volunteer as editor for a
>"Copy protection FAQ" ? I am quite sure that I am not alone welcoming such
>an initiative! *I* will volunteer to ask some of the questions, if you will
>provide the answers :-)
Ok, here could be the first question or answer or something:
Q: I want to copyprotect a program I wrote. How should I do it?
A: You would be wise not to copyprotect that program. You see, those
people that wants to get a cracked copy of your program will go to
various length to crack your program, and some of those crackers
are good, and know the common tricks.
So, the copy protection wouldn't stop those.
Ok, then. What about legitimate users? Copy protection can be a hassle
for legitimate users, and can hinder them in their work, expecially
if there is some "key" item that can get lost.
So, the copy protection wouldn't help much of the legitimate users, but
would make life somewhat of a misery for them.
(This is my opinion, and I speak as a legitimate user :-)
You are of course free to have your opinion about this subject....
Arno Schaefer
Hey, now will you stop encouraging him? Copy protection only serves one pur-
pose: to keep the honest buyer from making (legal) backup copies. It will
definitely not stop any pirates. If you want to protect you soft, supply a
good documentation and support. This is IMHO the *only* way of effectively pro-
tecting software.
Best Regards,
Arno
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arno Schaefer ENSIMAG, 2e Annee
Email: scha...@silene.imag.fr
Tel.: (33) 76 51 79 95 :-)
------- No, you're not paranoid - the world is really out to get you -----------
Patrick Taylor, The Sounding Board
>From: w...@uhura.neoucom.edu (Bill Mayhew)
>Subject: Re: How to the disks copy protected.
>Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 13:19:08 GMT
>Write a good manual to go with the software. The hassle of
>photocopying the manual is offset by simplicity of purchasing
>the package for only $15. Also, consider offering an inexpensive
>but attractive perc for registered users. For instance, a coffee
>mug. You could produce and mail the incentive for a couple of
>dollars, so consider pricing the product at $17.95.
Or, _documentation_ for the program ;-). A lot of shareware out there is
very similar in the approach - send in your money, and you get
documentation, and a free upgrade to the latest version. Perhaps even
support of some small degree. Whatever you want to offer that is "better"
than the circulating version.
>You're lucky if only 20% of the instances of your program in use
>are non-licensed users.
Figure about 50%, as I have seen.
>The best approach is to estimate your loss and accomodate that into
>your price structure. Sure it hurts legitimate users, but too bad.
It doesn't really hurt legit users. Shareware is still much cheaper than
the alternatives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------Visit the SOUNDING BOARD BBS +1 214 596 2915, a Wildcat! BBS-------
ObDis: All opinions are specifically disclaimed. No one is responsible.
Patrick Taylor, Ericsson Network Systems THX-1138
exu...@exu.ericsson.se "Don't let the .se fool you"
Kuo-Sheng (Kasey) Chang
>In article <1993Apr21.0...@lumina.edb.tih.no>, ke...@edb.tih.no (Ketil Albertsen,TIH) writes:
>|> In article <1993Apr20.2...@reed.edu>, mbl...@reed.edu (Matt Block) writes:
>>> I guess what I am saying is that your question is difficult, if not
>>>impossible, to answer. What exactly do you want to know? Do you need a good
>>>one for a project you are working on? How secure must it be? Are you trying
>>>to crack one that someone else has used? I can probably make suggestions,
>>>assuming the activity is strictly legal. (In general, it is a BAD idea,
>>>legally, to tamper with copy protection. It can also lead to corruption of
>>>files which you necessarily do not have back ups of (being as they are copy
>>>protected,) which can be devestating.) Do you have absolutely no ideas for
>>>practical applications, and are merely curious?
>>> Please clear up those questions, and I'll try to help as much as I
>>>can.
>>
>> May we interpret this as an offer to volunteer as editor for a
>> "Copy protection FAQ" ? I am quite sure that I am not alone welcoming such
>> an initiative! *I* will volunteer to ask some of the questions, if you will
>> provide the answers :-)
>>
>pose: to keep the honest buyer from making (legal) backup copies. It will
>definitely not stop any pirates. If you want to protect you soft, supply a
>good documentation and support. This is IMHO the *only* way of effectively
There are several types of copy protection, and the point is to make sure the
user is using a legitimate copy. The simplest and virtually fool-proof way is
for the program to somehow fixate itself to the machine it was installed on
(some sort of checksum, serial number, whatever) so a copy put on a different
machine (NOT installed from original disks) will not work.
The program is definitely backupable, if restored to the same machine (depends
on the programmer... don't use a disk drive characteristic!) If the user
did an upgrade to the machine, he/she should reinstall all programs any way.
No document look-up, no disk wear-and-tear!
I did not say that the originals would allow only one install. The user's
conscience should do that.
I know, I'll get flamed for this... But with the increasing number of "casual"
users who either unknowingly or don't care about the software copyrights
(It's the truth. I have "friends" who ask me for copies of my latest games
all the time, and when I refused, they went after somebody else.), casual
pirating is becoming more of a problem. Some sort of copy protection will
discourage the casual copying. I've seen what some of my "friends" dug up
somewhere... Latest and the greatest games, all cracked, WITHIN days of actual
release! You know how many bytes you need to change in X-wing to disable
the quiz? TWO! Yes, TWO! (And don't ask me which ones they are.) Determined
pirates are unstoppable, given enough time, but their results do not spread
that far, since pirate boards are not that well-known, and easily tracked once
found by authorities. It is the "casual" pirates that the copy protection is
determined to discourage.
What I believe the companies should do is implement the above plus
a special patch once the user registers that loudly exclaims upon bootup
"REGISTERED TO XXXXX -- address, city, state zip" and disables the above.
Two benefits: 1) encourages registration, 2) cuts down on pirating and
makes it more traceable, because if the patch's registration message is
encrypted, it will be quite hard to change, and therefore provides a
stable trail of who allowed their copy out of their hands, and thus
violated their license agreement.
This way, the legitimate users who does not register will experience minimal
discomfort (who does major upgrades to their computer frequently?) as only
problem they have is they won't be able to restore to another computer.
The registered users would have proven they are legitmate users and therefore
gains full rights, and can restore to different machines. On the other hand,
the software company now have a record of where THIS particular copy is
supposed to be. If this user's copy was found to be somewhere it was not
supposed to be, we know who has broken their license agreement. Of course,
a hacker can break that eventually, but that's not the point, is it?
--Kasey Chang
Michael Chen
encryption in the process, this "change two bytes here" thing would go right
out the window.
--
Michael Chen | From the depths of our most lucid horrors |
| spring our fond hopes and pure desires... |
mc...@cs.psu.edu | except what comes from HELL! :-) 7/23/92 |
George Gruschow
>>Matt
>--
One of the most popular methods of course is the password check where they ask
you for a word from page x, line y, and word z, but this is pitifully simple to
remove unless you throw some checksums into the main part of your program, and
some self-rewriting code to confuse some people. Also, make sure that your
program can not be run out a debugger.
Another method of course is to not even make bad sectors on the original disk,
just write a certain key to a certain unallocated sector. To help you here,
you also must do the code protection schemes mentioned in the first paragraph.
Make sure you also fill the rest of the unallocated parts of the disk with
garbage as well, or they (wanna be crackers) can just look for the junk in
some random sector.
Like you mentioned, there are the laser holed disks and hardware keys, but they
are both expensive and a pain in the butt for the end-user, which you is the
opposite of what you want.
Another configuration that can be used is to save the configuration of the
machine that it is being installed to in the most undecipherable format you can
think of. If the program does not find that this is the same system, it
requests being installed by the original disk again. The original disk should
be encrypted, compacted, have many sectors that should be checked, and anything
else you can think of to make sure that the original cannot be copied. Once
again, you MUST put code-encryption, self-rewriting code, and multiple CRC
checks in the program to make sure that it does not get changed. Among other
things, this also protects your program from virii. If the program detects a
change in its code, tell the user that a virus has been detected in the
program. Tell them the program is "VIRUS SECURE", and remember, you have
helped the world kill some pirating and kill some viruses. Feel good.
I hope that I have helped. Have fun. Knock some cracking out (well, you can't
do it, everything that can be written can be cracked, but you'll piss'em off in
the process!). Goodbye.
What is the program that will be sold?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Gruschow Death do you gronk.
ag...@yfn.ysu.edu ggru...@nyx.cs.du.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Gruschow
>Ketil Albertsen
That's great. Read my article. Edit out the personal formality, and save.
George Gruschow
>Best Regards,
>Arno
Your wrong. Never give up. Update your program as much as possible, with a
very low price of upgrade to registered users (and *PLEASE* make sure you keep
a list of registered numbers!)...
Wally Bass
>Also, at this low price I can not afford people make too many copy of my
>software. Well, I guess say upto %20 illigal copying is ok by me.
