Software copy protection

EXECryptor Software Copy Protection and License Management System is
updated to version 2.3.7

News:

=B7 Now all license type can use trial restrictions function. To set a
trial period you can use current date or the application release date.
Binding to application release date allows to generate the serial
numbers valid for all software releases untill fixed date. To use this
feature switch in licenses editor and set llicenses checking needed
options in "Expire" menu.
=B7 added full Unicode support for serial numbers. Using Unicode
registration names they are transformed in UTF-8 representation and
then are treated by relevant same-name ANSI functions. As the
representation of string that contains only latin characters and digits
in UTF-8 is the same as ANSI representation we have the backward
compatibility. new API function: VerifySerialNumberW
=B7 added new API: DecodeSerialNumber. This function is analogic to
VerifySerialNumberEx, but it doesn't influence on IsRegistered,
RegConst_* result nor on CRYPT_REG/CRYPT_UNREG blocks execution. This
means the verification result is saved nowhere. You can use it for
additional serial numbers verification or when you need to verify a
serial number without any further program behaviour change.
=B7 added vrStolen in TVerifyResult for stolen key detection and custom
action
=B7 eckeygen.dll updated for unicode support. changed interface of
CreateSerialNumberTimeLimit.
=B7 added new feature: Advanced code protection. see help for more
details.
=B7 improved: new API function GetReleaseDate, GetEXECryptorVersion,
IsAppProtected
=B7 improved: Unicode version of SecureRead/Write, Encrypt/DecryptStr
=B7 improved: antidebug and multithreading

StrongBit Technology web site http://www.strongbit.com is upgraded and
completely redesigned.

Re: Software copy protection

John wrote:
> EXECryptor Software Copy Protection and License Management System is
> updated to version 2.3.7

Did you miss the proof that code obfuscation doesn't work?

Re: Software copy protection

i don't know the proof you tell about but i know execryptor works good
for me long enough.

Re: Software copy protection

jedubo@yahoo.fr wrote:
> i don't know the proof you tell about

http://www.mit.edu/~tauman/obfuscation.pdf

There's another paper about the same topic that claims that under a
slighty different definition, code obfuscation is actually possible, but
takes exponential effort to create and cannot be fully automated (so the
biggest part of the work is semiautomatical hand calculation).

> but i know execryptor works good for me long enough.

How exactly can you claim that without any serious trial of breaking it?

Re: Software copy protection

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 12:47:48 +0100, Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:

> jedubo@yahoo.fr wrote:
>> i don't know the proof you tell about
>
> http://www.mit.edu/~tauman/obfuscation.pdf
>
> There's another paper about the same topic that claims that under a
> slighty different definition, code obfuscation is actually possible, but
> takes exponential effort to create and cannot be fully automated (so the
> biggest part of the work is semiautomatical hand calculation).
>
>> but i know execryptor works good for me long enough.
>
> How exactly can you claim that without any serious trial of breaking it?

Exactly. Copy protections can be made that will stop the majority of
crackers, but some will still defeat any protection no matter what the
method is. It is like telling a child that he can't do something... it
only makes him more determined to try.

Re: Software copy protection

Renegade wrote:

> Exactly. Copy protections can be made that will stop the majority of
> crackers, but some will still defeat any protection no matter what the
> method is. It is like telling a child that he can't do something... it
> only makes him more determined to try.

The point is that once you know how the protection is created, it's
trivial to circumvent. Automatically.

Re: Software copy protection

jedubo@yahoo.fr writes:

>i don't know the proof you tell about but i know execryptor works good
>for me long enough.

Of course. Something that does nothing may work "good enough" for you. You
may not care about security. IF you care about security, then surely
deciding if software is secure should be of concern. But you tell me it is
not.

Re: Software copy protection

EXECryptor 2.x remains uncrackable since its inception on July 2004
despite multiple cracker's challenges. I think it is enough argument.

Re: Software copy protection

John wrote:
> EXECryptor 2.x remains uncrackable since its inception on July 2004
> despite multiple cracker's challenges. I think it is enough argument.

It's just an argument to no-one is really interested in it or no-one is
talking about his results.

Re: Software copy protection

In article <1141641957.116847.85450@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "John"
wrote:
>EXECryptor 2.x remains uncrackable since its inception on July 2004
>despite multiple cracker's challenges. I think it is enough argument.

