derek@rsch.WISC.EDU (Derek Zahn) (04/15/87)
A question: how do people do copy protection on the Amiga? Not too
interested in debating its morality, but I was sort of staring dumbly
at a copy-protected program, and suddenly realized that I had no idea
how it could be done. Obviously it must do something that would foil
a program that just copies every bit of data from disk A to disk B.
derek
--
Abstract: Derek Zahn @ wisconsin
Usenet: ...!{allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo,sfwin,ucbvax}!uwvax!derek
Arpa Internet: derek@rsch.wisc.edudillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU.UUCP (04/15/87)
Well, actually, one has quite a bit more control over the Amiga floppy than with most other computers. There are several ways to prevent people from doing simple bit-by-bit copies... laser burns, writing while seeking, flaky bits, etc... Unfortunetly, most copyprotection schemes either (A) force the use of a master disk which wears out, (B) is a @#$#$% to use everytime you want to run the application, or (C) takes over the machine. As a result, I personally do not buy copyprotected software. -Matt
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (04/17/87)
In article <8704150737.AA15755@cory.Berkeley.EDU> dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes:
)
) Unfortunetly, most copyprotection schemes either (A) force the
) use of a master disk which wears out, (B) is a @#$#$% to use
) everytime you want to run the application, or (C) takes over the
) machine. As a result, I personally do not buy copyprotected
) software.
) -Matt
You forgot the worst of them all, (D) all of the above.
Keithgalen@pdp.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Douglas Wade Needham) (04/19/87)
In article <3458@rsch.WISC.EDU>, derek@rsch.WISC.EDU (Derek Zahn) writes: > A question: how do people do copy protection on the Amiga? Not too > interested in debating its morality, but I was sort of staring dumbly > at a copy-protected program, and suddenly realized that I had no idea > how it could be done. Obviously it must do something that would foil > a program that just copies every bit of data from disk A to disk B. > > derek > One way to foil a copy program is to write a track in a funny format (Say using GCR encoding, or a funny sector size, or crazy address.) The only restriction is that the root of the disk must be in the standard format for the initial bootstrap, etc. From there on, you use your own driver to read the disk. I think that some version of this is used by EGA for their Artic Fox disks. While I do not feel that companies should copy-protect their software, so that you cannot make your own archive copies, I also feel that software piracy is a problem. One idea I have is for each machine have an ID number in the ROMs, and make it so that a portion of the program must be modified before it would run, and a one only installation program do the modification, and also make the disk copyable at the same time... Would such a scheme work, who knows??? Perhaps the programs could be ordered with the ID number already installed, or the ID be installed at the vendor... Anyway, it is a pain when these copy protected disks go bad and you have no archive, and also a pain when you loose $ from pirated copies. Good job C-A... #include <disclamer.h> - douglas wade needham (galen@pdp.cs.OHIOU.EDU and after some networking root@vax.ece.OHIOU.EDU...) -- ----S----N----A----R----K----S----&----B----O----O----J----U----M----S---- Douglas Wade Needham (614)593-1567 (work) or (614)597-5969 (Home) Electrical Engineering Dept., Ohio University, Athens, Ohio 45701 UUCP: ...!cbatt!oucs!galen ** Smart Mailers: galen@pdp.cs.OHIOU.EDU
gary@mit-eddie.UUCP (04/24/87)
The most obnoxious copy protection I've seen so far on the Amiga is for Balance of Power (which is quite a game, by the way). First, it makes you type something from the manual each time you play, which is enough in itself. But then, the disk cannot be copied (and the program constantly accesses it). And finally, you cannot run the game with the disk write- protected because the game writes on it periodically!!! Not to mention that it does not work with 1.2 so that the game cannot be put into my extra meg of ram... Arggg...
sdl@linus.UUCP (Steven D. Litvintchouk) (04/25/87)
Posting-Front-End: GNU Emacs 18.41.1 of Thu Apr 9 1987 on linus (berkeley-unix) > The most obnoxious copy protection I've seen so far on the Amiga is > for Balance of Power (which is quite a game, by the way). First, it makes > you type something from the manual each time you play, which is enough in > itself. But then, the disk cannot be copied (and the program constantly > accesses it). And finally, you cannot run the game with the disk write- > protected because the game writes on it periodically!!! 1. Agreed; Balance of Power (B.O.P.) is a *super* strategy game. 2. Marauder II successfully copies B.O.P., producing a non-copy-protected copy that doesn't ask you to type anything. It was worth getting Marauder II just to copy B.O.P. > Not to mention that it does not work with 1.2 so that the game cannot > be put into my extra meg of ram... 3. B.O.P. works fine on my Amiga with Workbench 1.2; it's the extra RAM that confuses it. I am forced to switch off my extra 1 MB of RAM, start up the game, and then switch my 1 MB RAM on again. Steven Litvintchouk MITRE Corporation Burlington Road Bedford, MA 01730 Fone: (617)271-7753 ARPA: sdl@mitre-bedford UUCP: ...{cbosgd,decvax,genrad,ll-xn,philabs,security,utzoo}!linus!sdl
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (07/13/87)
In article <22939@sun.uucp> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes: >When the copy protection is >done poorly (as in the case of MicroProse's Silent Service) the program will >break. What happens next is the sad part, the user BLAMES THE AMIGA! Yes, >thats right, the user say's "This stupid machine can't even run a program >three times without corrupting a disk!" Which is TOTALLY UNTRUE. Good Point! I've already remarked about my Amiga's reputation for trashing disks. I have come to understand recently that it was really stupid copy protection schemes that were bashing my disks. I'm no technical expert, but I do have several years of C and Unix systems programming experience, and years of experience on several micros. If I ignorantly blame it on the machine, you can bet the average Amiga buyer will. Sean -- --- Sean Casey UUCP: cbosgd!ukma!sean CSNET: sean@ms.uky.csnet --- ARPA: ukma!sean@anl-mcs.arpa BITNET: sean@UKMA.BITNET --- We want... a shrubbery!
rjg@nis.NIS.MN.ORG (Robert J. Granvin) (07/19/87)
This is still in the wrong group... but... :-)
Everyone complains about copy protection. Sure. Why not? We'd all
like to be able to back up our software. We'd all also like it so
that the copy protection doesn't get in the way. It all makes sense.
However, what does or does not make sense, depending on how you look
at it, is that easily by the largest majority, everyone complains
about copy protection on _games_. Are games really all that important
to make as much a fuss over all the time?
MicroIllusions, for example, adds this note to the back of their
player instructions. This one is from Faery Tale:
"Yes, the disk is copy protected. Normally the MicroIllusions policy
is to put copy protection on games only, and not on business or
educational software. This is because games are the most heavily
pirated programs, and because nobody's business or personal life is
going to be seriously damaged by the inability to back up a game disk.
We are sorry if this is an inconvenience but unrestricted copying of
programs is a big problem for us and it is not financially feasible to
release unprotected games at this time."