You should be clear in your mind what your goal is. Two possible goals
are (1) maximizing you income from your program, and (2) minimizing
the number of illegal copies which get created. Accomplishing (2)
doesn't usually accomplish (1).
Most vendors have concluded that copy protection reduces the number of
normal legitimate sales by far more than it increase sales by virtue
of changing 'copiers' to 'purchasers', and hence merely reduces
revenue. Most legitimate buyers nowadays (including me) have had bad
experiences with copy protected products (e.g., hard to make a
legitimate backup, incompatabilties when new system on system upgrade,
etc.), and they won't touch them with a ten foot pole.
Wally Bass
-xivo-Alex Ivopol
>If companies compressed their executables with LZW andd did some kind of
>encryption in the process, this "change two bytes here" thing would go right
>out the window.
Not entirely true. A friend of mine was having trouble finishing the game
GODS and asked me for help since he could not find a "trainer" (small
patch that lets you play without losing lifes). The game is compressed but
I did find *one* byte which when changed in the original *compressed* file
would not affect the decompression and would also prevent the "shield" in the
game from being tured off turning therefore making you invincible.
There are many other progs whose copy protection was defeated one way or
another and I have seen examples of this with my own eyes. The copy
protection schemes defeated were various such as using protected mode,
compressed executables, progs that load and execute other progs (possibly
compressed), dongles, key disks, etc...
I believe that persistence overcomes even the very best copy protection
schemes.
>--
> Michael Chen | From the depths of our most lucid horrors |
> | spring our fond hopes and pure desires... |
> mc...@cs.psu.edu | except what comes from HELL! :-) 7/23/92 |
--
Alex T. Ivopol cyb...@kauri.vuw.ac.nz
External User - Victoria University of Wellington - New Zealand
************* I speak for myself and no one else. *************
Mark Underwood
>
> There are several types of copy protection, and the point is to make
sure the
> user is using a legitimate copy. The simplest and virtually fool-proof
way is
> for the program to somehow fixate itself to the machine it was installed
on
> (some sort of checksum, serial number, whatever) so a copy put on a
different
> machine (NOT installed from original disks) will not work.
>
Okay, so what do you do if some part of the machine (presumably the part
on which the code number or whatever that the program has fixated itself
upon goes bad, you replace that part, and now your program won't run
because it's on a "different" computer???
This is, of course, assuming that the program uses something in ROM (like
the BIOS serial number, maybe?) and not a disk-based code number.
Obviously if the drive goes bad you'll be reinstalling the stuff anyway.
I work in a computer lab which is part of the university microlab system.
We have the wonderfully fun task of maintaining well over a hundred
machines, both PC and Macintosh, as well as administering a network of
over 50 NeXT machines. I personally am concerned only with a small lab
with ten PC's and ten Mac's. (I'm not the manager, but help him with
admin often). IMHO, copy-protection schemes of ANY sort are nothing more
than a major headache for the legitimate user. Anyone who wants a copy of
your program and doesn't care about legality will get a copy. Period.
"Pirate board" or no pirate board. I too have "friends" who blatantly and
quite successfuly "hack" copy protection schemes practically in their
sleep.
Let's consider what goes on in our lab. Almost daily we have at least one
machine down, sometimes several, due to some goofball screwing up some
setting or other on a piece of software. Admittedly, we (being students,
mostly) are not the world's most efficient and effective network
administrators, but we try. Keeping even the twenty machines that are
(partly) my responsibility even vaguely looking and "acting" similar to
the average user, and maintaining "behind-the-scenes" consistency is a
real headache, but not so bad a headache as trying to remember twenty
different folder locations of Norton Utilities when some guy trashes his
disk.
Often we have hardware problems at peak "business" times and have to do
some parts-swapping to get stuff working temporarily. . . .
Well, I'll cut to the chase and quit boring y'all . . ..
The point is, often we have to re-install software and copy configuration
files etc. from machine to machine. By far the easiest way we have found
to do this is to get ONE machine working EXACTLY the way we want to, then
COPY the complete setup of this machine to the other nine (of that
machine's type). This ensures us that (for at least ten minutes) we have
ten IDENTICAL machines to work with. Having them networked simplifies
this considerably, as our major packages (WordPerfect, Windows, etc.) are
all network versions and thus only one copy to mess with.
Often, however, we need to install a package requested by some instructor
to one, some, or all of the machines for a special project. This is
usually a hand-written or shareware,etc. program similar to what I believe
the original poster was asking about. The few we have had with "copy
protection" schemes have caused nothing but NIGHTMARES for us to maintain
. .
In short, don't waste your time with a copy protection scheme. It's sort
of like outlawing guns. The criminals will get your program anyway, and
you will only be hurting the legitimate, honest user. Write a good user's
guide and tech manual, whatever else for your program (PLEASE do this
REGARDLESS of whether you copy protect the thing!!!), and only distribute
the manual to LICENSED users. Jack the price to cut your losses, but
please take a cue from the major companies (who can admittedly afford the
costs of illegal copies far better than you) and don't burden the
legitimate user with a "copy protection" scheme!
Sorry for the tirade, but it's been a long day here . . .. :-)
Mark S. Underwood
EE Student, University of Kentucky
Lab Assistant, Boyd Hall Microlab
(a tiny little division of UK Library Microlabs)
E-Mail: msun...@mik.uky.edu
Eric Richard Noel
>>Hey, now will you stop encouraging him? Copy protection only serves one pur-
>>pose: to keep the honest buyer from making (legal) backup copies. It will
>>definitely not stop any pirates. If you want to protect you soft, supply a
>>good documentation and support. This is IMHO the *only* way of effectively pro
>>Best Regards,
>>Arno
I strongly disagree. I think most pirating is done by amateurs, who won't
copy the program if "diskcopy" can't do it.
If you're talking a 20% max goal of pirated copies, I bet that anything that
will beat diskcopy, and can't be easily copied from a hard drive, will
suffice.
I hate hard copy manuals, and would rather have all docs online - *not*
because I want to copy the program, but because its usually faster and
and convenient than sifting through an old book I can't find.
Off deeper end-> Why does everyone think they need to be able to make a
backup copy? Almost all new software must be installed to the hard disk,
so you are left with the originals as your backups. I think its a waste
of time, space, and money, as well as it makes it to tempting to "lend"
out the backups.
No flames intended - just my thoughts.
Eric
Andrew Scott
>I believe that persistence overcomes even the very best copy protection
>schemes.
I would expect that CD-ROM software would not even need copy protection.
As the program on a CD-ROM would not fit onto a hard-drive, and it is
impossible for the average (and even not-so-average) user to write to a
CD-ROM, copies of the software (that still work) could never be made.
Hmmm.. now that I think about it.. with a creative TSR, maybe
disk-swapping could be used to simulate files on a single disk. You
would need a tonne of disks though.
>--
>Alex T. Ivopol cyb...@kauri.vuw.ac.nz
>External User - Victoria University of Wellington - New Zealand
>************* I speak for myself and no one else. *************
Andrew Scott
INTERNET:asc...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au
Mark Underwood
> I hate hard copy manuals, and would rather have all docs online - *not*
> because I want to copy the program, but because its usually faster and
> and convenient than sifting through an old book I can't find.
Just MHO, but I prefer hardcopy books because you can have three or four
of them open spread across the bed (next to the desk in my dorm) and
reference them while using the program full-screen. The Windows Help
things come closest to good on-line documentation I've seen, but they
generally aren't detailed enough and would probably take a LARGE amount of
space (even compressed) which is at a premium on my system . . .. In
fact, the manuals are the primary reason I bought Borland's C++ compiler
instead of using the one the lab licensed (in the lab, of course). I've
got a SHELF full of books to help me out when I'm stuck. :-) To each
his own . . . :-)
>
> Off deeper end-> Why does everyone think they need to be able to make a
> backup copy? Almost all new software must be installed to the hard disk,
> so you are left with the originals as your backups. I think its a waste
> of time, space, and money, as well as it makes it to tempting to "lend"
> out the backups.
We've destroyed about six sets of original Microsoft Word for Mac 5.0 and
Word for Windows (may have been a bad batch of disks). Don't have the
faintest idea what happened to them, they just went bad. Weren't stored
near any magnetic fields or otherwise mistreated, indeed they were only
used once. Given this, and the massive headaches finding a working set of
disks to fix some of the machines that periodically go down, I'd say
having working backups is a godsend. I sure wish we'd had them (Sometimes
I think Murphy's Law holds true more often than Newton's!!) when we needed
them. I think it's sortof like snake antivenin. 99.995% of the time you
have absolutely no use for it, but when you need it, BOY do you ever need
it!
I don't have backups of my originals at "home" but then my machine doesn't
see anywhere NEAR the use/abuse of these here at the lab, and so I
consider it less of a risk. Still, I usually make "working copies" of
them when I install them and then eventually re-use these "working copies"
for something else. . ..
