Heavy, stryker

Seem to be added, Sincerly, to the BOTTOM LINe of it ALL.
Posted on 2002-03-18 20:14:52 by cmax

Too bad that this probably means you will either get lost in your own
code, or spend more time on the protection than the rest of the

Yeah but if your code can make a cracker/hacker/reverser pull their hair out from sheer nightmarish frustration, then it's all worth it. ;-)
Posted on 2002-03-18 20:30:18 by iblis
Well I dont know for Apps, but for games:

Just give a protection that the cracker thinks is the real protection then after your real protection found out what happen, let the user run your game. However be sure that the dummy protection scheme is hard, so the cracker thinks he beat his challenge.

Now the idea is to let the player run the game as if the crack worked, then later on the game corrupt all saves, crash periodically, use the windows advantage (people are used to crash). The think here is that they look as random failures.

Be sure to do it sometimes at key parts of the game. Nothing is more frustrating that having a game crashing on a key part and finding out after rebooting that your save is corrupted :)

This works because most crackers usually dont continue and check that EVERYTHING WORKS UNTIL the end of the game, so they will basically release crap. (Unless he is a good software practice cracker :), then he will do a full quality check before releasing )

Its an evil Idea because you are doing bad software practices, including corrupting the saves and periodical crashing. Note that this will not prevent your program to be cracked at the end, but hopefully it will take some months to do it (enough to capitalize for your project) and it will give the cracker a bad reputation for giving sloppy cracks.

Take note that you will also risk that a dumb dishonest user tell his honest friends that your game crashes frequently. (dumb because he thinks the crack worked, dishonest because hes using a crack). So Its a two edge sword. So altough it could be funny I wouldnt recommend anyone using it. (unless you can find a way to let user know that ONLY the CRACKED versions crash).

If your game is multiplayer, do frequent patches and adjust the servers so they will only run with the latest patch. (It maybe a small pain for you, but it will be a hassle to all thieves outhere.
Posted on 2002-03-18 21:31:58 by dxantos
Nice one dxantos - maybe even put a message on the screen that says, "Try buying this game if you like it so much!" and then crash. :) Obviously, if they've played the game to a key part they should be buying the game!

My idea is to use coding tools that convolute the code for you. In a psuedo-random way, of course! Alas, my assembler isn't done yet. If you can write a code optimizer, why not write a convoluting de-optimizer? Code that couldn't even be recognized by its mother. :)
Posted on 2002-03-18 22:42:11 by bitRAKE
Protection is a gradualist affair, the more you have, the more work is is to break it "IF" you understand what you are doing.

The programmer who understands what they are doing always has the advantage in terms of time to create verses time to break.

Compression breaks the simple binary patch, they have to unpack it. Length, CRC or any other test you like means they have to finds it in the code.
Conditional compiles are a lot of fun in that you can use a different method for every version you produce and the more obscure the better.

Originality solves many problems in protection as it means the attacker actually has to think instead of dragging through the routine of creating yet another keygen or whatever.

Someone may get you file going so it can be warezed but it means they have to put the file up somewhere and there are ways of dealing with one off warezed copies, when it connects to your web site, it will not be registered if you have designed the code correctly so its easy to feed back to them "There is a problem with your registration, please contact your vendor with your serial number and purchase information".

If the attacker breaks the file in time for the release of win3k, it probably will not matter by then. When you protect a file, its a time formula you are seeking, not an absolute protection system.


Posted on 2002-03-19 01:49:53 by hutch--
There is no way of creating an anti-crack system that cannot be crackeable. It is impossible. You know the old quote: Any riddle the human mind creates can be solved by other one, and it is true, by common sense.
So, I suggest a solution that enterprises should apply, and it is the reducing of prizes in the final cost of the product. This is what should be applied, instead of such stupid riddles they try to create. How can games such as Flight Simulator (that by the way contains very poor graphics) cost 99 dollars? Why cant they launch their program at a prize of 15 or 20 dollars. With that prize, more people would buy it. By the way, some pirate programs cost 15 or 20 dollars. Recording a program may cost like 4 dollars, so 15 is a very good prize for original programs. So, enterprises have two options; low prizes or try to make stupid riddles.
Posted on 2002-03-20 14:20:04 by CodeLover
>There is no way of creating an anti-crack system that cannot be crackeable. It is impossible.

That's why I would only release CRIPPLEware instead of SHAREware. But both sucks. That's why I release only FREEware :)
Posted on 2002-03-22 03:38:07 by bazik