I think that sums it up fairly well. Don't you?
Rather than complain about it, try and find a solution. I've tried.
Never found one that works...
--
Robert J. Granvin UNIVERSE: rjg@NIS.MN.ORG
Programmer/Analyst - Technical Services UUCP: ihnp4!meccts!nis!rjg
National Information Systems, Inc. ATT: (612) 894-9494
"Look out - Muppets!"kim@amdahl.amdahl.com (Kim DeVaughn) (08/04/87)
In article <437@sugar.UUCP>, karl@sugar.UUCP (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: > > If everyone or most companies agreed on using dongles for copy protection, it > would conceivably be possible to have only one dongle per computer. You > would send your gizmo ID number along with your payment to the company whose > software you're buying. They then send you a copy customized for your dongle. > > [ ... ] > > This has some obvious drawbacks, which I will go on and list along with what I > think is the amount of impact: > > [ ... ] It is unclear to me why there is so much recent discussion of dongles going on here (among other non-Amiga related discussions). Dongles are (thankfully) all but a dead issue insofar as major s/w publishers are concerned. Seems that a year or so ago, ADAPSO (who represents software houses, etc.) formally withdrew their support of "dongles", and their proposed implementation(s). The reasons given were "logistic difficulties", such as have been pointed out time and again here and in various other news.groups. Also given was *lack of direction and support* by the member companies represented by ADAPSO itself. Now I know that a few small-time s/w outfits are using (and will continue to use) these devices, but "The Industry" has spoken, and made it's decision. Dongles are out! I wouldn't buy such products, and hopefully nobody else will either. Such negative reenforcement in the Marketplace is the best way to bring about *rational* solutions to the Execution Protection problem. /kim [ Any thoughts or opinions which may or may not have been expressed ] [ herein are my own. They are not necessarily those of my employer. ] -- UUCP: kim@amdahl.amdahl.com or: {sun,decwrl,hplabs,pyramid,ihnp4,seismo,oliveb,cbosgd}!amdahl!kim DDD: 408-746-8462 USPS: Amdahl Corp. M/S 249, 1250 E. Arques Av, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 CIS: 76535,25
page@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) (08/04/87)
kim@amdahl.amdahl.com (Kim DeVaughn) wrote: >Such negative reenforcement in the Marketplace is the best way to >bring about *rational* solutions to the Execution Protection problem. Last night at the BCS Amiga Tech Group meeting I heard the best description of how to do copy protection and not get people pissed. Design a dongle that people WANT. That's just what Digi-View does. ..Bob -- Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. page@ulowell.{uucp,edu,csnet}
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (05/26/90)
jones@uv4.eglin.af.mil (Calvin Jones, III) writes: >The biggest drawback that I can see is when a user might sell a system. > >If the display had provided the Visa/MC number, the original owner would >have been at risk. Heck, even if it doesn't provide private information, the original owner is at risk if he ever sells the software! Let's say you sell your software package that has a serial number tracable back to you. What if the person who buys it starts passing it around? He figures since it's your number, nobody will trace it to him. Or if he sells it and somone further on down the line starts passing it out. You will be the one that the software police come looking for. (and if the software was ever sold by you at some sort of flea market, or yardsale, where you don't know the identity of the buyer, then you are really out of luck as far as tracing the software to see where it started getting pirated) -- John Sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 2400bps. Accessable via Starlink (Louisville KY) sparks@corpane.UUCP | | PH: (502) 968-DISK A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of. - Ogden Nash
hamish@waikato.ac.nz (05/28/90)
In article <10451@ingr.com>, phil@ingr.com (Phil Johnson) writes: > One of the easiest copy protection schemes would be for computer > manufacturers to include a system id number in the system. The > user would provide their system id when they ordered the software. > The software would then query the system whenever it was used. I > believe the amount of work required to set a method to workaround > this extensive (enough so that a number of major software houses > use it). > > An example of this scheme is the use of the ethernet address of a > workstation. There are a number of these examples around now and > from the past. If you can get the manufacturers to provide the > facility the rest of fairly secure, user transparent and non- > abusive. > -- > Philip E. Johnson UUCP: usenet!ingr!phil > MY words, VOICE: (205) 730-8112 > MY opinion! -- NO NO NO NO NO!!!!! What happens when the computer or ethernet card decides that it has had a long & hard life and decides to take retirement early? Do I now have to buy a new software package? Or am I just forced to lose money by not being able to work until I can get a replacement program. (Yes I can replace the H/W fairly quickly eg 20 mins). This in itself would be enough to put off any serious developer, knowing that 1 and only 1 machine can be used to develope his new product. Same goes for games and any other software. If I can't take my software and treat it like a book, ie use it myself on any machine I like, one at a time, them I will not purchase it, and would make reccomendations that nobody else buy it also. BTW I had the chance to use a very expensive piece of software that came with one of these great invisible/passthru dongles on the serial port. Only problem was it would cause the terminal multiplexor connected to the serial port whenever I wanted to use the computer as a terminal. Makes that piece of software either useless or damn inconvenient. EIther way I wouldn't fork out the hard earned money for it. ============================================================================== | Hamish Marson | Internet hamish@waikato.ac.nz | | Computer Support Person | Phone (071)562889 xt 8181 | | Computer Science Department | Amiga 3000 for ME! | | University of Waikato | | ============================================================================== |Disclaimer: Anything said in this message is the personal opinion of the | | finger hitting the keyboard & doesn't represent my employers | | opinion in any way. (ie we probably don't agree) | ==============================================================================
dusek@motcid.UUCP (James P. Dusek) (05/29/90)
hamish@waikato.ac.nz writes: >NO NO NO NO NO!!!!! > What happens when the computer or ethernet card decides that it has had a >long & hard life and decides to take retirement early? Do I now have to buy >a new software package? Or am I just forced to lose money by not being able >to work until I can get a replacement program. (Yes I can replace the H/W >fairly quickly eg 20 mins). What happens is you change the id prom when the hardware gets replaced.When a sun cpu goes out to lunch we replace the board,but switch the id prom.This could also be done with home computers, and the proms hardly ever fail.I haven't replaced any yet.
swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) (05/30/90)
In article <1857@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: >Heck, even if it doesn't provide private information, the original owner is >at risk if he ever sells the software! > >Let's say you sell your software package that has a serial number tracable >back to you. What if the person who buys it starts passing it around? >He figures since it's your number, nobody will trace it to him. Or if >he sells it and somone further on down the line starts passing it out. This copy protection technique would need to maintain a unique number for an individual that is not transferable. This should be made clear in the license that is provided with the encrypted code number. The code number would be used only on a special backup disk which the licensee would copy the original onto. The original disk would remain protected and unmolested. The license should clearly state that it is provided only for the individual who contracted for it, and is not transferable to any third party. If the original software is ever sold the licensee agrees to sell only the protected original software and to destroy all unprotected copies. The licensee agrees to assume responsi- bility for the disposition of all copies of the software containing the unique personal encoded key. This is used on large systems. We have an encoded key on one of our applications that expires whenever the lease payment comes due (don't ask me why they are so paranoid. Maybe they have been burned by someone else?). -- _. --Steve ._||__ DISCLAIMER: All opinions are my own. v\ *| ---------------------------------------------- V {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COM
swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) (05/30/90)
I said: In article <102599@convex.convex.com> swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes: >This is used on large systems. We have an encoded key on one of our >applications that expires whenever the lease payment comes due (don't >ask me why they are so paranoid. Maybe they have been burned by someone >else?). I didn't state this very clearly. Convex is *using* an application that has date-encoded keys. We are leasing it from the developers. I was not talking about any application that was developed by Convex and leased to someone else. -- _. --Steve ._||__ DISCLAIMER: All opinions are my own. v\ *| ---------------------------------------------- V {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COM
donw@zehntel.zehntel.com (Don White) (05/31/90)
In article <3681@milton.acs.washington.edu> fetrow@milton.u.washington.edu (David Fetrow) writes: >#In article <939@tau.sm.luth.se>, d87-khd@sm.luth.se (Karl-Gunnar Hultland) writes: >#> >#> In my opinion only an extensive manual is a valid copyprotection. > > Two additional features of the Borland school of copy-protection-via-manual A WARNING ABOUT BORLAND - I bought Where in the World is Carmen San Diego. It has special disk copy protection and is NOT CLEARLY MARKED AND IT REQUIRES THAT YOU LEAVE THE DISK WRITE ENABLED!!!!! It is my normal routine to back up all programs and to WRITE PROTECT any master disk. This game CAN NOT be backed up and MUST be WRITE ENABLED to play!!!! This is the stupidest, most USER HOSTILE kind of copy protection. I grudgingly accept the reality of copy protection. Publishers just DO that to their software. That's life. But, you SHOULD be able to write protect the disk. If it is not protected, you run the risk of your one and only disk being DESTROYED by a glitch or by a virus or by an ignorant user pulling the disk or ... Any time a disk is copy protected, an alternate save/score disk should be allowed. It is standard practice for intelligent users back up software before using it. Many packages CLEARLY state in the baginning of their documentation that you should do this. So, it is my habit to backup sofware BEFORE EVEN GETTING STARTED USING IT!!! The manual tells you it is protected on the LAST page. Which means you most likely will not know about the protection. When you make a workbench copy, your copy crashes the system. I bought this program for a novice user. She tried backing up her software and was upset when her computer acted like it was broken! Unfortunately, she likes the game, so we can't burn it in effigy on the steps of borland. (Notice the lower case.) But, I WILL BACK THIS UP FOR HER MYSELF!!! (Fat chance I'm going to pay borland fifteen dollars! They really are trying to cover the A$$E$ at my expense.) Hmmmm. Let's see. The top of track zero has an extra long gap. Hmmmm. There appears to be extra data besides AAAA. Hmmmm... * Don White * * Box 271177 Concord, CA. 94527-1177 * <The patented Don White mini-sig> * zehntel!donw *
w-stephm@microsoft.UUCP (Stephan MUELLER) (06/02/90)
In article <5002@zehntel.UUCP> you write:
% A WARNING ABOUT BORLAND - I bought Where in the World is Carmen
% San Diego. It has special disk copy
% protection and is NOT CLEARLY MARKED
% AND IT REQUIRES THAT YOU LEAVE THE DISK
% WRITE ENABLED!!!!!
The Carmen San Diego series is distributed by Br0derbund, not Borland.
Borland makes MS-DOS Languages and Applications (Turbo C/Pascal, Quattro
etc.) No Borland products are in any way disk copy-protected.
Br0derbund makes entertainment software for many personal
computers. For a long time, all of their games have been
copy-protected, on every machine I've ever used.
I've found that a good way to determine whether something is or is
not copy-protected is to go by the manufacturer's past practice.
Borland and Br0derbund have both been very consistent in their
practices. So have others.
%* Don White *
stephan();gpsteffler@tiger.uwaterloo.ca (Glenn Steffler) (06/02/90)
In article <54999@microsoft.UUCP> w-stephm@microsoft.UUCP (Stephan MUELLER) writes: > >Borland makes MS-DOS Languages and Applications (Turbo C/Pascal, Quattro >etc.) No Borland products are in any way disk copy-protected. > >Borland and Br0derbund have both been very consistent in their >practices. So have others. One of those others is good ol' Microsoft ... But note: Bill Gates has this thing about copying software after what happened to his original BASIC interpreter. >stephan(); MS C 6.0 did not recognise that function...I want a refund!!! ---- Co-Op Scum gpsteffl@sunee.uwaterloo.ca gpsteffl@sunee.waterloo.edu Glenn Patrick Steffler Windows 3.0 GUI for the GOOIE
FelineGrace@cup.portal.com (Dana B Bourgeois) (06/05/90)
::OK, OK! I've off the net for awhile and I'm too weeks behind!::
Several points I want to pick on.
1. Copy protection is stupid in general, necessary in particular
situations. This point was made by several people. Popular
games usually need copy protection until they become last year's
hit. Then drop the price and remove the protection and adults
will probably continue buying it for awhile.
2. Most licenses say some gibberish about using the software on one
machine only. Some even say one CPU. Now I feel if I paid good
money for the damn product then it is no business of theirs *which*
particular computer I use it on. Long as I only use it on one
computer at a time. (and I don't take this to mean I can have
multiple copies installed on several computer's hard drives. That
sophistry shouldn't pass a judge's review and it doesn't pass mine.)
3. The purpose of copy protection is to keep unpaid copies out of
while not getting in the way of legitimate users. Keeping me from
making backup copies is getting in my way, understand that if any
publishers are listening. I bought a license to use the software
which you won't warranty is fit for any use and there was no time
limit on it so I still own the license even after the media it
was on when I bought goes belly up! And I want good, valid copies
of the software so I can continue using the product when that
happens.
4. Who was the well meaning idiot that wanted the hardware to have an
ID so copy protected software would know what system it was on?
excuse me but do you really want the publisher to lock you into a
single system? You think he's gonna lower the price of the software
and make ID switches for free if your hardware enforces this?
*** HINT: ***
Remeber the guy who related the product his company leases to use on
their large system has a date code that disables the software when
the lease payment is due. You want that kind of environment at home?
5. The majority of messages posted are on the right track. Copy protect
games if you feel you must but tell buyers on the outside of the
package. Everybody else either do not copy protect or use a really
nasty form like the dongle and allow people to pay for a non-copy
protected "upgrade". Word lookup is ingenious as is code wheels
but on any system built since about 1985, it is easy for a slightly
accomplished programmer to beat the system. And on the Amiga with
multi-tasking just how tough could it be?
