Cracking methods and how to stop them

[SFSxOI]

All ur codz are belongz to uz

Seriously; You could lock the software use to a specific user/computer using a hash system which consists of a combination of file hash (to make sure the file is not altered) and computer hardware hash combined with the IP address. This requires you to set up a system on the web that reads and compares the hash each use which means communication across the internet, and coding in something that tells the user the hash has changed and they will need to contact you for a "hash reset" at which time you challenge them to verify their identitiy and licensing status. If the IP address changes the hash changes requiring a "hash reset" and if the IP appears in a different domain and geographic location its also a clue that the person is using a pirated version and you simply do not perform a "hash reset" so the software doesn't work.

Wow. So not only will your software cease working if you bring your laptop to somewhere else than your own home, you also can't take the software with you when you move. Or if you upgrade your computer. Or buy a new computer.

And in reality, such a system will be cracked like any other system, by obtaining the full executable code (at some point it has to be on the user's computer) and disabling the check for server contact.

If the person uses the software on two different computers, like a laptop with wireless to one ISP and a home computer with another ISP, they simply purchase two seperate licenses - one for each computer.

This is exactly the kind of policy which causes people to pirate software in the first place.

It doesn't matter if they crack the software or not to circumvent the checks, because a hash reset system in reality is a "binary" system meaning there are two parts to the software. The first part is the "client" on the computer, the second part is streamed to the client after the hash check is sucessful. It takes both parts for the software to operate. So it doesn't matter if they crack the client side or not to do away with or bypass the check, because without the check there will be no second part streamed and no second part streamed means no software operation. Even if they hack it some way to send a hash its very unlikely that thousands of copies of the software floating around pirated will be used on a computer with the same hash as the user who actually purchased the license. And even if they did manage to crack it to send the same hash as the license users some way or another the client file hash is going to change and thus no second part streaming.

The IP check doesn't need to be used, its just an additional measure. This system can be made as tight or loose as the owner wants to make it. No, IP checks are not the type of policy that causes people to pirate software in the first place. What causes people to pirate software at its basis is simply plain old greed as they don't want to pay for it. Its a lie and a myth that people pirate for reasons of "testing", or because they don't like it and want to see first, or simply because the creator wants to be paid for their product just like anyone else who sells anything and the pirates don't think the price is fair, it comes down to one of the most basic of human characteristics plain old greed. Like I said, the IP does not need to be included but you just inadvertantly pointed out the very reason why it should be included.

He asked for ways, i gave one, and its one that places the control in the hands of the software creator/seller/Intellectual Property owner and removes it from the hands of the pirates. Its going to be the coming thing anyway, and in fact already exists in some forms but more draconian then this, for example the next generation of games (from some companies) will start using a binary hash system like this. In 15 to 20 years from now you will not be able to even boot a computer with internet access without permission from a big-content company somewhere for the software you have installed. If you think this is bad then wait till then. In fact this capability exists today in consoles which are a ready mass testing ground for this future capability. What do you think cloud computing it really about anyway, its about, and specifically designed for, big content Intellectual Property rights holders, sure it may have some bells and whistles to make it seem more useful like email and stuff, but you just wait and you will find out what cloud computing is really about. I gurantee you. The company I work for is already working on developing counter intrusion measures for securing such systems, and even have a lab test "cloud" system set up for testing and it works, you can't boot a single computer connected to it unless the "cloud" gives permission, these test computers have next-gen prototype hardware installed that asks for and needs this permission, you can't even play a purchased DVD that you already paid for without the cloud giving permission, for older computers connected without that comm to big content no internet access. Its coming, believe me. This is why all those outspoken non-intellectual property owners who wanted DRM didn't know what they were talking about, they thought it was about protecting rights-holders, in reality its about controlling computer users and control for profit.

[Rescator]

It doesn't matter if they crack the software or not to circumvent the checks, because a hash reset system in reality is a "binary" system meaning there are two parts to the software. The first part is the "client" on the computer, the second part is streamed to the client after the hash check is sucessful. It takes both parts for the software to operate. So it doesn't matter if they crack the client side or not to do away with or bypass the check, because without the check there will be no second part streamed and no second part streamed means no software operation.

