Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:15:26 10/29/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 29, 2005 at 14:55:50, David Mitchell wrote: >On October 29, 2005 at 09:34:54, P L Patodia wrote: > >>On October 29, 2005 at 07:19:41, David Mitchell wrote: >> >>>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 >> >>As Mr. Uri said, we should not discuss much about protection because it may help >>the crackers which will be very bad. I am having very high regards for Mr. Uri >>(I have read many of his messages and he has created 75 move games for a >> puzzle) >>so I respect his ideas. > >Then you should also respect what he says: he says he knows very little about >encryption, and I assure you that is EXACTLY the case. I said only "Note that I understand nothing about machine code" I did not say that I know very little about encryption. I know that there are encryption methods that make it hard for people who do not know the key to understand meesages and I remember based on what I studied some years ago that they are based on the idea that it is easy to have functions when people who know f^-1 can calculate f easily but people who know f cannot calculate the opposite function f^-1. In this case f can be public function and people who know f can encrypt A by sending message f(A) when nobody will be able to understand what they sent except single person who know f^-1 and made f public. Uri
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.