6. I haven't made my mind up about key disk. They can be nasty or
more on the nice side. Key disk while loading might be acceptable
if new key disks are available for the price of the disk. ($1.00+
postage). When the key disk is needed very often - more than once
per day - then the system is a real pain. SimCity is my example.
Thank you all for slogging through this long message.
Dana Bourgeois @ cup.portal.com
Am I a pirate if I try a broken copy of your protected progam and verify
I want it before I buy? If I don't buy it I destroy all copies. Well?jkh@bambam.pcs.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) (12/03/90)
>Unfortunately software protection is here to stay (in Europe anyway) until the>cracking scene realises they are strangling the life out of small software >houses that produce most of the innovative games we see today and causing >the large ones to go for the License/Hype approach :-(. Well.. First off, let me say that I buy all my games. I buy them all from the States (and I live in Germany), paying shipping and 18% import tax just to make sure that I get them as copy-protect-free as I possibly can. I dislike copy protection for the simple reasons that a) I am paranoid in the extreme about not being able to back up my data and b) I don't like the sounds that copy protected games cause my drives to make. I am an engineer, so I know that the chances of a copy protected game "ruining" my drives is small, but I know that the noises F19 Stealth (from the U.K.) elicits from my drive cannot possibly be healty, either. Second, I disagree that pirates are the sole reason behind the problems in the software publishing industry; they're simply convenient scapegoats. There are lots of other ways to make one's software unpalatable to pirates than by resorting to protection schemes that only penalize your legitimate customers. One of these ways is to make the game complex enough that printed documentation is basically a must. This seems to be happening anyway as user's tastes turn to more challanging games. Another technique is the code wheel or manual page lookup protection. I have yet to hear about a pirated game being distributed with xerox'd documentation and/or duplicated code wheels! (and if any cases of this do exist, I'm sure they're very very rare). I have seem several games that use both copy protection AND some form of password protection, which is basically simple overkill. I seriously doubt that I will buy anything from Digital Integration or the U.K. Microprose branch after seeing what they did with "F16 Combat Pilot" and "F19 Stealth". I paid good money for both games and don't appreciate being pissed off by rabid copy protection paranoia. CinemaWare's "Wings" and "It came from the desert (I and II)" have been very user friendly to me (no copy protection, simple manual lookup) and I have every intention of purchasing more of their products in the future. I know many others who feel the same way. So, already two manufactures have lost what would very probably be several hundred dollars worth of future sales from me alone, simply because they went overboard. Assume that I'm not alone in feeling this way and you begin to see another very large reason why some publishers are suffering. Rabid copy protection is sort of like Bush's war on drugs: "We know that what we're doing isn't stopping anybody, but we're going to do it anyway." I do not agree with software piracy and do not support it. I also feel perfectly justified in voting with my pocketbook when some manufacturer sells me a product that is unjustifyably hard to use. Enough said. Jordan
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (12/05/90)
In <49144@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>, v092mgp5@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott K Wood) writes: >In article <JKH.90Dec3092012@bambam.pcs.com>, jkh@bambam.pcs.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) writes... > In your initial message you say that pirates are simply the >scapegoats for the horrid copy-protection found on some software. Who >is to blame then? I personally see only the pirates at fault. >Without them, companys would have never had a reason to use >copy-protection in the first place. Right, but they don't have a reason to use it now, since it has been shown over and over again to be innefective in stopping theft. >>I do not agree with software piracy and do not support it. I also feel >>perfectly justified in voting with my pocketbook when some manufacturer >>sells me a product that is unjustifyably hard to use. > > "Voting with your pocketbook" doesn't change the fact that >companies have to deal with pirates. Again, right, except that they are not dealing with pirates, or at least not effectively. > In fact, buy not purchasing a >useful piece of software simply because of copy-protection is hurting >the developer as much as the pirates are. It is also sending a message to the developers that I am tired of being classed as a crook and forced to put up with copy protection garbage just to run something. I have not seen a program that is so useful that I have to have it, and copy/theft protection is the showstopper when it comes to the purchase decision. > It is going to be a LONG >time before copy-protection disappears, especially in the game arena, >from the Amiga marketplace. Then it will be a long time before I buy from those who seek to inconvenience me and make their product less useful in a futile attempt to stop theft. If protection actually worked, I would reconsider my position, but I can tell you that there are forms of protection that are SO obnoxious, that I would still not be buying everything that was otherwise good. As for the poor developer/publisher in all this.. yes, I have sympathy for you. I know it hurts to see your efforts stolen. I wholeheartedly support you in your fight against software thieves. I do, however, appeal to you to try something else or stop worrying about it. -larry -- The only things to survive a nuclear war will be cockroaches and IBM PCs. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
v092mgp5@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott K Wood) (12/05/90)
In article <JKH.90Dec3092012@bambam.pcs.com>, jkh@bambam.pcs.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) writes... [stuff deleted] >games. Another technique is the code wheel or manual page lookup >protection. I have yet to hear about a pirated game being distributed >with xerox'd documentation and/or duplicated code wheels! (and if any cases ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >of this do exist, I'm sure they're very very rare). I have seem several By saying this you are obviously not very familiar with the wrold of software piracy. True, pirates do not duplicate the documentation or code wheels, BUT THEY WRITE PROGRAMS THAT BYPASS THAT PROCTECTION. I once remember seeing a copy of Rocket Ranger. In that game, the copy protection was cleverly incorporated into the game. You had to specify how much fuel you needed to get from one country to another. To do this required a code wheel supplied in the game. That turned out to be far from perfect however. In the copy I saw, the pirate had written a program to run in the backround that asked the user for the current country and the destination country, and then gave the user the correct code! Personally, I would rather buy a game that was manual copy-protected if it had to be protected at all. But in the eyes of the company, a disk-based protection can be made to be a little harder to beat than a word-lookup protection. Developers are in the business for money, and when pirates get in the way of making that money, most of them will not hesitate to institute protection. In your initial message you say that pirates are simply the scapegoats for the horrid copy-protection found on some software. Who is to blame then? I personally see only the pirates at fault. Without them, companys would have never had a reason to use copy-protection in the first place. >I do not agree with software piracy and do not support it. I also feel >perfectly justified in voting with my pocketbook when some manufacturer >sells me a product that is unjustifyably hard to use. "Voting with your pocketbook" doesn't change the fact that companies have to deal with pirates. In fact, buy not purchasing a useful piece of software simply because of copy-protection is hurting the developer as much as the pirates are. It is going to be a LONG time before copy-protection disappears, especially in the game arena, from the Amiga marketplace. Scott BITNET : v092mgp5@ubvms.bitnet INTERNET : v092mgp5@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu
miracle@sctc.com (Barry Miracle) (12/05/90)
v092mgp5@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott K Wood) writes: >In article <JKH.90Dec3092012@bambam.pcs.com>, jkh@bambam.pcs.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) writes... >[stuff deleted] >>games. Another technique is the code wheel or manual page lookup >>protection. I have yet to hear about a pirated game being distributed >>with xerox'd documentation and/or duplicated code wheels! (and if any cases >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>of this do exist, I'm sure they're very very rare). I have seem several > By saying this you are obviously not very familiar with the wrold >of software piracy. True, pirates do not duplicate the documentation >or code wheels, BUT THEY WRITE PROGRAMS THAT BYPASS THAT PROCTECTION. >I once remember seeing a copy of Rocket Ranger. In that game, the >copy protection was cleverly incorporated into the game. You had to >specify how much fuel you needed to get from one country to another. To >do this required a code wheel supplied in the game. That turned out >to be far from perfect however. In the copy I saw, the pirate had >written a program to run in the backround that asked the user for the >current country and the destination country, and then gave the user >the correct code! Yes, but everyone has seen programs copied in spite of the disk-base copy protection also. The advantage of the manual protection is that I can use a backup of the program to play the game. I have an old A1000 and I have had a lot trouble booting some of these highly protected games. As always though it is the honest customer that must pay the price for the dishonest ones by putting up with increasingly less reliable schemes of disk-based copy protection. I can tell you this though. Before I buy a game I listen to the net for a while and determine if the thing is buggy or it people complain about it crashing because of the copy-protection. If people complain I vote with my pocket book. > Scott > BITNET : v092mgp5@ubvms.bitnet > INTERNET : v092mgp5@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu I realize that none of this is new to anyone(or is anything in this string new, but hopefully someone who matters is listening). Barry Miracle miracle@sctc.com
dtiberio@libws3.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) (12/05/90)
Jordan et al, You mentioned that a code wheel or extensive documentation could stop pirates. It doesn't. Software pirates will break the source code so that the code wheels aren't needed, nor are any references to manuals (don't ask me how I know). And as for extensive manuals, people have been known to xerox hundreds of pages if the program is really good. And many programs don't really need manuals, unless your into Word Perfect. The only way to stop pirates is to sell software on ROMs. No, maybe not. They've been known to copy ROMs to disk too. I wonder sometimes how people can have thousands of pirated programs and actuallt USE them all. Some of them trade HARDWARE for software! :)
pashdown@javelin.es.com (Pete Ashdown) (12/05/90)
v092mgp5@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott K Wood) writes: > By saying this you are obviously not very familiar with the wrold >of software piracy. True, pirates do not duplicate the documentation >or code wheels, BUT THEY WRITE PROGRAMS THAT BYPASS THAT PROCTECTION. >Developers are in the business >for money, and when pirates get in the way of making that money, most >of them will not hesitate to institute protection. > In your initial message you say that pirates are simply the >scapegoats for the horrid copy-protection found on some software. Who >is to blame then? I personally see only the pirates at fault. >Without them, companys would have never had a reason to use >copy-protection in the first place. >It is going to be a LONG >time before copy-protection disappears, especially in the game arena, >from the Amiga marketplace. What you are failing to realize is that there has _never_ been any sort of protection that has actually stopped the pirates. I challenge anyone on here to mention one single piece of Amiga software that hasn't been pirated. This is the same case for the IBM, the Mac, the ST, the Apple II, and the C64. There has virtually NEVER been a successful copy protection that hasn't been 'cracked' by someone. So I fail to understand why software companies still rely on this garbage. In the past few years, it has gotten better, but most still do the stupid drive gronk in order to keep the valid user from backing up their validly purchased software, while the pirates march on. What the software companies have to realize is that its a lack of QUALITY that hurts their sales and not lack of COPY PROTECTION. One of the few software houses still left for the Apple II is Beagle Bros. They NEVER protected any of their software and continually provided a great product with great support. Where are the companies like Muse and Sirius today? > Scott > BITNET : v092mgp5@ubvms.bitnet > INTERNET : v092mgp5@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu -- / (Rotate head 90 degrees for full effect) | BUNGEEEEEEEE! |---------------------------------------------------------------------->=<o \ Pete Ashdown pashdown%javelin@dsd.es.com ...dsd.es.com!javelin!pashdown
ludde@nada.kth.se (Erik Lundevall) (12/06/90)
In article <1990Dec5.144311.4975@javelin.es.com> pashdown%javelin@dsd.es.com writes: >There has virtually NEVER been a successful copy protection that hasn't been >'cracked' by someone. So I fail to understand why software companies still >rely on this garbage. In the past few years, it has gotten better, but most >still do the stupid drive gronk in order to keep the valid user from backing >up their validly purchased software, while the pirates march on. They still use it because they might sell more if the protection is hard to defeat. Someone will always remove the protection, but until then they hope to sell as much as possible. >What the software companies have to realize is that its a lack of QUALITY >that hurts their sales and not lack of COPY PROTECTION. One of the few >software houses still left for the Apple II is Beagle Bros. They NEVER >protected any of their software and continually provided a great product >with great support. Where are the companies like Muse and Sirius today? Better quality would certainly improve sales. I don't think the copy protection is unsignificant either, at least not here in Europe. That does not mean that I like it, on the contrary, I only buy products with no protection or maybe with a look-up-in-the-manual protection. >-- > / (Rotate head 90 degrees for full effect) > | BUNGEEEEEEEE! > |---------------------------------------------------------------------->=<o > \ Pete Ashdown pashdown%javelin@dsd.es.com ...dsd.es.com!javelin!pashdown -- -Erik Lundevall ludde@adder.bula.se | ludde@nada.kth.se
hill@evax.arl.utexas.edu (Adam Hill) (12/06/90)
Ok how about this scheme:
A program is encrypted. The program is DECRYPTED by a program who searches
the ENCRYPTED program for the key. Heck.. You could embed multiple keys in
program and use 1 or 2 of them to defeat people that look at where the disk
is seeking to.
Just my 1/2 piece of kindling .... :-)
--
adam hill
hill@evax.arl.utexas.edu Make Up Your Own Mind.. AMIGA!
Amiga... Multimedia NOW
Most Common Phrase at DevCon '90 - "Shhhhhhh.." cseaman@sequent.UUCP (Chris "The Bartman" Seaman) (12/06/90)
dtiberio@libws3.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes:
< You mentioned that a code wheel or extensive documentation could stop
< pirates. It doesn't.
< Software pirates will break the source code so that the code wheels aren't
< needed, nor are any references to manuals (don't ask me how I know).
I doubt that anyone meant that code wheels or look-up-the-word-in-the-manual
types of copy protection would defeat piracy (I don't know of ANY method
which would be completely 'pirate-proof'). However, these methods are not
significantly easier to defeat, yet they DO allow legitimate users to
backup their disks, and potentially install their software on a hard disk
(not to mention the likelyhood that the software will run at all on
'enhanced' systems).
Is this really asking so much?
Regards,
Chris
--
Chris (Insert phrase here) Seaman | ___-/^\-___
cseaman@gateway.sequent.com <or> | //__--\O/--__\\ nI' yIyIn 'ej yIchep.