And there you make the same mistake many companies have.
The crackers just have a legit version, and glue the exe pieces together, disable any online checks. And then distribute that.
After all, the exe is run on the consumer system, which means that at some point the client machine must have all the pieces. (otherwise the program wouldn't work)
Ubisoft tried to avoid that by streaming parts of the exe, and that lasted like a couple of months before they cracked it.

Also the IP thing as part of a hash... Bad idea, not just because the IP may change, but also because many have a router with DHCP (I do) so my machines ip is not the same IP as the one the "net" sees. My cable modem will get a new IP if it's restarted (or power loss which is luckily not that frequent) sometimes the ISP mess up and the net goes down and the cable modem gets a new IP as a result to their own routers being restarted. And they have multiple nets (not just subnets) so the leftmost number of aIPv4 may actually change. outch. And that's just a fixed landline network, imageine people with laptops and wireless, they would be forced to buy another license to use it at work, the Cafe or Hotel? And what if the Cafe changes IP's some day? There is a limit to how much money people are willing to fork out due to DRM systems they didn't ask for in the first place.
I'd hate to have a software fail to work just because that happen, I'd probably throw that away or...look on the net for a crack so I don't have to deal with it.

Obviously there are ways to handle all that, but if you mess up,well.. then you get lots of angry forum posts and support calls due to either bugs in the system or certain setups/configurations you forgot to check. (hence why most companies use existing systems from DRM companies, as they are at least more tested, but those still have issues).

Remember all those games that refused to run just because you have a virtual CD device in your system,
or worse, refuse to run if you have a debugger installed.

And recently a whole bunch of BluRay owners couldn't get their players to work due to the Avatar BluRay disc messing up their firmware/key store or whatever.

In my eyes, if you loose just 1 legit customer in an attempt to combat piracy, then you have already lost.
The day a anti-piracy system is available that does not cause issues for a single legit customer, that is the day I'll seriously consider using the solution.
It's been like what...20 years now and still no good solution.

I find that the simplest (to implement) and most user friendly solution is to use a form of serial/key, no disc check and no online checks.
"Except" when the user wish to update/patch or access certain online features or get DLC's, support and member only forum, discounts etc.
Tying the serial to a user account first, and then letting the user "login" to access extra stuff is the best way IMO.

A serial tied to a user account will stop the typical "casual" copying that might occur, beyond that there is no point fighting the pirates,
all that is needed is a single cracked copy.
The flaw of 99.99% of DRM's and copyprotections out there is that they seem to assume that every copy will be cracked, treating every user as a potential cracker 24/7, which is obviously not the case, it only takes one and all the rest just use "that" copy instead.

A DRM should reward legit owners, and ignore pirates. Maybe I'm a bit idealistic here, but it's the only way that makes sense in my opinion.

[SFSxOI]

It doesn't matter if they crack the software or not to circumvent the checks, because a hash reset system in reality is a "binary" system meaning there are two parts to the software. The first part is the "client" on the computer, the second part is streamed to the client after the hash check is sucessful. It takes both parts for the software to operate. So it doesn't matter if they crack the client side or not to do away with or bypass the check, because without the check there will be no second part streamed and no second part streamed means no software operation.

And there you make the same mistake many companies have.
The crackers just have a legit version, and glue the exe pieces together, disable any online checks. And then distribute that.
After all, the exe is run on the consumer system, which means that at some point the client machine must have all the pieces. (otherwise the program wouldn't work)
Ubisoft tried to avoid that by streaming parts of the exe, and that lasted like a couple of months before they cracked it.

Also the IP thing as part of a hash... Bad idea, not just because the IP may change, but also because many have a router with DHCP (I do) so my machines ip is not the same IP as the one the "net" sees.

Obviously there are ways to handle all that, but if you mess up,well.. then you get lots of angry forum posts and support calls due to either bugs in the system or certain setups/configurations you forgot to check. (hence why most companies use existing systems from DRM companies, as they are at least more tested, but those still have issues).

Remember all those games that refused to run just because you have a virtual CD device in your system,
or worse, refuse to run if you have a debugger installed.

And recently a whole bunch of BluRay owners couldn't get their players to work due to the Avatar BluRay disc messing up their firmware/key store or whatever.

In my eyes, if you loose just 1 legit customer in an attempt to combat piracy, then you have already lost.
The day a anti-piracy system is available that does not cause issues for a single legit customer, that is the day I'll seriously consider using the solution.
It's been like what...20 years now and still no good solution.