>
>
> No flames intended - just my thoughts.
Just mine, too! :-)
BTW, before anyone notices my mentioning "copying" programs from machine
to machine when we do installs here and wonders about the licensing, the
upper-management (non-student staff, of course) are METICULOUS in checking
with providers of the software and making SURE we are sticking to the
license agreements . . ..
Guido Klemans
>I would expect that CD-ROM software would not even need copy protection.
>As the program on a CD-ROM would not fit onto a hard-drive, and it is
>impossible for the average (and even not-so-average) user to write to a
>CD-ROM, copies of the software (that still work) could never be made.
>
>Hmmm.. now that I think about it.. with a creative TSR, maybe
>disk-swapping could be used to simulate files on a single disk. You
>would need a tonne of disks though.
>
is that big (but we're getting there :-)).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guido Klemans
Internet: rcst...@urc.tue.nl valid until 16 may 1993
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Listen very carefully, I will say this only ones.' Michelle of the resitance
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guido Klemans
[byteocide]
>
>What I believe the companies should do is implement the above plus
>a special patch once the user registers that loudly exclaims upon bootup
>"REGISTERED TO XXXXX -- address, city, state zip" and disables the above.
>Two benefits: 1) encourages registration, 2) cuts down on pirating and
>makes it more traceable, because if the patch's registration message is
>encrypted, it will be quite hard to change, and therefore provides a
>stable trail of who allowed their copy out of their hands, and thus
>violated their license agreement.
>
You take two copies with a different registration id, compare them byte for
byte and you know where they are located. Usually you will be able to
find out what is what after that.
And what keeps me form registering as John Doe from the company Public
Domain, Yellow Brick Road 1, Tinseltown or something???
>
>--Kasey Chang
richard.b.dell
>In article <1r76sb...@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> noe...@xanth.CS.ORST.EDU
>(Eric Richard Noel) writes:
>> I hate hard copy manuals, and would rather have all docs online - *not*
>> because I want to copy the program, but because its usually faster and
>> and convenient than sifting through an old book I can't find.
>
>Just MHO, but I prefer hardcopy books because you can have three or four
>of them open spread across the bed (next to the desk in my dorm) and
>reference them while using the program full-screen. The Windows Help
>things come closest to good on-line documentation I've seen, but they
>generally aren't detailed enough and would probably take a LARGE amount of
>space (even compressed) which is at a premium on my system . . .. In
>fact, the manuals are the primary reason I bought Borland's C++ compiler
>instead of using the one the lab licensed (in the lab, of course). I've
>got a SHELF full of books to help me out when I'm stuck. :-) To each
>his own . . . :-)
>
Agree 100%, personally I cannot flip from page to page on a screen and
retain information as easily as in the written page.
>>
>> Off deeper end-> Why does everyone think they need to be able to make a
>> backup copy? Almost all new software must be installed to the hard disk,
>> so you are left with the originals as your backups. I think its a waste
>> of time, space, and money, as well as it makes it to tempting to "lend"
>> out the backups.
>
>We've destroyed about six sets of original Microsoft Word for Mac 5.0 and
>Word for Windows (may have been a bad batch of disks). Don't have the
>faintest idea what happened to them, they just went bad. Weren't stored
>near any magnetic fields or otherwise mistreated, indeed they were only
>used once. Given this, and the massive headaches finding a working set of
>disks to fix some of the machines that periodically go down, I'd say
>having working backups is a godsend. I sure wish we'd had them (Sometimes
>I think Murphy's Law holds true more often than Newton's!!) when we needed
>them. I think it's sortof like snake antivenin. 99.995% of the time you
>have absolutely no use for it, but when you need it, BOY do you ever need
>it!
>
Ditto's ... in fact .. at work, where things are dead if the backup
is no good, I insist on having at least a 2 level backup system.
It seems that whenever you have 2 good backups, you never need them,
but if you don't have them, Murphy guarantees that you'll suffer for it.
>I don't have backups of my originals at "home" but then my machine doesn't
>see anywhere NEAR the use/abuse of these here at the lab, and so I
>consider it less of a risk. Still, I usually make "working copies" of
>them when I install them and then eventually re-use these "working copies"
>for something else. . ..
>
>
>>
>>
>> No flames intended - just my thoughts.
>
>Just mine, too! :-)
>
and mine of course.
Richard Dell
Steve Madsen
> The program is definitely backupable, if restored to the same machine (depends
> on the programmer... don't use a disk drive characteristic!) If the user
> did an upgrade to the machine, he/she should reinstall all programs any way.
> No document look-up, no disk wear-and-tear!
This is not a good idea.. I upgraded my motherboard last fall. I
would have been quite pissed at any software that would have forced me to
reinstall simply because I changed motherboards.
Any info in the BIOS is too volatile to use as a checksum. Are you
going to require that a user re-install all their software if they add 4Mb
of RAM to their computer? I did that a couple of weeks ago. It's in the
BIOS, and if software had told me "this isn't the machine you installed me
on" I would never have used that software again. Really bad idea.
> I did not say that the originals would allow only one install. The user's
> conscience should do that.
This is silly. It's much easier to loan disks to a friend and let
them do an install than to backup your copy already on disk, and then give
them that. Your scheme isn't going to stop anyone.
> You know how many bytes you need to change in X-wing to disable
> the quiz? TWO! Yes, TWO! (And don't ask me which ones they are.)
Do you know any assembly language at all? All anyone needs to do if
find the part of the code that does the quiz, and insert a JMP instruction
to just completely skip it. Not that difficult, really! And there is very
little that commpanies can do to stop this type of thing. Using PKLITE or
some similar utility would help, but only if the resulting compressed .EXE
were tagged as uncompressable.
> What I believe the companies should do is implement the above plus
> a special patch once the user registers that loudly exclaims upon bootup
> "REGISTERED TO XXXXX -- address, city, state zip" and disables the above.
This is by far the best idea you presented in your post. Making it
plainly obvious who registered is going to stop casual pirates. But, the
determined ones are just going to answer "Joe Blow" to the question of
"what's your name" so this won't stop them in the long run.
Pirates are always going to win this fight. They simply have more
time to work on the software and figure out the protection scheme.
--
Steve Madsen
sjma...@nextsrv.cas.muohio.edu
Ask me about Linux, the free 386 unix!
Kuo-Sheng (Kasey) Chang
>In article <1993Apr22.1...@csus.edu> ksc...@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Kuo-Sheng (Kasey) Chang) writes:
>[byteocide]
>>What I believe the companies should do is implement the above plus
>>a special patch once the user registers that loudly exclaims upon bootup
>>"REGISTERED TO XXXXX -- address, city, state zip" and disables the above.
>>Two benefits: 1) encourages registration, 2) cuts down on pirating and
>>makes it more traceable, because if the patch's registration message is
>>encrypted, it will be quite hard to change, and therefore provides a
>>stable trail of who allowed their copy out of their hands, and thus
>>violated their license agreement.
>>
>You take two copies with a different registration id, compare them byte for
>byte and you know where they are located. Usually you will be able to
>find out what is what after that.
Probably, but the point is THE COMPANY make the registration patch, NOT
YOU. Sure, you can probably find another registerred user and compare notes,
but WHY? It's not hindering you in any way unless you are just hacking.
[Problem about people who cut TOO MUCH from quoting...]
>And what keeps me form registering as John Doe from the company Public
>Domain, Yellow Brick Road 1, Tinseltown or something???
Nothing, but if you read my WHOLE suggestion, I'm saying that you register
via MAIL by mailing in your registration card, THEN the company send you
the patch which includes the info you put on the registration card.
--Kasey Chang
STEVE GROSS
>>[byteocide]
>--Kasey Chang
I'm glad to see this idea come up because I've had something similar in mind.
What if you had an authorization key that computed from the name and address
data. When the user registers, you don't even need to send executable code,
just compute his/her key and send him/her instructions to enter in the
appropriate place the following:
Name=Joe Doe
Address=123 Main Street
City=Anytown, CA
key=ldslfoialsdkcdsngsikhsfd
Every user needs a unique key. The executable can propagate as much as you
like, the author can respond to the registration by e-mail, post card,
whatever. Unauthorized users would have to put up with someone else's name
showing up (maybe on a main menu screen as well as a startup message).
Authorized users can make as many copies as they like, upgrade their
machines, whatever. The main motivation here is guilt and irritation at
seeing someone other than yourself as the "registered owner".
Kuo-Sheng (Kasey) Chang
sjma...@nextsrv.cas.muohio.edu (Steve Madsen) writes:
backupable, if restored to the same machine >>(depends>> on the
programmer... don't use a disk drive characteristic!) If the user >> did
an upgrade to the machine, he/she should reinstall all programs any way.
