Author: Walter Faxon
Date: 11:35:45 12/29/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 29, 2005 at 09:16:02, Dagh Nielsen wrote:
>On December 29, 2005 at 07:03:52, George Tsavdaris wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>>2. No source is published, thus how should it be 'cloned'?
>>>>>
>>>>>Guenther
>>>>
>>>>It can be cloned if the computer of the programmer is defected by some trojan
>>>>horse so somebody can steal the source.
>>>>
>>>>Another way without trojan horse is simply stilling the computer that rybka is
>>>>developed in it.
>>>>
>>>>Uri
>>>
>>>I guess the chance that someone infects your computer with a trojan
>>>and steals Moveis source is much higher,
>>>than trying the same on Vas' development machine.
>>>
>>>Why not apply more common sense instead of inflating bandwidth
>>>with 'least probability' games, except for funny irony reasons?
>>
>> If all people were thinking with common sense, then our world would be much
>>different and to the worse side....World needs people that think different!
>>
>>>
>>>After hundreds of similar posts they are just not that funny
>>>anymore ;) It is not necessary to add all (low probability)
>>>circumstances to a Human sentence, as people agreed to use
>>>language in a more efficient way. Thus please don't add 'answers'
>>>and 'conditions' you can safely assume they know already or are
>>>simply far from significance.
>>
>>You said that since no source is available then how people can find the source?
>>And he found 2 possible ways.....That 2 ways had a non-zero chance to happen so
>>he did right to mention them....
>>
>>>
>
>No, in this context it is not right to add inconsequential information with no
>merit but to prove formal deficiencies. It can wisely be assumed that every
>reader can judge for himself or request further information in case of any
>doubts or interest. Neglected, but formally necessary conditionary qualifiers or
>corrections are not required or desirable from a sociologic point of view unless
>the exclusion of them are feared to instill a fatal semantic misconception in
>the unprepared reader. The potential consequences of the latter must be measured
>up against the interacting population's wish for a rewarding conversation;
>outright negligible formal observations do not entail any emotional rewards for
>most readers.
>
>Addendum:
>
>(1) One notes that the abovementioned "context" is not well defined or
>unambiguous.
>
>(2) One notes that discussion of "right" and "wrong" is highly conditionary.
>
>(3) One notes that the use of the term "inconsequential" is not formally
>correct, but it may be correct when it is interpreted in a looser way based on
>observations regarding relevance.
>
>(4) One notes that "relevance" in (3) depends on the eye of the beholder.
>
>(5) One notes that the justification of the terms "no merit", "wisely", "not
>required", "desirable", "rewarding" and "wish" likewise depends heavily on the
>eye of the beholder.
>
>(6) One notes in general that the linear argumentation presented above probably
>ignores several valid objections, of both formal and horizon-widening kind.
>
>Kind regards,
>Dagh Nielsen
>
>PS. Did Hydra-Chrilly not describe here how he was able to take a peek at
>Rybka's code due to its non-encrypted state? I do not know if he was only able
>to look at some more basic form of code and not the actual "source code", and
>would be interested if somebody would explain the possible difference.
See this thread:
http://hornid.com/cgi-bin/ccc/topic_show.pl?pid=449046#pid449046
Vas wrote Rybka in C, which was compiled into object code and linked into a load
module for sale. Chrilly got hold of a copy and disassembled it using a tool
called IDA-Pro. The latter produces assembler (or assembly) code -- a symbolic
form of object code -- which, with a bit of hard work, can be understood and
reverse-engineered back into C (and there are probably tools for this also).
The major things missing are the symbolic names for the C variables, constants
and functions (the latter are usually removed with a linking option), the
structuring introduced by inline functions and macros, and of course any helpful
comments.
Vas could have made Chrilly's task harder by encrypting the load module but
since the code has to decrypted in order to run, this is really just a
complication for a 'real' hacker.
Of course Chrilly's actions were a violation of the terms of sale of Rybka. But
apparently many people do this.
-Walter
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.