Note that "uncracked" and "uncrackable" are not the same. As an illustration:

I see a nut before me. It is uncracked. It is not uncrackable. Another
minute goes by, in which it remains uncracked, but is still very much
crackable. Were I to be interested in the kernel of the nut, I would crack it
in a moment, but since I am not, it remains uncracked.

Alun.
~~~~

[Please don't email posters, if a Usenet response is appropriate.]
--
Texas Imperial Software | Find us at http://www.wftpd.com or email
23921 57th Ave SE | alun@wftpd.com.
Washington WA 98072-8661 | WFTPD, WFTPD Pro are Windows FTP servers.
Fax/Voice +1(425)807-1787 | Try our NEW client software, WFTPD Explorer.

Re: Software copy protection

On 6 Mar 200600, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.security.misc, in article
<1141641957.116847.85450@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, John wrote:

>EXECryptor 2.x remains uncrackable since its inception on July 2004
>despite multiple cracker's challenges.

Do a google search about the term "cracker's challenges" and discover
that they are useless, and only used by creators of shoddy crypto
whose work won't stand peer review.

>I think it is enough argument.

Yes. your posting via google.groups rather than from a company server
confirms that.

Old guy

Re: Software copy protection

John wrote:

> EXECryptor 2.x remains uncrackable since its inception on July 2004
> despite multiple cracker's challenges. I think it is enough argument.

I looked at the web site out of curiousity (and you should really get
a native English speaker to proofread it, by the way).

Couldn't find the answer to this: do you require users of protected
software to be connected to the Internet so the software can "check
back" with a server regularly? If not, I can absolutely guarantee you
that it isn't "uncrackable".... [ And even if you do require regular
check-in/updates, I'd bet you that your technique still has
vulnerabilities ]

--

Steve Stringer
sillybanter@gmail.com

Re: Software copy protection

Alun Jones wrote:
> In article <1141641957.116847.85450@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "John"
> wrote:
> >EXECryptor 2.x remains uncrackable since its inception on July 2004
> >despite multiple cracker's challenges. I think it is enough argument.
>
> Note that "uncracked" and "uncrackable" are not the same. As an illustration:
>
> I see a nut before me. It is uncracked. It is not uncrackable. Another
> minute goes by, in which it remains uncracked, but is still very much
> crackable.

> Were I to be interested in the kernel of the nut, I would crack it
> in a moment, but since I am not, it remains uncracked.
>
> Alun.
> ~~~~

Well and if it remains uncracked after you've tried to crack it then it
will be 'uncrackable'.
They don't say it is 'absolutely uncrackable' they just say 'remains
uncrackable' = 'uncracked after crack attempt'

Re: Software copy protection

Bill wrote:

> Well and if it remains uncracked after you've tried to crack it then it
> will be 'uncrackable'.

Wrong.

> They don't say it is 'absolutely uncrackable' they just say 'remains
> uncrackable' = 'uncracked after crack attempt'

And this can't even hold in theory, yet in practice!

Re: Software copy protection

"Bill" writes:


>Alun Jones wrote:
>> In article <1141641957.116847.85450@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "John"
>> wrote:
>> >EXECryptor 2.x remains uncrackable since its inception on July 2004
>> >despite multiple cracker's challenges. I think it is enough argument.
>>
>> Note that "uncracked" and "uncrackable" are not the same. As an illustration:
>>
>> I see a nut before me. It is uncracked. It is not uncrackable. Another
>> minute goes by, in which it remains uncracked, but is still very much
>> crackable.

>> Were I to be interested in the kernel of the nut, I would crack it
>> in a moment, but since I am not, it remains uncracked.

>Well and if it remains uncracked after you've tried to crack it then it
>will be 'uncrackable'.

No, it remains uncracked. Uncrackable means what you take "absolutely
uncrackabe" to mean. uncrackable means that even were one to want to and
try to crack it, it could not be cracked. Uncrackable refers to the future,
and refers to a feature of the article.
Uncracked refers to the past. Now it may be uncracked because noone tried,
or because they were not able to do so. In the latter case the fact that it
is uncracked may be evidence that it is uncrackable. But it is evidence it
is not equivalence. Uncracked even after attempts does not mean
uncrackable.
>They don't say it is 'absolutely uncrackable' they just say 'remains
>uncrackable' = 'uncracked after crack attempt'

That is wrong English useage then. What they meant to say then was "remains
uncracked" not "remains uncrackable". Of course in advertising speak,
English is first casualty.