>> No document look-up, no disk wear-and-tear! >
> This is not a good idea.. I upgraded my motherboard last fall. I >would
have been quite pissed at any software that would have forced me to
>reinstall simply because I changed motherboards. >
Opinion is understandable. :-) I assume you have a tape drive? Not all
of us have about 200 floppies around for backup, you know.
> Any info in the BIOS is too volatile to use as a checksum. Are you
>going to require that a user re-install all their software if they add
4Mb >of RAM to their computer? I did that a couple of weeks ago. It's in
the >BIOS, and if software had told me "this isn't the machine you
installed me >on" I would never have used that software again. Really bad
idea.
RAM is something you add all the time, so no. It's more like BIOS
manufacturer and/or processor type (386/486/etc). Data cannot be used,
esp with these new Flash ROM BIOS machines with updates on a diskette.
On the other hand, to make this LESS intrusive it could be disguised as
"Please Insert Original Disk #XX as I need file YYYYYY for update". :-)
It would be perfectly reasonable... Sort of.
> >> I did not say that the originals would allow only one install. The
user's >> conscience should do that.
> > This is silly. It's much easier to loan disks to a friend and let
>them do an install than to backup your copy already on disk, and then
give >them that. Your scheme isn't going to stop anyone.
Of course it is easier. Are you saying then the originals SHOULD allow
only one install? What is your point?
> >> You know how many bytes you need to change in X-wing to disable >>
the quiz? TWO! Yes, TWO! (And don't ask me which ones they are.)
> > Do you know any assembly language at all? All anyone needs to do if
>find the part of the code that does the quiz, and insert a JMP
instruction >to just completely skip it. Not that difficult, really! And
there is very >little that commpanies can do to stop this type of thing.
Using PKLITE or >some similar utility would help, but only if the
resulting compressed .EXE >were tagged as uncompressable.
I know x86 and 680x0 assembly quite well, thank you. I know exactly which
two bytes need to be changed, I have the code to do them too. I just said
"Don't ask me which ones." I didn't say I don't know what that means.
Such hacking can be EASILY discouraged by adding anti-patching code which
does a self-check upon execution and refuse to load if CRC does not match
value stored (encrypted, of course) in the program. It could be claimed
as a part of anti-virus code, and it would not be far from the truth.
> >> What I believe the companies should do is implement the above plus >>
a special patch once the user registers that loudly exclaims upon bootup
>> "REGISTERED TO XXXXX -- address, city, state zip" and disables the
above.
> > This is by far the best idea you presented in your post. Making it
>plainly obvious who registered is going to stop casual pirates. But, the
>determined ones are just going to answer "Joe Blow" to the question of
>"what's your name" so this won't stop them in the long run.
Did ANYONE read what I wrote? That is NOT what I wrote! (or meant!)
What I said was the program should have certain restriction (such as the
restrict-to-one-machine) UNTIL the program is registered with the
manufacturer. The manufacturer will then supply the
then-proven-legitimate-user with a patch that will disable the restriction
and PROUDLY PROCLAIM the legal copy with the "Registered to XXX" screen.
> > Pirates are always going to win this fight. They simply have more
>time to work on the software and figure out the protection scheme.
Of course they will, but that was NOT my point. The purpose of copy
protection is to discourage casual pirates ("Oh, can I have a copy of
that?"/"Sure, here.") and the less sophisticated pirates ("Let's look for
all those calls to INT13H...") . Any one determined enough to break copy
protection can and will succeed. They can always backtrace the entire
load-sequence of the program. The point of copy protection is to make
such attempts take as long as possible while not intruding upon the uses
(or to minimize such intrusion) of legitimate use. Pirates who see copy
protection as a challenge love breaking them, and no amount of copy
protection will stop them, but the rest of us WILL be stopped. How many
of these hardcore pirates are there compared to rest of us? Not that many.
--Kasey Chang
Torbj|rn Lindgren
>find the part of the code that does the quiz, and insert a JMP instruction
>to just completely skip it. Not that difficult, really! And there is very
>little that commpanies can do to stop this type of thing. Using PKLITE or
>some similar utility would help, but only if the resulting compressed .EXE
>were tagged as uncompressable.
And even that doesn't help, there are at least two programs available
that fixes this (UNP and DISLITE, both available from Simtel-20). And
even without them it isn't THAT hard to fix.
Jeff Miller
: via MAIL by mailing in your registration card, THEN the company send you
: the patch which includes the info you put on the registration card.
The problem with this scheme, is that when I buy a game, I want to play it
*THAT* day...mailing a card to and from California would probably take a week
or more.
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
| |
| jmi...@terra.colostate.edu | Jeff Miller | TERRA Lab Systems Admin. |
|_____________________________________________________________________________|
Robert L Maynard
>
> Off deeper end-> Why does everyone think they need to be able to make a
> backup copy? Almost all new software must be installed to the hard disk,
> so you are left with the originals as your backups. I think its a waste
> of time, space, and money, as well as it makes it to tempting to "lend"
> out the backups.
>
make a copy of the original floppies to a second set of floppies.
install to hard drive from second set of floppies.
put originals in a box in room number one.
put copies in box in room number two.
1) Accidents DO happen to original floppies.
2) Accidents CAN happen to the installation floppy.
3) Sometimes software goes out on floppies that are JUST marginally good. Or
gets too close to a magnet in shipping or storage.
I've had experience with SOMETHING like the last. I purchased a compiler from
a reputable vendor. THe debugger in the package just would NOT install to the
hard drive. NO WAY. Repeated floppy-to-floppy copies FINALLY got a clean read
of the disk. I DON'T recall if I used "diskcopy", "copy/b", or "xcopy".
I made a second copy of the marginal floppy and installed from that. No problenms ( except with my typing :-) ) since.
I regard backup floppies as CHEAP insurance.
Just my side of the question...
Bob
Andy Stone
I wrote a commercial program called GAME-MAKER (can you guess what
it does). What we do is have a document protect (answer Question on page x,
line y), which is a real pain. We also allow the user to register by sending
in a card, and computing a # based on their name. The system works in that
we've gotten lots of registration cards.
I hear that the program has been cracked though. Someone two people
actually called up my support--one with a question, the other wanting to
buy our graphics libraries (right!). Anyway if anyone wants to help me
catch a cracker and has the cracked version, mail me. I won't accuse
you (unless you're the cracker of course).
--
Andy Stone
- sto...@suned.cs.yale.edu
--
Andy Stone
- sto...@suned.cs.yale.edu
Edward Jajko
>I strongly disagree. I think most pirating is done by amateurs, who won't
>copy the program if "diskcopy" can't do it.
I hate to disagree, but I will. :)
(note: I don't pirate software, nor do I trade it. I simply have met and
talked extensively with those who have. that's it. the FBI can tap someone
else's phone :)
Most pirating is done by people who don't use the programs they pirate.
A cracked program tends to get passed on, resplendant in the various graphics
and animations that advertise whoever performed the modification(s).
I admit that a large portion of the business world is involved in 'giving'
copies of programs to one's fellow workers, maybe taking it home for use
on one's own PC, but such trading tends to be interdepartmental or at most
spread throughout the business as a whole- how many times have you had
someone walking from business to business letting people copy disks?
It's mostly a matter of convenience: a person sees a program they want to
use and they feel justified in making a copy since "someone's already paid
for it", etc., etc. (A note: this is starting to change a bit. not much
though.)
>If you're talking a 20% max goal of pirated copies, I bet that anything that
>will beat diskcopy, and can't be easily copied from a hard drive, will
>suffice.
what about commercially available copy programs? CopyII?
how about programs like teledisk, that can do things diskcopy can't?
and before anyone disputes this because they feel that those who would copy
wouldn't know about this:
after working with people around computers, one comes to realize that
the 'average' user doesn't know much. Any computer enthusiast is at least
200x better at pre-guessing commands and how to use them (can *you* sit down
and use something without reading the manual?) and it is these people who
are doing the '20% pirating', not Joe Windows User who can't remember a few
arguments to the dir command.
>I hate hard copy manuals, and would rather have all docs online - *not*
>because I want to copy the program, but because its usually faster and
>and convenient than sifting through an old book I can't find.
really? I find it evens out- the online stuff can be read through faster,
but you're stuck reading it in linear flow: start to finish, unless you
jump ahead with a search or such. A book, though, you can flip through
faster than you can read text on a screen and they usually have a nifty
index too!
But I partially agree: I often wish I could grep something that was written
down.