...!uunet!sequent!cseaman | // \\
The Home of the Killer Smiley | `\ /'n074ev@tamuts.tamu.edu (Christopher Walton) (12/06/90)
SOMEone said earlier ..... You mentioned that a code wheel or extensive documentation could stop pirates. It doesn't. Software pirates will break the source code so that the code wheels aren't needed, nor are any references to manuals (don't ask me how I know). What I have to say is this ..... It doesn't have to be a pirate that breaks the source to remove such protections as code wheels and manual lookups, some COMMERCIAL programs will do this for you, AKA: RAW COPY, etc... I think the authors of these PARAMETER copiers, that not only backup a program, but de-protect it are as DOWN AND DIRTY as the pirates who "break the source code." Christopher Walton n074ev@tamuts.tamu.edu
n074ev@tamuts.tamu.edu (Christopher Walton) (12/06/90)
In article <1990Dec5.205822.216@evax.arl.utexas.edu> hill@evax.arl.utexas.edu (Adam Hill) writes: > > Ok how about this scheme: > > A program is encrypted. The program is DECRYPTED by a program who searches > the ENCRYPTED program for the key. Heck.. You could embed multiple keys in > program and use 1 or 2 of them to defeat people that look at where the disk > is seeking to. > >Just my 1/2 piece of kindling .... :-) >-- > adam hill > hill@evax.arl.utexas.edu Make Up Your Own Mind.. AMIGA! > Amiga... Multimedia NOW > Most Common Phrase at DevCon '90 - "Shhhhhhh.." I seriously hope you are kidding! This is a SIMPLE thing to over come. All you do is look at the bootblock, if it is loading from boot block, or the startup-seq. and then read the code of the program that is doing the decrypting to see where it goes, and how many times it goes somewhere, and continiue to look until the game or whatever it is actually starts and finishes. This is so simple I have seen a program do this auto-magically by reading the code, and out put a de-crypted file, and whala, no protection. Very simple technique, but for personal use it might be OK, but not for big time marketed things. By the way, some, I think they should be illegal, copy programs like RAW COPY, do this as well with there parameters. Christopher Walton n074ev@tamuts.tamu.edu
pashdown@javelin.es.com (Pete Ashdown) (12/06/90)
hill@evax.arl.utexas.edu (Adam Hill) writes: > Ok how about this scheme: > A program is encrypted. The program is DECRYPTED by a program who searches > the ENCRYPTED program for the key. Heck.. You could embed multiple keys in > program and use 1 or 2 of them to defeat people that look at where the disk > is seeking to. So you trace through the decryption program and save out the decrypted data. Whoop de do. > adam hill > hill@evax.arl.utexas.edu Make Up Your Own Mind.. AMIGA! -- / (Rotate head 90 degrees for full effect) | BUNGEEEEEEEE! |---------------------------------------------------------------------->=<o \ Pete Ashdown pashdown%javelin@dsd.es.com ...dsd.es.com!javelin!pashdown
etxtomp@eos.ericsson.se (Tommy Petersson) (12/07/90)
In article <1990Dec5.144311.4975@javelin.es.com> pashdown%javelin@dsd.es.com writes: >v092mgp5@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott K Wood) writes: > >> By saying this you are obviously not very familiar with the wrold >>of software piracy. True, pirates do not duplicate the documentation >>or code wheels, BUT THEY WRITE PROGRAMS THAT BYPASS THAT PROCTECTION. > >>Developers are in the business >>for money, and when pirates get in the way of making that money, most >>of them will not hesitate to institute protection. >> In your initial message you say that pirates are simply the >>scapegoats for the horrid copy-protection found on some software. Who >>is to blame then? I personally see only the pirates at fault. >>Without them, companys would have never had a reason to use >>copy-protection in the first place. > >>It is going to be a LONG >>time before copy-protection disappears, especially in the game arena, >>from the Amiga marketplace. > >What you are failing to realize is that there has _never_ been any sort of >protection that has actually stopped the pirates. I challenge anyone on here >to mention one single piece of Amiga software that hasn't been pirated. This >is the same case for the IBM, the Mac, the ST, the Apple II, and the C64. >There has virtually NEVER been a successful copy protection that hasn't been >'cracked' by someone. So I fail to understand why software companies still >rely on this garbage. In the past few years, it has gotten better, but most >still do the stupid drive gronk in order to keep the valid user from backing >up their validly purchased software, while the pirates march on. This is probably correct, but they may slow the pirates. Dragon's Lair had a rather difficult protection to break, so they were able to sell a lot of programs (in spite of the lack of playability) before it was cracked. The copy protection was so good, that my original refused to run on my machine that had a perfectly aligned drive. I sold it to a guy who had a mis-aligned drive matching Dragon's Lair :-) Good programs (like AMOS) may sell if they are reasonably priced (like AMOS). Even in a small country like Sweden they have in a short time sold about 1200 copies. I will however wait for the compiler to come out... Tommy Petersson
dvljhg@cs.umu.se (J|rgen Holmberg) (12/07/90)
In article <1990Dec6.174813.11590@ericsson.se> etxtomp@eos.ericsson.se writes: >In article <1990Dec5.144311.4975@javelin.es.com> pashdown%javelin@dsd.es.com writes: >>v092mgp5@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott K Wood) writes: >> >>> By saying this you are obviously not very familiar with the wrold >>>of software piracy. True, pirates do not duplicate the documentation >>>or code wheels, BUT THEY WRITE PROGRAMS THAT BYPASS THAT PROCTECTION. >> >>>Developers are in the business >>>for money, and when pirates get in the way of making that money, most >>>of them will not hesitate to institute protection. >>> In your initial message you say that pirates are simply the >>>scapegoats for the horrid copy-protection found on some software. Who >>>is to blame then? I personally see only the pirates at fault. >>>Without them, companys would have never had a reason to use >>>copy-protection in the first place. >> >>>It is going to be a LONG >>>time before copy-protection disappears, especially in the game arena, >>>from the Amiga marketplace. >> >>What you are failing to realize is that there has _never_ been any sort of >>protection that has actually stopped the pirates. I challenge anyone on here >>to mention one single piece of Amiga software that hasn't been pirated. This >>is the same case for the IBM, the Mac, the ST, the Apple II, and the C64. >>There has virtually NEVER been a successful copy protection that hasn't been >>'cracked' by someone. So I fail to understand why software companies still >>rely on this garbage. In the past few years, it has gotten better, but most >>still do the stupid drive gronk in order to keep the valid user from backing >>up their validly purchased software, while the pirates march on. > >This is probably correct, but they may slow the pirates. Dragon's Lair had >a rather difficult protection to break, so they were able to sell a lot of >programs (in spite of the lack of playability) before it was cracked. The >copy protection was so good, that my original refused to run on my machine >that had a perfectly aligned drive. I sold it to a guy who had a mis-aligned >drive matching Dragon's Lair :-) > >Good programs (like AMOS) may sell if they are reasonably priced (like AMOS). >Even in a small country like Sweden they have in a short time sold about >1200 copies. I will however wait for the compiler to come out... > >Tommy Petersson The protection for Dragons Lair wasn't all that hard to crack really. The fact that they had protection on all tracks on six disks was what made the crack slow. Datastorm had the same protection and it took 1 day to get out to the pirates. No software protection so far has really made the program less spread. Jorgen -- ******************************************************************************* email dvljhg@cs.umu.se - other ways to communicate are a waste of time. Everything I say is always true, just apply it to the right reality. "Credo, quia absurdum est."