I find that the simplest (to implement) and most user friendly solution is to use a form of serial/key, no disc check and no online checks.
"Except" when the user wish to update/patch or access certain online features or get DLC's, support and member only forum, discounts etc.
Tying the serial to a user account first, and then letting the user "login" to access extra stuff is the best way IMO.

A serial tied to a user account will stop the typical "casual" copying that might occur, beyond that there is no point fighting the pirates,
all that is needed is a single cracked copy.
The flaw of 99.99% of DRM's and copyprotections out there is that they seem to assume that every copy will be cracked, treating every user as a potential cracker 24/7, which is obviously not the case, it only takes one and all the rest just use "that" copy instead.

A DRM should reward legit owners, and ignore pirates. Maybe I'm a bit idealistic here, but it's the only way that makes sense in my opinion.

1. Once again, this IP thing was only a suggstion, it does not have to be included. Why is everyone making such a big deal out of the IP thing?

2. "The crackers just have a legit version, and glue the exe pieces together, disable any online checks. And then distribute that.
After all, the exe is run on the consumer system, which means that at some point the client machine must have all the pieces. (otherwise the program wouldn't work)
Ubisoft tried to avoid that by streaming parts of the exe, and that lasted like a couple of months before they cracked it."

Thats because UBI soft screwed up. They didn't include incremental changes they had originally planned due to "contractural" issues with the company that did some of their stuff.

The only anti-piracy system that will work is to remove control from the pirate. The only reason they can pirate stuff now is because they can get access to it in a client computer setting, if you have that you have control (at least some measure of control) and then its only a matter of figuring out how to do it. With a hash based binary system and incremental updates you render any possibly previously pirated versions inactive and the pirates are constantly having to re-crack again and again the same thing over and over daily. The popularity for pirating it will die out due to that, these guys hack-and-dash mostly, they get something out thats popular and don't worry about it again until an update comes out, they just are not set up to do daily cracks for the same thing over and over again nor do they care to do so. You just do the second part in a .dll and stream it, recompile the .dll every day fresh and stream it out, the legit users get the latest .dll (not necessarily changes in each .dll but recompiling it gives it a different hash signature). You have a .dll authenticator that changes daily and those who are using cracked versions don' get the steamed .dll because their cracked version hasn't kept up wih the changes because cracks are not available and they can't authenticate the new authenticator. By the time they get it cracked again and distributed guess what, another .dll is already out.

Your still assuming a "everything thats needed for the software is availble when you install it" approach. The flaw in DRM is not that it treats the legit user as a potential pirate, the flaw is its based on an end user having physical file access at some point. If you remove at least part of that access and do it in such a way as to have the file constantly changing it becomes so impractical to keep pirating that they don't bother with it any longer. Current DRM practices base the access on "release - install - update as needed", when it should be ""release - install - change constantly - update as needed". If it changes constantly by incremental changing in a binary system there may be an initial surge of piracy for it but then it will drop to 0 after that simply because they can't keep up with the changes and as soon as they release or do a new crack its already changed again which renders the new crack, or by the time they crack it, ineffective.

Believe me, 99% of what youv'e said is already accounted or in ways you can't dream of, including plans to have the NSA supply a dumbed down encryption system for software to authenticate the users as legit. there was even a plan to have the ISP's do a daily inventory of your computer and its sofware to check for pirated items, without the scan or not permitting it your internet access would be terminated, they actually lobbied for this to be made a law, this idea didn't float for long but it just represents the lenghts big content wants to go to.

All this said. piracy is not the "sky is falling" thing big content wants every one to belive. In fact their lies about the numbers have been recently discredited and found out by the U.S. government. They found out that the sources the numbers pointed too were not based in fact and don't exist, in other words they were made up. You know something is wrong with the numbers when the RIAA claims billions of dollars of loss to the music industry, sues someone who downloaded some music, and puts a music industry executive on the stand and he says "Uh, I don't know how much we lose to piracy, there aren't any figures.", and the music industry have a record year in profits and the executives contiunue their multi-million dollar bonuses. However, now its a little late because of big contents lies billions of dollars of tax payer and tech sector funds have been expended, to write new laws, define treaties, establish new agencies, hire more law enforcement officials, re-direct critical home security resources, cause industry to conduct research and develop hardware, and generally upset the court and legal systems, all for a supposed "threat greater to our economy then any terrorism or other financial crisis" (actual words by a music industry executive) that does not exist anywhere in scale even remotely close to what big content had us believe. In fact big content looses more to actual shoplifters physically stealing a CD or DVD off the store shelf per-capita in the U.S. then any piracy. No doubt piracy exists, but its no where the threat we have been led to believe.