>Off deeper end-> Why does everyone think they need to be able to make a
>backup copy? Almost all new software must be installed to the hard disk,
>so you are left with the originals as your backups. I think its a waste
>of time, space, and money, as well as it makes it to tempting to "lend"
>out the backups.
what if they need to re-install? The idea of a backup still holds- if
the original disk goes bad, they're out of luck for about 1-2 weeks, which
is the usual turn around time for a company to send a new set of disks-
if they'll do it without a charge.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Edward W. Jajko :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::: The Nekomancer :: eja...@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu :::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::"Mein Fuhrer! I can walk!!" -Doctor Strangelove::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
CSHL
with a DOS manual can copy a disk, or copy anything (hidden files dont
go far if you are dealing with anyone who is not comletely DOS ignorant) off
of a hard disk. 'Professional' crackers aren;t interested in copying disks.
They are programmers who get some thrill out of going through unassembly
listings of programs to disable copy protection such as serial number
dialog boxes, volume label checks, and who knows what when it comes to
computer games.
Those people are in the minority, however. In my experience with the world of
people and software, it seems that a good majority of people (say 80%) will
at some point copy a friend's program ("Gee, you really oughta try this") or
accept a copy. These are people who normally would buy a software package
or do without, but decided that just once it wouldn't matter.
The last thing is people who own or are responsible for more than one
computer; most people aren't going to spend $150 * X# of computers for the
same software package.. they will just install it x# of times, especially
things like DOS upgrades.
--
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Are we having fun yet? |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Victoria Milliron
A possibility for the software registration conondrum would be to have the
distributor register the copy when the software was sold. The clerk sticks it
in the store PC and asks for the buyers ID. Later, if pirated versions showed up they could be tracked to the original purchaser. In addition copies which were
sent to distributors/stores would have a vendor reg # or serial # in order to
track in store piracy.
Possible additional program security schemes would be:
1. having monthly password changes which necessitate user call in
and registration. (inconvenient)
2. taking dire legal action on anyone caught (expensive)
3. encryption, crc check, self modifying code (limited effectiveness)
4. have an independent watchdog program in the installation/setup config or
memory manager, etc. which would check the main program's crc.
(only as effective as above methods at best.)
5. have the above watchdog circulating as a virus which would trash cracked
copies of the program and/or the offenders hard drive. (risky, and probably
illegal, certainly immoral)
my new ideas aren't terribly feasible to implement as presented, but I thought
if I threw them out people could think of variations that might be effective.
What is the problem with parallel port security keys? I haven't used anything
that had hardware key copy protection schemes, so I don't know what the
drawbacks are. I know the companies that make them claim they're uncrackable,
but I've seen cracks of AutoDesk 3d-studio floating around (I don't have one
so don't ask) and I had heard that it had parralel port keys.
vamil...@othello.ucd.edu
-my apologies if I rambled, but vi inhibits my communication skills greatly.
LE...@qucdn.queensu.ca
Milliron) says:
>
> A possibility for the software registration conondrum would be to have the
>distributor register the copy when the software was sold. The clerk sticks it
That's kind of extra work that one cannot expect the store people to do.
IMHO it would be easier if companies sell their software as cheaply as
possible AND to sell the customers detail manuals (for the brain-deads)
, quick reference books, how to do books and videos, paid support hot line
(1-900 :). For the registered purchasers, these can be part of their package.
I have seen many books to teach people how to use DOS, WP and other software. I
I suspect either users can't read the manuals or they don't have manuals.
Either way, there is $$$ to be made. BTW books are quite a bit more
expensive to reproduce than a $1 disk.
>What is the problem with parallel port security keys? I haven't used anything
>that had hardware key copy protection schemes, so I don't know what the
>drawbacks are. I know the companies that make them claim they're uncrackable,
With the popularity of Multitasking and pseudo multitasking systems
(eg. OS0.5, Windoze, Mack System 7), it is pretty easy to run a debugger
and figure out the protection schemes by disassembling/tracing/trapping
the application during run time. Schemes like compressed software/
special loaders would be easy pray even to beginner hackers.
Hardware keys (unless well designed and *TOTALLY* transparent) is a
pain in the b*t. We having using a piece of software under Windoze
that uses a hardware key. The key interfers with the printer stuff
with other programs and often has to be unplugged for those software
to work properly.
>but I've seen cracks of AutoDesk 3d-studio floating around (I don't have one
>so don't ask) and I had heard that it had parralel port keys.
All the hacker has to do is to remove/modify code that communicate with
the port.
>vamil...@othello.ucd.edu
>-my apologies if I rambled, but vi inhibits my communication skills greatly.
K. C. Lee
Elec. Eng. Grad. Student
OS0.5, Windoze, Mack are not trademarked...
jhwh...@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
> In article <1r76sb...@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> noe...@xanth.CS.ORST.EDU
> (Eric Richard Noel) writes:
>> I hate hard copy manuals, and would rather have all docs online - *not*
>> because I want to copy the program, but because its usually faster and
>> and convenient than sifting through an old book I can't find.
>
> Just MHO, but I prefer hardcopy books because you can have three or four
> of them open spread across the bed (next to the desk in my dorm) and
> reference them while using the program full-screen. The Windows Help
> things come closest to good on-line documentation I've seen, but they
> generally aren't detailed enough and would probably take a LARGE amount of
> space (even compressed) which is at a premium on my system . . .. In
> fact, the manuals are the primary reason I bought Borland's C++ compiler
> instead of using the one the lab licensed (in the lab, of course). I've
> got a SHELF full of books to help me out when I'm stuck. :-) To each
> his own . . . :-)
Jeff White jhwh...@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Jeffrey Muday
This has been an interesting thread to follow... and obviously this group
wasn't intended as a forum for the discussion of piracy... Has anyone seen
any estimates of the lost revenue due to pirates? I was wondering if
piracy is more rampant in Home or Corporate computing environments. I would
tend to think that business environment "piracy" is the major contributor to
this form of lost revenue. So many companies will purchase a few copies of a
software package and then employees will internally distribute them as if they
owned a site-license! What do you guys think?
Guido Klemans
>From: ez01...@othello.ucdavis.edu (Victoria Milliron)
>Subject: Re: How to the disks copy protected.
>Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1993 22:16:29 GMT
>Hmmm...
>What is the problem with parallel port security keys? I haven't used anything
>that had hardware key copy protection schemes, so I don't know what the
>drawbacks are. I know the companies that make them claim they're uncrackable,
>but I've seen cracks of AutoDesk 3d-studio floating around (I don't have one
>so don't ask) and I had heard that it had parralel port keys.
If you put another computer on the port instead of the key, you can hack
them by reading what happens. So I've been told, I've never seen this done
but I think it's possible. You'd need some hardware knowledge and some
software to read the port!
>
>vamil...@othello.ucd.edu
>-my apologies if I rambled, but vi inhibits my communication skills greatly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guido Klemans
Internet: rcst...@urc.tue.nl valid until 16 may 1993
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Listen very carefully, I will say this only once.' Michelle of the resitance
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Kolstad
[stuff about hardware keys]
>If you put another computer on the port instead of the key, you can hack
>them by reading what happens. So I've been told, I've never seen this done
>but I think it's possible. You'd need some hardware knowledge and some
>software to read the port!
True, which is why many of the newer keys ship out, oh, maybe 32 bits or
so, have the key encrypt them, and return them to the PC. Making a bunch
of these 32 bits part of your program code is a good way to make sure
things won't run without the key. :-) Anyway, then, this scheme at least
defeats your approach. It's a little costly, though.
Personally, I don't believe in copy protection, and agree with the thought
that the mass inconvenience that it causes all legal users far outweighs
the gains from what few pirates won't be able to copy the program.
---Joel Kolstad
Steve Madsen
> sjma...@nextsrv.cas.muohio.edu (Steve Madsen) writes:
> > This is not a good idea.. I upgraded my motherboard last fall. I >would
> have been quite pissed at any software that would have forced me to
> >reinstall simply because I changed motherboards. >
> Opinion is understandable. :-) I assume you have a tape drive? Not all
> of us have about 200 floppies around for backup, you know.
Actually, no I don't have a tape drive. In the event of a total
hard disk failure, I reinstall the apps from originals, and restore the data
from the backups I keep of that. With upwards of 100Mb of stuff on my hard
disk, there is no way I'm going to try and back it all up without a tape
drive. :) Would be nice to have one though!
> RAM is something you add all the time, so no. It's more like BIOS
> manufacturer and/or processor type (386/486/etc). Data cannot be used,
> esp with these new Flash ROM BIOS machines with updates on a diskette.
Maybe, maybe not. Today it doesn't happen as often (I would hope),
but then if a BIOS is buggy and the user gets an upgrade, the BIOS
information is going to change, at least the date anyway. Tagging the BIOS
manufacturer is still going to falsely tag those users who upgrade the
motherboard. This type of upgrade doesn't require a hard disk
backup/restore.
> On the other hand, to make this LESS intrusive it could be disguised as
> "Please Insert Original Disk #XX as I need file YYYYYY for update". :-)
> It would be perfectly reasonable... Sort of.
As long as it wasn't done too terribly often. Otherwise I think it
would get annoying and the user would go looking for other software.