U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo) (12/08/90)
G'day, I'm interested in *only* the technical merits of copy protection schemes and I am offering my thoughts below in the hope of raising the bandwidth for the thread in discussion. Adam Hill (hill@evax.arl.utexas.edu ) writes: > Ok how about this scheme: > A program is encrypted. The program is DECRYPTED by a program who searches > [...] I've read the followups to this posting and I agree with their objections of the possibility of tracing/using the DECRYPTING code to circumvent this type of copy protection ... if you can get at the code that does the decrypting *or* you can get at some form of the decrypted program (eg with a C64 like freeze machine, there is 1 on the market no?). In this thread an earlier posting stated that the poster had never seen any form of protection that had not been cracked, which set me to thinking ... 1. I've not seen or heard of pirated versions of Superbase for the Amiga. I believe that this program is dongle protected. {I do not use and hence I do not seek out pirated s/w so I may be merely ignorant of the facts of the matter here.} Question{s}: is it very easy (or hard) to overcome dongle protection? 2. If a decryption scheme was placed into a dongle device with a CPU it may be possible (although I cannot think of a way) to execute the decrypting code from the "dongle" and to not allow tracing of the code. {I believe this would be way too slow for practical use however it illustrates the question I am thinking of phrasing.} Question: if one has decryption code that does not reside in Amiga RAM (and hopefully not accessible by an Amiga run program) is it necessary to have all of the *decrypted* program reside in AmigaRAM? If the answer to Q 2. is in principle no, then an encrypted program could be decrypted and then executed 1 instruction at a time, no? I can only see that a code monitor of some sort could trace/trap the instructions. However as the instruction flow would depend on the users usage patterns the tracing of the execution flow should only give a partial picture of the code for the original program. A partial copy of a complex program would be next to worthless no? There are a lot of ``if's'' in my argument so it presumably breaks down some where. I'd be interested in explanations of why if they help explain how my Amiga works when running executable code. Thanks in advance. At this stage I want to disclaim some of the above and to exclaim some of my points of view. 1. I don't want copy protection. {I just want piracy to go away. :-)} 2. I realise dongle is a dirty word. The only kind of dongle I could *ever* tolerate would be one that was *useful* to me. Perhaps dongles should be built into useful products ... like a free replacement mouse? :-) 3. I am discussing this at all because of intellectual curiosity. I hope I'm not going to be flamed because of that. {Please. :-)} 4. I think such a method (if it was workable) would be HORRENDOUSLY complex. I would probably not buy s/w protected in such a way. {No smiley.} > Most Common Phrase at DevCon '90 - "Shhhhhhh.." { This is one of my favourite quotes in quite a while. } yours truly, Lou Cavallo.
dvljhg@cs.umu.se (J|rgen Holmberg) (12/08/90)
In article <1366@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo) writes: >G'day, > >I'm interested in *only* the technical merits of copy protection schemes and >I am offering my thoughts below in the hope of raising the bandwidth for the >thread in discussion. > >Adam Hill (hill@evax.arl.utexas.edu ) writes: > >> Ok how about this scheme: >> A program is encrypted. The program is DECRYPTED by a program who searches >> [...] > >I've read the followups to this posting and I agree with their objections of >the possibility of tracing/using the DECRYPTING code to circumvent this type >of copy protection ... > >if you can get at the code that does the decrypting *or* you can get at some >form of the decrypted program (eg with a C64 like freeze machine, there is 1 >on the market no?). > >In this thread an earlier posting stated that the poster had never seen any >form of protection that had not been cracked, which set me to thinking ... > >1. I've not seen or heard of pirated versions of Superbase for the Amiga. I > believe that this program is dongle protected. {I do not use and hence I > do not seek out pirated s/w so I may be merely ignorant of the facts of > the matter here.} > > Question{s}: is it very easy (or hard) to overcome dongle protection? > There are pirated versions of Superbase out there. Xcad too ( I think that's dongle protected too ). Dongle protection is usually very easy to crack but you do have to crack it, you can't just use a h/w copier. >2. If a decryption scheme was placed into a dongle device with a CPU it may > be possible (although I cannot think of a way) to execute the decrypting > code from the "dongle" and to not allow tracing of the code. {I believe > this would be way too slow for practical use however it illustrates the > question I am thinking of phrasing.} > > Question: if one has decryption code that does not reside in Amiga RAM > (and hopefully not accessible by an Amiga run program) is it necessary > to have all of the *decrypted* program reside in AmigaRAM? > I don't see why it couldn't be done. I don't think it would solve the problem though. "Good" crackers are well versed in hardawre hacking too and would either bypass or emulate the outside encryption. I also think that a quality protection device of this kind would be expensive. [ deleted stuff about which I have no opinion ] Regards, Jorgen -- ******************************************************************************* email dvljhg@cs.umu.se - other ways to communicate are a waste of time. Everything I say is always true, just apply it to the right reality. "Credo, quia absurdum est."
sbeagle@kennels.actrix.gen.nz (Sleeping Beagle) (12/08/90)
cseaman@sequent.UUCP (Chris "The Bartman" Seaman) writes: [bulk stuff deleted] > I doubt that anyone meant that code wheels or look-up-the-word-in-the-manual > types of copy protection would defeat piracy (I don't know of ANY method > which would be completely 'pirate-proof'). However, these methods are not The best pirate protection I have seen was one a game called Shadow of the Unicorn on the Sinclair Spectrum. It came with a hardware device which had to be plugged into play the game. "Ha! A dongle - easy to code around", you say. Wrong. This hardware device was vital for the game as it added RAM and various other functions. If you didn't have this expansion, the game couldn't fit! Wouldn't it be nice to see... Games with useful hardware attached? (BTW, Shadow if the Unicorn was a flop.) -- sbeagle@kennels.actrix.gen.nz Thomas.Farmer@bbs.actrix.gen.nz and finally - tfarmer@cavebbs.gen.nz A quote is a saying with little value that a fool believes is true.
bruce@zuhause.MN.ORG (Bruce Albrecht) (12/09/90)
>In article <1366@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo) writes: >In this thread an earlier posting stated that the poster had never seen any >form of protection that had not been cracked, which set me to thinking ... > >1. I've not seen or heard of pirated versions of Superbase for the Amiga. I > believe that this program is dongle protected. {I do not use and hence I > do not seek out pirated s/w so I may be merely ignorant of the facts of > the matter here.} > > Question{s}: is it very easy (or hard) to overcome dongle protection? In the case of Superbase, it's really simple. Send them $10, and they send you a non-copyprotected version (if you're a registered user, of course). -- bruce@zuhause.mn.org
maniac@cleanhead.cs.unlv.edu (Eric J. Schwertfeger) (12/10/90)
) 1. I've not seen or heard of pirated versions of Superbase for the Amiga. I
) believe that this program is dongle protected. {I do not use and hence I
) do not seek out pirated s/w so I may be merely ignorant of the facts of
) the matter here.}
)
) Question{s}: is it very easy (or hard) to overcome dongle protection?