So unless you take some form of action for control, then the alternative is to do nothing because unless you have that control you can't keep it from being pirated.

[Trond]

What do you think cloud computing it really about anyway, its about, and specifically designed for, big content Intellectual Property rights holders, sure it may have some bells and whistles to make it seem more useful like email and stuff, but you just wait and you will find out what cloud computing is really about. I gurantee you.

I know what cloud computing is about.

The only anti-piracy system that will work is to remove control from the pirate.

Exactly. And your solution runs the executable on user/pirate's computer, so it will not work. Only remote-running programs can really have 100% working anti-piracy measures.

[utopiomania]

Protect your code with commercial protectors like CodeVirtualizer, or ExeCryptor. These are obfuscators, and
the hackers worst nightmare.

[SFSxOI]

What do you think cloud computing it really about anyway, its about, and specifically designed for, big content Intellectual Property rights holders, sure it may have some bells and whistles to make it seem more useful like email and stuff, but you just wait and you will find out what cloud computing is really about. I gurantee you.

I know what cloud computing is about.

The only anti-piracy system that will work is to remove control from the pirate.

Exactly. And your solution runs the executable on user/pirate's computer, so it will not work. Only remote-running programs can really have 100% working anti-piracy measures.

You mised the part about being a "binary" (two part) approach. The program is not whole until it gets the second part which is streamed. It doesn't make any differnce that they get the second part because your going to re-compile it automatically daily and change the authenticator, which forces the pirates to constantly be in a crack developing state which means they are always behind because they have cracked what was and not what is. The existing cracked version won't run the new streamed .dll where all the goodies are that make things work. Because they are always behind, piracy is for practical purposes non-existant for the software, none of their past cracked stuff will work, the client side on the pirated version no longer matches the hash, and the authentication is changed on a daily basis in the re-compiled .dll. Controlling the second part is the key here that is attainable now.

[Trond]

You mised the part about being a "binary" (two part) approach.

No, I didn't.

The program is not whole until it gets the second part which is streamed.

And after it has been streamed to memory the cracker can just dump the memory to disk and he has the whole program.

[c4s]

Protect your code with commercial protectors like CodeVirtualizer, or ExeCryptor. These are obfuscators, and
the hackers worst nightmare.

"hackers worst nightmare"? No, definitely not!
Believe me there are tons of tutorials out there that help every script kiddy to beat these packers.

[Rescator]

I'm sorry SFSxOI but me and Trond are kinda ganging up on ya here

As Trond said, the cracker will just dump the process image from memory.
And so what if chapter 4 needs a new dll or exe. The cracker will just dump that too, compare the two and create a new glued together exe.

Heck, when people out there have managed to make EQ and WoW "servers" that work with the official client, obviously they can handle this.
Sure it's more work, but the bigger the challenge the higher the prestige for those cracking groups. (ironically the anti-piracy thing is also about prestige)

Cloud computing seems to be the solution. Only thing the user have is a thin client, little more than a glorified video player with some more advanced input support.
Problem is that there will be opensource alternatives or solutions providing the same or better performance. and no matter how fat your pipes are, native execution is always the fastest, not to mention more convenient. I'd hate to not be able to use "Calculator" just because the ISP's network is glitchy today...

The sad thing is that all the anti-piracy efforts alienates people, and if they are not careful it might create an unintended avalanche. (people going to the competitor) Which will hurt originality and diversity in the long run.

Sure a system like yours is a pain but also a challenge.
The end result will be that the retail 1.0.0 version will be cracked, patch 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 not,. but update 1.1.0 will be cracked, etc.
This is already happening today as intermittent revisions are skipped for no-cd's even for the more popular games.

I think it'll be amusing when cloud computing competitors start advertising a new "feature" in a few years. "Now you can use our program/game even if offline!" Er duh, we where able to do that the last 30 years.