> > > This is silly. It's much easier to loan disks to a friend and let
> >them do an install than to backup your copy already on disk, and then
> give >them that. Your scheme isn't going to stop anyone.
> Of course it is easier. Are you saying then the originals SHOULD allow
> only one install? What is your point?
Of course not. If something gets corrupted and my app needs to be
reinstalled, the *worst* thing I want that software telling me is "this
software has already been registered to <blank> and it is against the law to
install it on other machines." Or something similar; Access for Windows
does this and it only requires a click on "OK" to go away. Pretty
non-intrusive, but it gets the point across.
> What I said was the program should have certain restriction (such as the
> restrict-to-one-machine) UNTIL the program is registered with the
> manufacturer. The manufacturer will then supply the
> then-proven-legitimate-user with a patch that will disable the restriction
> and PROUDLY PROCLAIM the legal copy with the "Registered to XXX" screen.
This is a great idea. I like the key system that some shareware
products use. The only problem is that it will be difficult for big
software companies to implement this without it getting very
cost-ineffective for them and more of a burden than a benefit to the users.
marxhausen paul
I'll toss in my 2 cents worth - I've begun to think that distribution
disks are made on some of the least reliable floppy disk stocks available.
We've been especially plagued by Borland's distribution disks. I'm
lucky if I can install from them as many as 3 times before they crap
out on me. So definitely, as a matter of course we ALWAYS make copies
to do our installations with.
--
paul marxhausen .... ....... ............. ............ ............ ..........
.. . . . . . university of nebraska - lincoln . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . grace . . . .
. . . . . . . . happens .
Kuo-Sheng (Kasey) Chang
jmi...@terra.colostate.edu (Jeff Miller) writes:
>In an earlier article Kasey Chang wrote:
>: Nothing, but if you read my WHOLE suggestion, I'm saying that you register
>: via MAIL by mailing in your registration card, THEN the company send you
>: the patch which includes the info you put on the registration card.
>The problem with this scheme, is that when I buy a game, I want to play it
>*THAT* day...mailing a card to and from California would probably take a week
>or more.
I didn't say the program is DISABLED, did I? (I HATE!!!! it when people
take my words out of context...) I mean that once you have installed it,
you cannot DEinstall it without registering it, or transfer it to another
machine, or SOME SORT OF LIMITATION (the author will decide), WHICH WILL
BE REMOVED WHEN THE PROGRAM IS REGISTERED.
--Kasey Chang
Einar Indridason
WHAT??!!!!
You can't remove it, unless you register?
You gotta be joking, right?
What happens if I get a demo-version of that program, install it, and then
decide that I don't like it. Do I have to register to be able to get rid
of it? (Hell, no, that is the last thing I would think of!)
If that is what you mean, then you would better make pretty sure, that a
statement to that effect is printed loud and clear on the package!
A better way to implement the above mentioned scheme is (IMHO) to allow
anyone to install the program, but if they register, they get some
additional features enabled. It could mean only one new .EXE file needed
to be copied, to have got the full-version of the program.
Of course anyone is _free_ to _delete_ or _remove_ that program at whatever
time they like.
Still, we face the trouble of 'moving' the new .EXE file around. That
could be solved by having the user registering him self, and get back a
specially marked for him (or her) a new .exe file.
As for some sort of limitations, here are some suggestions:
Limit the size of data that the program can work with,
Disable saving the data,
Print it out with some defects in the output (but be sure to mark them as
such)
Let some pop-up screen appear for ca. 10 secs. when the program is started
and/or exited
etc....
but DON'T have it that you _must_ register to be able to remove it.
CSHL
software pirates, NOTHING will stop them. These are people who crack
software (mostly games, but so what) daily for fun. They can usually find
a crack around anything, especially if the manufacturer leaves a hole for such a thing.
Gerrit Conradie
>Subject: Re: How to the disks copy protected.
>it does). What we do is have a document protect (answer Question on page x,
>line y), which is a real pain. We also allow the user to register by sending
>in a card, and computing a # based on their name. The system works in that
>we've gotten lots of registration cards.
> I hear that the program has been cracked though. Someone two people
>actually called up my support--one with a question, the other wanting to
>buy our graphics libraries (right!). Anyway if anyone wants to help me
>catch a cracker and has the cracked version, mail me. I won't accuse
>you (unless you're the cracker of course).
>
I know of at least one ftp-site from which you can download the cracks of
about any commercial game in existence. The names of the companies (yes,
companies!) are also blatantly advertised with the crack codes. According to
them, it is not illegal (at least in the USA, according to a statute or
something) to remove the copy protection from any program. The only condition
is that you may only use this code on legally owned software for your own
convenience.
If there is any interest I will download the advertisement of one such
company. I will not give the name of this ftp-site to anyone, even if only
to protect the companies which wrote the original games.
DISCLAIMER: I do not condone the use or cracking of any programs. I believe
it hurts the industry and individuals in the long run.
On the subject of copy protection: Most pirates don't give a damn about
using software on which the name of the registered owner came up on starting
the program. They just don't have a conscience.
- gerrit
Duke of Canterbury
>I would expect that CD-ROM software would not even need copy protection.
>As the program on a CD-ROM would not fit onto a hard-drive, and it is
Why not? CD-ROMs are about 600+ Mb, and even if there was only one program
or dataset on the CD-ROM, you could dump it to a 600+ Mb hard disk, which is
not that uncommon these days.
>impossible for the average (and even not-so-average) user to write to a
>CD-ROM, copies of the software (that still work) could never be made.
Well, not impossible if you mean that the average user can't make a copy of a
CD-ROM by creating another CD-ROM, but expensive. We make demo CD's all the
time here and the blank writable (write-once) CDs cost us about $40 or so
EACH, and the machine that writes the CDs costs about $7K per drive. So,
it's not cost-effective to copy a CD-ROM onto a write-once CD in most cases.
>Hmmm.. now that I think about it.. with a creative TSR, maybe
>disk-swapping could be used to simulate files on a single disk. You
>would need a tonne of disks though.
Probably, that would be a neat hack. You could also just network your
computers togther and have one machine with the CD-ROM and drive, and have
the other machines access it over the network.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
mike bender DOD# 007 415-863-8913 (home)
1991 FJ1200
ben...@oobleck.eng.sun.com 415-336-6353 (work)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Duke of Canterbury
: >In article <1r76sb...@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> noe...@xanth.CS.ORST.EDU
: >(Eric Richard Noel) writes:
: >> I hate hard copy manuals, and would rather have all docs online - *not*
: >Just MHO, but I prefer hardcopy books because you can have three or four
: >reference them while using the program full-screen.
: Agree 100%, personally I cannot flip from page to page on a screen and
: retain information as easily as in the written page.
I use Sun workstations most of the time and a Toshiba laptop some times when
I'm mobile, and I find that having paper docs is a must for the Toshiba with
it's screen resolution of 640X480, while on the Sun, if I'm using a screen
with a resolution of 1152X900 (Sun standard color resolution), I (mentally)
go back and forth as to which is better - on screen docs or paper docs.
Using my 1600X1280 monochrome Sun display, I can get a lot more information
on the screen, but then the characters are so small my eyeballs start to
hurt :-).
The nice thing about paper is that you can take a yellow high-lighter to it
and scribble on it, and you don't need anything except your eyes to access
it.
mike
mde...@dutiws.twi.tudelft.nl
[deleted]
>One of the easiest, and really very used ways of copyprotection, is to mark
>a specific sector on the installation disk bad. This is very easy to get
>around, though, if you have any knowledge of hw-hacking, but most 'normal'
>users (yes those lowly key-punchers) don't. Whatever you do, please do
>_not_ use a hardware key. These were very popular a few years ago, and they
>STINK!!
I'm wondering why one shouldn't use a hardware key.
If you use a copyprtection method that uses a marked sector on the disk, then
the original disk has to be in the drive everytime you want to run the program.
And with programs like CopyIIPC even these disks can be copied...
I'm a software programmer, and i use a hardware key with a custom chip. The
advantage of it (as far as i see) is that the original disk can be safely put
away and even backups can be made. As far as i see there about two ways to
crack a program that uses a key :
1) Write a TSR that simulates the key (i've seen this been done)
2) Disable all checks in the program.
Method 1 can be done with the older keys, that only check if they're there, but
as far as i know not with the newer custom keys, if everything is programmed
right.
Method 2 can be made a lot harder if you use routines that let a debugger crash.
Routines are available for this, even routines that can let TD386 crash !
Secondly, parts of the program or data can be encrypted with the encryption
routine available in the newer keys. And the routines that check if the key is
there can be checked if they still have the right CRC check as well.
