C0144%CSUOHIO.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU (07/18/86)
I can't see *too* much sense in using serial numbered copy detection,
when in fact, a half-knowledgeable hack can search for the serial number
printed on the diskette label using Norton Utilities, etc., and knock it
out in one swoop.
Unless, of course, you encrypt the serial number (Hmmm, not a bad thought).
Dave Chatfield
Computer Services, Cleveland St.
C0144%CSUOHIO.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDUtim@sunybcs.UUCP (Timothy Thomas) (07/21/86)
In article <2366@brl-smoke.ARPA> C0144%CSUOHIO.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU writes: > > I can't see *too* much sense in using serial numbered copy detection, >when in fact, a half-knowledgeable hack can search for the serial number >printed on the diskette label using Norton Utilities, etc., and knock it >out in one swoop. > > Unless, of course, you encrypt the serial number (Hmmm, not a bad thought). Putting the serial number on a diskette is useless. It wouldnt even matter if it was encrypted, because all somebody has to do is get a hold of 2 copies of the program, and compare the two files. Where they differ, that is where the serial number lies, and that is where you can change it to whatever you wish. -------- ____________ ____/--\____ \______ ___) ( _ ____) "Damn it Jim!, __| |____/ / `--' I'm a programmer not a Doctor!" ) `|=(- \------------' Timothy D. Thomas SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science UUCP: [decvax,dual,rocksanne,watmath,rocksvax]!sunybcs!tim CSnet: tim@buffalo, ARPAnet: tim%buffalo@CSNET-RELAY
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (07/21/86)
> Putting the serial number on a diskette is useless. It wouldnt even > matter if it was encrypted, because all somebody has to do is get a hold > of 2 copies of the program, and compare the two files. Where they differ, > that is where the serial number lies, and that is where you can change > it to whatever you wish. I think the intent of the original suggestion was to protect against casual copying, not determined and systematic piracy. If you feel mean, put a whole bunch of different stuff on each diskette, and bury the serial number *and a checksum* somewhere in the middle. -- EDEC: Stupidly non-standard brain-damaged incompatible Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology proprietary protocol used. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
wsr@lmi-angel.UUCP (Wolfgang Rupprecht) (07/23/86)
In article <> C0144%CSUOHIO.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU writes: > I can't see *too* much sense in using serial numbered copy detection, >when in fact, a half-knowledgeable hack can search for the serial number >[...]. > Unless, of course, you encrypt the serial number (Hmmm, not a bad thought). You can always get *two* disks and compare them. If they differ you know that something funny is going on. Disclaimer: copying software is probably illeagal. Actual mileage may vary. Unix is tm of Ma Belle. -- Wolfgang Rupprecht {harvard|decvax!cca|mit-eddie}!lmi-angel!wsr
rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (07/26/86)
In article <449@sunybcs.UUCP> tim@gort.UUCP (Timothy Thomas) writes: >In article <2366@brl-smoke.ARPA> C0144%CSUOHIO.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU writes: >> >> I can't see *too* much sense in using serial numbered copy detection, >>when in fact, a half-knowledgeable hack can search for the serial number >>printed on the diskette label using Norton Utilities, etc., and knock it >>out in one swoop. >> >> Unless, of course, you encrypt the serial number (Hmmm, not a bad thought). > >Putting the serial number on a diskette is useless. It wouldnt even >matter if it was encrypted, because all somebody has to do is get a hold >of 2 copies of the program, and compare the two files. I think the point is being missed. Yes, if you really want to buy two copies of *every* piece of software you get, you *might* be able to find the "copy detection" mechanism, and change it to something else. The point of putting "detection" rather than "protection" on the disk is 3 fold: First, the detection can be used to thwart unsuspecting "amateur pirates", who probably wouldn't bother to look, since there is nothing to prevent them from making copies, putting it on hard disk, or whatever. Second, although the professional pirate may put a different serial number on the disk, it is a simply a matter of time before an end user calls the publisher or original author for support. If serial numbers are properly tracked, the user of a pirate copy will give either a serial number that has been registered to another owner, or an invalid serial number. At this point, the publisher has several options. He can hang up on the "support call", he can trace back through the "support call", or he can sell the user a "new improved version", making the "support call" a "sales call". Remember, the point of "detecting pirate copies" is simply to prevent spending a lot of time and money supporting copies for which you have recieved no revenue, and to generate revenue from people who are already satisfied customers, even though they have not paid for their copy. For the user, the advantage of registering his copy is the same as for "share-ware". He will at least be informed of upgrades, bug fixes, and new options. In short, better service from the publisher. This is mainly in response to the clamour and distaste for protection schemes which have cost just as many sales as "detection" mechanisms would. The main advantage is that the publisher reduces the risk of liability for damages resulting from "haywire" protection schemes. Some states are already considering "liability laws" for software which causes hardship due to deliberate sabatoge such as copy-protection. The old "main-frame and mini" style software contracts are not appropriate in a market where one is potentially dealing with over 1 million customers. As strange as it may sound, piracy could be the greatest advertizing "vehicle" ever devised, simply because of the nature of the software market. If anyone is interested in discussing how to really take advantage of this market, send mail. Rex B.
ralph@ee.brunel.ac.uk (Ralph Mitchell) (07/28/86)
In article <6969@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP writes: >> Putting the serial number on a diskette is useless. It wouldnt even >> matter if it was encrypted, because all somebody has to do is get a hold >> of 2 copies of the program, and compare the two files. Where they differ, >> that is where the serial number lies, and that is where you can change >> it to whatever you wish. > >I think the intent of the original suggestion was to protect against >casual copying, not determined and systematic piracy. > >If you feel mean, put a whole bunch of different stuff on each diskette, >and bury the serial number *and a checksum* somewhere in the middle. I don't suppose it would be practical to encrypt the entire disk, using the serial number as the key ?? That way two original disks would look entirely different, except for the decrypt program. In fact, you could probably generate 5 or 10 (or 50, if you're bloody-minded) ways of doing the decryption, so pirates would have to acquire a significant number of originals, just to be sure they get a matching pair... Of course, the software house doesn't have to put the decrypt program in the same place on all the disks. :-) :-) Disclaimer: So far as I know, the above suggestions do not apply to any copy protected software currently available. If that is true, I hereby place this information in the Public Domain, so there ! :-) :-) Ralph Mitchell -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ralph Mitchell | VOICE: +44 895 74000 Ext 2561 Computer Centre | ARPA: ralph%ee.brunel.ac.uk@ucl-cs.arpa Brunel University | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!ee.brunel.ac.uk!ralph Uxbridge | JANET: ralph@uk.ac.brunel.ee UB8 3PH | UNITED KINGDOM | "Noli illegitemi carborundum" =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=