[utopiomania]

Believe me there are tons of tutorials out there that help every script kiddy to beat these packers.

Really? I didn't know that. Look, c4s, if I post a little crack-me protected by one of those, can you have it cracked for
me to prove your point?

[Karbon]

In the past I would have recommended going with a commercial solution - WinLicense, EnigmaProtector, EXECryptor, etc.. However, these all have problems. They're easy to use, yes, and that's a BIG plus (since you should concentrate MOST of your efforts on improving your software verses improving your licensing system). With most of these commercial systems crackers simply write stripper programs that strip the protection off the EXE. Almost all of these protection systems wrap a virtual machine around the EXE (read, HACK!), and it's *fairly* easy to remove. Once you've cracked one Winlicense-protected software, you've cracked them all (it's happened to me, and I have the stripper program to prove it ).

The other and much more problematic issue with using a commercial solution is false positive antivirus reports and overall instability. These protection softwares modify your EXE *after* it is compiled. They're all hacks, ALL OF THEM! It leads to a lot of problems in the real world. I sell a good bit of software and this problem has become *really* serious for me (I use Winlicense). I'm on a mission right now to roll my own serial numbering system with a focus on the *end user*, not crackers. Virtually anything can be cracked, all I want to do is make it pretty tough for the cracker to do it and to prevent keygens if I can.

A friend of mine wrote a great article on Partial Key Verification a few years ago : http://www.brandonstaggs.com/2007/07/26 ... in-delphi/

He has some great tips in there about how to make it difficult for crackers to work on your application.

In the end, cracks will happen. The best anyone can hope for is to keep honest people honest and make it a bit of a pain in the arse for crackers

[SFSxOI]

I'm sorry SFSxOI but me and Trond are kinda ganging up on ya here

Well, yeah, but thats OK, its sort of expected on subjects like this. You just don't see the reality of what is actually happening, and the systems in the labs today with the concepts already proven and moving towards deployment stage, we are even testing some of them here so I know they work for a fact. So i'm thinking what will be and you are thinking what already is, its a matter of time frame relationships thats all. The company I work for even hired well known (but now reformed - after they got arrested of course ) software pirates/crackers to validate the two part binary approach and they were not able to keep up after the first release and not one of their cracks worked did not work after the first hour initial release as they were always behind and their cracks and hacks did not work on the updated authenticated releases after the initial release. The ones that did not have the proper hash and were not recognized by the server did not work and failed despite the things being cracked and hacked to ignore those things or work around them as they were never able to get the second part from the server that was needed for the whole thing to work. Piracy with such a system would be so burdensome to the pirates that the pirating rate would drop to almost 0.

Hey, don't blame anyone but DRM and big content, they are the push behind it.

[DoubleDutch]

I think it'll be amusing when cloud computing competitors start advertising a new "feature" in a few years. "Now you can use our program/game even if offline!" Er duh, we where able to do that the last 30 years.

utopiomania: Listen to Rescator he makes sense...

Also: You would think that big companies like Adobe must be sick of inventing new ways of protecting the software so much. CORE apparently released a working keygen before the CS5 was even released I've heard. If they can't protect someting will all the resources they have, do you really think ypu can do a better job.

[utopiomania]

utopiomania: Listen to Rescator he makes sense...

You obviously read my post, so what about my challenge?

Can you have my crackme cracked for me??

No? Yes? What?

Accept my challenge, or just shut up.

[Rescator]

I'm on a mission right now to roll my own serial numbering system with a focus on the *end user*, not crackers.

Awesome, because it is they that actually pay for your work!

Virtually anything can be cracked, all I want to do is make it pretty tough for the cracker to do it and to prevent keygens if I can.

Yup! Only 100% proof protection against piracy is to not release anything at all. *laughs*

But seriously, some form of serial system and some "light" protection against casual copying should do the trick, it wont stop the pirates, but it wont' upset the paying customers either, and it'll prevent folks the temptation of handing their "friend" a freebie without your permission.