/------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Martin de Jong | E-Mail : mde...@dutiws.twi.tudelft.nl |
| | wit...@dutrex.tudelft.nl |
| | |
\------------------------------------------------------------------/
Marc Slemko
> I still think a major point is being missed... If you are worried about
> software pirates, NOTHING will stop them. These are people who crack
> software (mostly games, but so what) daily for fun. They can usually find
> a crack around anything, especially if the manufacturer leaves a hole for suc
> h a thing.
Sure, it is possible, but some sort of copy-protection (although I am
against the concept... but it is needed) WILL help deter the people who
simply copy their friends games and programs, sometimes not even
thinking of it as stealing at all. It is useless to try to stop the
hard-core pirate, but you sure can make a big dent in the illegal
copying of a program by simply putting SOME sort of copy protection on
it.
--
===========================================================================
Marc Slemko | ma...@alive.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada | No big long title--just ME!
===========================================================================
Ketil Albertsen,TIH
>I'm wondering why one shouldn't use a hardware key.
>If you use a copyprtection method that uses a marked sector on the disk, then
>the original disk has to be in the drive everytime you want to run the program.
No, not if you make an installation program that must be run from the floppy.
The installation can make a number of customizations depending on the system on
which it is installed. One part of the installation job would be to try to write
to a burnt sector and read it back again - on a copied disk, the data written would
be read back, while on a burnt disk you wouldn't have anything written.
You might succeed in making a direct copy of the installed program to an *exactly
identical* machine. But it isn't that difficult making something that could
detect that the installation was run on a different configuration, and then
refuse to run. (Expanding your system might require re-installation of this kind
of software!)
Sure someone could borrow the original disks and install on a different system, so
the system doesn't give 100% protection. But it would reduce the problem of
illegal copying a lot.
Allen Koberg
>In article <gunnarh.60...@dhhalden.no> gun...@dhhalden.no (GUNNAR HORRIGMO) writes:
>>users (yes those lowly key-punchers) don't. Whatever you do, please do
>>_not_ use a hardware key. These were very popular a few years ago, and they
>>STINK!!
>
>I'm wondering why one shouldn't use a hardware key.
>If you use a copyprtection method that uses a marked sector on the disk, then
>the original disk has to be in the drive everytime you want to run the program.
>And with programs like CopyIIPC even these disks can be copied...
>I'm a software programmer, and i use a hardware key with a custom chip. The
>advantage of it (as far as i see) is that the original disk can be safely put
>away and even backups can be made. As far as i see there about two ways to
I would say that the reason NOT to use dongles is that they can break
down. And when you're a big electronics firm using PSpice (which I think used
to use dongles), you can't afford to have a computer down when your
key goes crazy 8. In the latest PC Mag, in the back pages theres an ad
from a company that sells a hardware work around for some particular
dongle hardware. The ad was interesting though because it contained
some "testimonials" from supposedly real people who've had their keys break
and they basically thought they sucked.
I'd say the best way to get people to buy software is to provide great
support or include really great manuals or food stamps or SOMETHING :-) when
you buy the program.
IO3...@maine.maine.edu
code hard to look at using routines that crash TD386 so that the checks
of the hardware key cannot be found. Then he says that the program can take the
CRC of the code to see if it's been altered...
First of all, the CRC approach was a popular idea in many C64 games. But
it can be gotten around VERY easily. First, depending on the CRC scheme
a few things can be done. The opcodes 74 34 will profrom a conditional
jump, so you change the codes to 34 74, which will not jump, and the
CRC will many time be statisfied... But the more PROVEN way is this...
Many of my cracks are of games that are encrypted, to get around this,
one only needs to write a .8k TSR that hooks a any vecter that the
program calls. When the vecter is called, the TSR runs code to alter the
code in memory. Then, when the first INT after the copy protection is
run, the TSR changes the code back to the way it was.... CRC is defeated.
The only way to get around this is to put the CRC code in before any
other INTs are called.. but that won't work either, because the TSR alters
the code, and puts IT'S OWN INT instrustion in the code.
Now, about craching TD386. Most of the serious crackers that I know
do not use TD386. I certainly don't (except for my personal .ASM programs)
TD is big, cumbersome, and there are many better tools to use to crack.
The ways in which the ruotines usually crash debuggers is to put code
int the INT8 timer to constanly set the Siggle Step/Breakpoint Interrupt
to an invalid address, or they write necessary data the the vecter table
at the Single-step/breakpoint pointers, so that these vecters CANNOT
be changed, or the appilcation will crash. Any debugger worth it's
salt, and used by good crcakers, can easily overcome these measures.
I'll say it again.... IT IS NOT WOTH YOUR TIME to come up
with these copy-protection measures to thwart the cracker. THEY HAVE
NEVER WORKED, and they never will! I've seen all of this.... Dongles,
CRCs, encyption.. and have cracked it all.
Adam Tableman
mde...@dutiws.twi.tudelft.nl
>I post on this thread talked about using a hardware key, then making the
>code hard to look at using routines that crash TD386 so that the checks
>of the hardware key cannot be found. Then he says that the program can take the
>CRC of the code to see if it's been altered...
> First of all, the CRC approach was a popular idea in many C64 games. But
>it can be gotten around VERY easily. First, depending on the CRC scheme
>a few things can be done. The opcodes 74 34 will profrom a conditional
>jump, so you change the codes to 34 74, which will not jump, and the
>CRC will many time be statisfied...
Just incase you wonder : 34 74 is xor al, 74h
If the code has a specific number in al, or ax, then after this instruction
the number will not be the same anymore...
And second of all, any good CRC will have a different value with 74 34 then
with 34 74.
>But the more PROVEN way is this...
>Many of my cracks are of games that are encrypted, to get around this,
>one only needs to write a .8k TSR that hooks a any vecter that the
>program calls. When the vecter is called, the TSR runs code to alter the
>code in memory. Then, when the first INT after the copy protection is
>run, the TSR changes the code back to the way it was.... CRC is defeated.
>The only way to get around this is to put the CRC code in before any
>other INTs are called.. but that won't work either, because the TSR alters
>the code, and puts IT'S OWN INT instrustion in the code.
This way you can be prob be dure you got the first check out, but what about
the rest of the checks ? BTW: I don't use a single routine to check if the
program is running on a machine it should....
> Now, about craching TD386. Most of the serious crackers that I know
>do not use TD386. I certainly don't (except for my personal .ASM programs)
>TD is big, cumbersome, and there are many better tools to use to crack.
>The ways in which the ruotines usually crash debuggers is to put code
>int the INT8 timer to constanly set the Siggle Step/Breakpoint Interrupt
>to an invalid address, or they write necessary data the the vecter table
>at the Single-step/breakpoint pointers, so that these vecters CANNOT
>be changed, or the appilcation will crash. Any debugger worth it's
>salt, and used by good crcakers, can easily overcome these measures.
Indeed, this is an easy way to let debugger crash, but it wouldn't work
with a 386 debugger, coz they use hardware breakpoints (like TD386). Still
it is possible to let even these debuggers crash, if you know how. I know
a way to let TD386 crash when trying to debug my program.
> I'll say it again.... IT IS NOT WOTH YOUR TIME to come up
>with these copy-protection measures to thwart the cracker. THEY HAVE
>NEVER WORKED, and they never will! I've seen all of this.... Dongles,
>CRCs, encyption.. and have cracked it all.
> Adam Tableman
You never heard me say that it's possible to make a program that can't be
cracked, but i can sure make it a lot harder. The best way to do this is to
use multiple checks, and multiple ways to check it. And offcourse some
encryption/self modifying code. And some routines to let a debugger crash.
NEVER trust that a single check it the start of your program will be enough !
Duke of Canterbury
: I'll say it again.... IT IS NOT WOTH YOUR TIME to come up
: with these copy-protection measures to thwart the cracker. THEY HAVE
: NEVER WORKED, and they never will! I've seen all of this.... Dongles,
: CRCs, encyption.. and have cracked it all.
So, let me ask a question that will probably get me flamed by many. Why do
you spend your time trying to crack copy protection on software that you may
not own? Why not spend your time developing your own software and giving it
away or selling it to others (your choice)? Is there more personal
satisfaction derived from breaking a copy protection scheme than there is in
seeing software that you personally developed being used by many other
people?
ics...@msu.oscs.montana.edu
I krakz code n i spelz gud to! :}
If you want to be taken seriously, slow down a bit and try to say what you
want to say clearly. No flame here, just some advice. I'm sure you're super
busy, but I stopped before I had even read half of your post to write this.
I'm sure you're good at what you do, but if you're going to communicate, do it
well. I'm sorry if this is out of line, or if your editor sucks, but remember,
you do have an audience.
Thanks
Jae Ellers
Wouter Slegers
<stuff deleted>
:
: You never heard me say that it's possible to make a program that can't be
: cracked, but i can sure make it a lot harder. The best way to do this is to
: use multiple checks, and multiple ways to check it. And offcourse some
: encryption/self modifying code. And some routines to let a debugger crash.
