Author: David Mitchell
Date: 04:19:41 10/29/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 29, 2005 at 03:37:52, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 29, 2005 at 03:09:15, P L Patodia wrote: > >>On October 29, 2005 at 00:52:36, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On October 29, 2005 at 00:00:54, P L Patodia wrote: >>> >>>>On October 28, 2005 at 18:21:37, Jake Sisko wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Is Fruit 2.2 copy protection scheme the trend of the Future? I hear that there >>>>>is not one cracked version of the program. Perhaps Other companies will adopt >>>>>the same practices of Fruit to ensure that programmers actually get paid for >>>>>there work? Seems like a good ideal to me! >>>> >>>>There are many programmers who understand machine code like we do C, C++ etc. >>>>For them, it is only the question of finding which part of the code is checking >>>>the hardware details and then making necessary changes to overcome protection. >>> >>>The main problem is that they can get the code. >>>Is it theoretically impossible to have an exe file that does not allow people to >>>see the machine code? >>> >>>Note that I understand nothing about machine code and I even do not know how to >>>get machine code from an exe file. >>> >>>Uri >> >>The exe file is nothing but the machine code. That is how the computer is able >>to execute it. >> >>P L Patodia > >The question is if it is not possible to have an exe file as some encryption of >the machine code when only the machine knows to translate it to machine code >that is hidden from the user or alternatively have computers with secret machine >code so programmers will simply be unable to understand the machine code. > >Note that I still do not know how to get the machine code from the exe file >even if it is an exe file of a program that I write and saying that the exe is >the machine code does not help(I do not try to crack other programs and I was >only curious to see the machine code of Movei). > >I can open exe file by notepead if I rename the file not to have .exe but I >doubt if the chars that I see inside what I get(when part of them are not >recognized by me) are machine code. >I do not know machine code so I do not know. > >Maybe it is better not to talk about it too much in order not to help more >crackers. > >Uri Trust me Uri, at the level we're talking about it, we will NOT be helping any crackers do anything. <grin> If you want to see an exe file, you need to d/l one of the many "file viewer" programs, that will show you the full file, not just the text characters and garbage, that notepad will show you. Having some program that needs "secret" machine code to handle an encrypted exe file is a great way to wreck havoc with lots of computers, and irritate the *crap* out of most, if not nearly all, users. Bad idea all around. The thing to keep in mind is that the company/programmer might want to have his program security absolutely secure, forever, but that just can't be done in an economical and reasonable manner. All that they really need is enough security to prevent/hold back copying for a period - say 5 years. By that time, Fruit will have moved on, and current sales will not be hugely impacted by grey market copying of a 5 year old program. Plus, if they can reasonably do it, they can still prosecute them and try to receive some $$$ from damages. Hard to do in a foreign country, though! Naturally, Fruit will want to change it's type of encryption from time to time, so if someone does break (and it will happen, eventually), their encryption for one version, they still will have to start all over from scratch to work on cracking the next year's program. Dave
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.