)
) 2. If a decryption scheme was placed into a dongle device with a CPU it may
) be possible (although I cannot think of a way) to execute the decrypting
) code from the "dongle" and to not allow tracing of the code. {I believe
) this would be way too slow for practical use however it illustrates the
) question I am thinking of phrasing.}
)
) Question: if one has decryption code that does not reside in Amiga RAM
) (and hopefully not accessible by an Amiga run program) is it necessary
) to have all of the *decrypted* program reside in AmigaRAM?
)
1) Yes, I've seen pirated SuperBase. It's done by making your
own dongle, which was so simple that I couldn't believe it when I was
first told how.
2) the one problem to #2 is "how does the dongle know what
program is accessing it?" Imagine a program that feeds the encrypted
input of a program to a dongle, then saves the decrypted output.
3) It`s possible if you supply your own ram card, but now we're
getting too expensive for normal software.
--
Eric J. Schwertfeger, maniac@jimi.cs.unlv.eduU3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo) (12/10/90)
G'day, Eric J. Schwertfeger (maniac@cleanhead.cs.unlv.edu ) writes: *) 1. I've not seen or heard of pirated versions of Superbase for the Amiga. I *) [...] *) Question{s}: is it very easy (or hard) to overcome dongle protection? *) *) 2. If a decryption scheme was placed into a dongle device with a CPU it may *) [...] *) Question: if one has decryption code that does not reside in Amiga RAM *) (and hopefully not accessible by an Amiga run program) is it necessary *) to have all of the *decrypted* program reside in AmigaRAM? > 1) Yes, I've seen pirated SuperBase. It's done by making your > own dongle, which was so simple that I couldn't believe it when I was > first told how. Okay, fair enough. I can only imagine that this is not frequently done. I'm guessing that in relation to other copy protection schemes "dongle" methods are quite "successful" from a producers viewpoint. Is this correct? {I hope not, I keep seeing dongle advertising for I*M PC systems and I have worries that dongle protection schemes could become a de facto standard.} > 2) the one problem to #2 is "how does the dongle know what > program is accessing it?" Imagine a program that feeds the encrypted > input of a program to a dongle, then saves the decrypted output. My guess is that a dongle with a CPU could in principle interrogate the pgm accessing it (or better AmigaOS) for the programs starting address etc such that it could calculate an identifying signature for authentication reasons. However, I can see how a program itself could send back another address for the "legal" encrypted program etc to fool this scheme. Could you trap the dongles calls to AmigaOS for the same subversion? {Yes I suppose one could.} > 3) It`s possible if you supply your own ram card, but now we're > getting too expensive for normal software. Yes that's true but I had a different idea in the back of my mind. Actually it is similar to your idea of a "feeder" program that sends encrypted codes and recieves the decrypted ones. {I.e. my original point from my question 2 at the start of this posting.} The idea is to never decode the whole encrypted program. Have an interface program interact with the user and send requests to the dongle to decrypt a small section (I think 1 instruction is too little) of the encrypted progrm at a time, receive that section and have it executed. {But talk about slow! :-)} With this approach you could only ever save partial execution flows of any program (unless the "user" traced (or tried to guess without docs) each one of the program flow execution paths). {Would this be possible?} You know what? This is the most ugly and silly idea I've had for a while... but you knew that. :-) <<Disclaimer>> { for those who may not have read the start of my part of this thread } I do not propose/advocate copy protection of any kind. Im simply interested in the theoretical aspects of such a scheme as it pertains to things Amiga. > Eric J. Schwertfeger, maniac@jimi.cs.unlv.edu yours truly, Lou Cavallo.
david@starsoft.UUCP (Dave Lowrey) (12/13/90)
In article <1372@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>, Lou Cavallo writes: > G'day, > > Eric J. Schwertfeger (maniac@cleanhead.cs.unlv.edu ) writes: > > *) 1. I've not seen or heard of pirated versions of Superbase for the Amiga. I > *) [...] > *) Question{s}: is it very easy (or hard) to overcome dongle protection? > *) > *) 2. If a decryption scheme was placed into a dongle device with a CPU it may > *) [...] > *) Question: if one has decryption code that does not reside in Amiga RAM > *) (and hopefully not accessible by an Amiga run program) is it necessary > *) to have all of the *decrypted* program reside in AmigaRAM? > > > 1) Yes, I've seen pirated SuperBase. It's done by making your > > own dongle, which was so simple that I couldn't believe it when I was > > first told how. > > Okay, fair enough. I can only imagine that this is not frequently done. I'm > guessing that in relation to other copy protection schemes "dongle" methods > are quite "successful" from a producers viewpoint. Is this correct? > > {I hope not, I keep seeing dongle advertising for I*M PC systems and I have > worries that dongle protection schemes could become a de facto standard.} > The effectivness of Dongle protection depends on how effective the dongle is at protecting the software (duh!). I know how the Superbase dongle works, and believe me, it was almost not worth the effort to produce. It is extremely simple. However, other dongle software can be well protected. The PaperClip series of wordprocessors for the C64 is a good example. The dongle contained an IC, that had it's numbers scraped off. The program it'self was encoded on the disk, so cracking it would be alot harder. Can dongle protected software prevent piracy? Yes, in certain cases. The major place is in the office. There you will find people who aren't computer hackers. If they have a opertunity, they might make a copy of a program that "joe, down in accounting" has. However, if it is protected by a dongle, they won't bother However, if you have a kid who wants the latest "shoot-em-up", and has plenty of time and resources at hand, he or she could crack most anything! The trade off is the price of the dongle. Does Superbase sell well enough that they can mass produce the dongles cheaply enough? I don't know. is the product being used in a business-type environment, where copies really could add up to lost sales? I dont know. Are enough people willing to unplug their joystick to insert the dongle? Again, I don't know. As for myself....I don't like them because my kids keep playing with the damn things, and I can never find them when I need them!!!! :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- These words be mine. The company doesn't care, because I am the company! :-) Dave Lowrey | david@starsoft or {uhnix1,lobster}!starsoft!david Starbound Software Group | Houston, TX | "Dare to be stupid!" -- Weird Al Yankovic