: NEVER trust that a single check it the start of your program will be enough !
This is also the best way to set of any virusscanner that uses an heuristic
scanning methode (like Fprot and TBAV). Self modifying code is really a bad
programming method, as is encryption (although that can be justified).
If you really want to stop copying, make the product cheap and easy to
register. Most programs are really hard to register from Europe.... It's
often easier to get a patch than to register the product.
Regards,
Wouter
--
Wouter Slegers, 1st year CS at TUE (nl), wou...@stack.urc.tue.nl.
Disclaimer: If the above sounds plausible, reread it several times!
Religion and sex are powerplays*manipulate the people for the money they pay
Selling skin, selling god* the numbers are the same on their creditcards!
Kuo-Sheng (Kasey) Chang
[rantings on hacking accomplishments deleted]
> I'll say it again.... IT IS NOT WOTH YOUR TIME to come up
>with these copy-protection measures to thwart the cracker. THEY HAVE
>NEVER WORKED, and they never will! I've seen all of this.... Dongles,
>CRCs, encyption.. and have cracked it all.
The point about copy protection is NOT to thwart hackers... ANY code,
protection, whatever, CAN be broken with enough determination, skill,
and/or equipment.
The point about copy protection is to stop CASUAL pirating, which costs
the game manufacturers more than the true hacker's network of
distribution. Hacker's distribution net is never widely publicized and
the distribution is therefore limited. Say one hacker's BBS has got, say,
X-wing. How fast will it spread and how many will get a copy? Probably
not THAT many. Any true hackers want to share some REAL stats? On the
other hand, how many of you tame readers (not hackers) will let your
"friends" have a copy of your latest program? Quite a few I suppose.
Let's see... X copies by Y persons = Z copies...
So stop boasting about your conquests. You are NOT the intended target.
Besides, why do you hackers crack games any way? Just for the heck of it
like the graffitists? For kicks? Or do you all have a big moral reason
like "we have the right to modify any software we get our hands on"?
--Kasey Chang, NOT affiliated with any game manufacturers
Ralf....@b.gp.cs.cmu.edu
}>Hmmm.. now that I think about it.. with a creative TSR, maybe
}>disk-swapping could be used to simulate files on a single disk. You
}>would need a tonne of disks though.
}
}Probably, that would be a neat hack. You could also just network your
It's been done before, though in a limited fashion. Look at SIMTEL20's
PD1:<MSDOS.ARC-LBR>MVA101.ARC for a small TSR that allows a single file to
span multiple disks, provided it is read/written sequentially.
--
Internet: RA...@CS.CMU.EDU |The University would disclaim this if it knew...
FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/26.1 |"Life is great--I wouldn't know what I'd do
BIT: RALF%CS.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE| without it." -- Alan Alda
IO3...@maine.maine.edu
why I spend time cracking, rather than serius programming. Let me
repond this way: It doen't take much time at all for me to crack. For
most games, It is a 10 minutes affair. For the tough ones (which there
are very few of) it take 2 hours. For the REALLY tough ones (alas, only
two or three of these are year ever come out) is takes 5 hours max. I
do take satisfaction in cracking. It is a challenge, which I especially
enjoy if the programmer is TRYING to make the protection unbreakable.
It is fun exercise to me. It is a fun hobby that I do on the side.
Now, onto the specific matter at hand. Again, I will refer back to
the person who is taking about encrytion and CRC checks in order to make
his code harder to crack. First, I have to say this: I have said it
before.... There is a point where you are beating your head against the wall.
The fact is this: you are going to waste time making self-mutating code,
elaborate, multiple CRC checks, and encrytion. CONSIDER THIS: If someone
is a good enough cracker to crack semi-complicated encrytion schemes
easily, then whatever you do WILL NOT STOP THE CRACKER. It might slow
him down for a few hours, but it will not stop him. So my point is this:
put protection in your game, and it will stop the average user and the
less skilled crackers, but JUST PUT ENOUGH effort in the protection to
stop THOSE people. You are going overboard. A lot less than you are proposing
will do the job of stoping 90% of users, and NOTHING you will do will
stop the other 10%. Your scheme WILL be broken, so don't worry about it,
and don't go overboard. I agree with another person who posted the
fact the self-mutating code is bad programming pratice...
Now, let me say this... I have dealt with many games that use
millions of hidden checks through out the code.. and I have never been
even slowed down by this... Because of the following facts. I will
propose a plan for cracking your code:
1. As for the physical code changing, I will put a TSR patch to
some Interrupt (you gotta call one sometime!) The patch will alter the code,
let the altered code run, then immediatly change the code back to the
way it was to foil CRC checks. To insure that this change takes place,
I will do what I just did with Future Wars, I will put my own INT
instrutcion in myself.
2. Now... Here's how to foils mutiple checks. What you are prosposing
is not a new thing by any streach.. It's just what Solomon said, "There is
no new thing under the sun." I have used this approach many times, and
just used it in fact to make a 100% patch for StarControl II. SC2 had
many a nasty check throuout it's code. The game continually check you
Copy protection answer, to make sure you were legit. What I did was this:
I reworte the main section of the protection code to 1. de-crypt the
correct answer to the question 2. copy this correct answer into
the keyboard buffer 3. re-encrypt the right answer, and 4. jump back into
the protection check proper. This was done with Look-up-the-word protection,
but the principle applies easily to ON-DISK as well. I used the same
idea with on-disk in the game Ultima5 (long time ago! :) ) This way,
EVERY subtle protection check that SC2 did passed, because the game
thoguht that you typed in the correct answer!
So, I still am convinced that you scheme is easily breakable, and
even if it is not easily breakable, then at the least, it is breakable.
Don't get so worried about it! accept the fact that it will be cracked,
and put on a reasonable scheme that will thrwat m90% of the users, without
goin overboard. See you later! Adam Tableman
Gary Gendel
> So, I still am convinced that you scheme is easily breakable, and
>even if it is not easily breakable, then at the least, it is breakable.
>Don't get so worried about it! accept the fact that it will be cracked,
>and put on a reasonable scheme that will thrwat m90% of the users, without
>goin overboard. See you later! Adam Tableman
We had a similar discussion, in house, with the same conclusions. We finally
decided to use the slap on the wrist approach. A reasonable, two tiered
encryption protection scheme was used. We felt that this would be enough
of a deterrent to indicate our intentions (that this is not free software).
I'm sure any competent cracker could break this scheme, but the majority of
our users do see the value in paying for support of the products. We also
produce a student version of each of our products, that have no protection,
but have a limit to the size of problem to be solved. Most crackers would
not find a need to break the commercial offering, as the student version
suits most casual users.
---
Gary Gendel
Vice President: Current consulting assignment:
Genashor Corp Mentor Graphics Corporation
9 Piney Woods Drive 15 Independence Boulevard
Belle Mead, NJ 08502 Warren, NJ 07059
phone: (908) 281-0164 phone: (908) 604-0883
fax: (908) 281-9607 email: ga...@warren.mentorg.com
Todd Inch
>Kuo-Sheng (Kasey) Chang (ksc...@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu) wrote:
>> What I believe the companies should do is implement the above plus
>> a special patch once the user registers that loudly exclaims upon bootup
>> "REGISTERED TO XXXXX -- address, city, state zip" and disables the above.
We use some software that does this, and I hate it. I'm in a corporate
setting, and users come and go, but the company still owns the
software. The users put their name in it when the install and
register, which is then obsolete once they leave the company. Also,
all the "junk" mail, some of which is important, which is the result of
their returning the registration card, then goes into the trash can
rather than to me (MIS supervisor). So, whenever I do software installs,
I put "See MIS Dept" as the user's name.
Todd Inch
>In article <1r76sb...@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> noe...@xanth.CS.ORST.EDU
>(Eric Richard Noel) writes:
>> Off deeper end-> Why does everyone think they need to be able to make a
>> backup copy? Almost all new software must be installed to the hard disk,
>> so you are left with the originals as your backups. I think its a waste
>> of time, space, and money, as well as it makes it to tempting to "lend"
>> out the backups.
I've seen too much software that won't install unless the floppy is
write enabled. I trashed one, our only copy, because the system it was
being installed to had a virus which attacked and destroyed the program
on the install disk (yes, I spent days confirming this, know the name
and history of the virus and have a "culture" of it on floppy.)
Also, if the floppy is writeable, a hardware glitch, power hit, or
(more likely) sloppy user may inadvertently write to it.
Also, eventually the radiation in the atmosphere will eventually (I
don't know, maybe a hundred or so years?) erase magnetic media. I
believe there are government agencies (FAA comes to mind) that won't
allow "permanent records", which have in the past been paper or
microfiche, to be put on magnetic media because they can be erased too
easily by the environment and/or stray electromagnetic fields.