As to the keygen... Let them make them I say. If a "user" already have a keygen then they aren't intending to buy your program anyway, and I'm not so sure I'd want them as a customer anyway.
Make sure that you do not have pre-generated serials, only generate them "per-user per-order", that way a keygen may make a valid serial the program check acdcepts, but your support server/database knows better, and you'll at once spot any non-users trying to use the serial of a registered user with that serial.
Basically I'm pointing back to my previous mention of a user account the customer creates and ties his/her serial(s) to upon purchase.
Just be careful about banning users without checking if they miss-used the serial or if some keygen out there happened to generate it.
One idea is to tie the user account into the serial as well. (maybe hashed in some form?)
You'll quickly spot "serials" with non-existing users and non-existing licenses, or existing users seemingly using software they never purchased.
Just make them use their account (which they tied the serial too) when they wish to check for updates, access online help, extras, support help, um, discounts on other software from you etc.

...The ones that did not have the proper hash and were not recognized by the server did not work and failed despite the things being cracked and hacked to ignore those things or work around them as they were never able to get the second part from the server that was needed for the whole thing to work. Piracy with such a system would be so burdensome to the pirates that the pirating rate would drop to almost 0.

It sounds ideal, but don't forget that "the net" is huge. I guarantee you that a small bunch (several hundred) with legit copies would start doing differential comparisons.
That "is" after all what regular gamers did with Assassins Creed 2, they started building a collection of progression states and piecing them together and that work I suspect allowed the cracker groups to make a functional crack.
The issue is that the harder a system like that pushes the more resistance there will be.
Didn't Newton say that every action as an opposite and equal reaction? Same is true with systems like this (despite being software and not physics).
Now with games it's possible to keep parts until later. But with a program you can't, as there is no "path" leading from start to end. All they would need to do is hit every single action in the program and have all pieces. It would take some time for a single person to do this but imagine if a dozen or a hundred did this.
Of course any updates/patches/revisions would require this all over again, but as I said earlier only the major releases would be cracked instead of all.
Another issue with systems like this is that if they are automated it can be reversed more easily, if the "parts" are hand picked and woven into the program or game code then it's a lot harder, but the cost and the QA needed to ensure no damage is done is raised scarily high. (which means either higher end user costs or reduced profits and in any case reduced product features or content or quality)

You would think that big companies like Adobe must be sick of inventing new ways of protecting the software so much. CORE apparently released a working keygen before the CS5 was even released I've heard. If they can't protect something will all the resources they have, do you really think you can do a better job.

Well! Yeah a lot of them are sick of it, which is why they just slap pre-made solutions on haphazardly or invest way to much. I wonder what the cost of implementing all that stuff is and if that money could be used for QA instead. (games and programs are way buggier these days and a decade ago).
Another issue are release dates and internal control. Software, Games, Movies, Music are leaked way before release, they can't blame casual copying for that.
as to release dates, regional releases make many people seek out pirated copies, because they'd hate to way 6 months for Europa to get when USA has it already,
tied to this is different regional publishers, regional marketing, products are held back despite being ready to be sold right now, etc. It's real big mess.
So if something is available to some but not all at once (aka world release), those who can't get it creates suddenly a demand, and sadly the pirates are able to supply the demand,
rather than those who originally created it.
If the demand was really met then they wouldn't loose customers to their competitors (which are pirates in this discussion),
supply and demand are the basics of capitalism, one would think (especially the large) companies remembered that?

What is the solution?
Good logistics to ensure supply meets demand, the higher the volume the lower the pricing due to production savings, offer better quality than the competitors, good service and support.
(stuff like that are taught in business school right?)
Oh an they should stop treating non-profit piracy as theft, when it's really just copyright infringement. (Now "for-profit" pirates I'd argue that they are actually stealing. (stealing the income/profit of the copyright holders)
Another issue I have is the way they are treating people that casually copy, if such a large number of society is doing it it's not really illegal any more, it's a socially accepted norm. I'm not saying they should legalize it, just that it shouldn't be illegal any more.

Accept my challenge, or just shut up.

Hehe! Maybe put up some reward as an incentive. (doesn't have to be something special just a token thing besides the bragging rights, it'll probably eat up quite some hours to do it regardless of the tools available...Maybe hide the "reward" inside the file? So the first to crack it and tell you what it is, gets the reward?

Hey, don't blame anyone but DRM and big content, they are the push behind it.

Hey! At least we agree on something, that greed is a bad thing! Those companies are already making huge profits, just just want even more profits. Whatever happen to be just happy to break even and be able to continue doing what you do? ;P

I'm just a weird idealist that wish there where more out there...