Article View: comp.lang.asm.x86
Article #73Re: Absolute addresses, relative addresses
From: KVP
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 08:09
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 08:09
22 lines
3281 bytes
3281 bytes
minso@altern.org (Eric Minso) wrote in message [...] > Now, if you have any other idea for protecting executables, I will be > happy to have it. If you want to protect against code modifications, then how about runtime checking? You embed md5 hash checking code all over your application, and the program just terminates itself if it finds modified code. Of course, you have to duplicate this code, so it can not be removed by modifying the code at only one place. This is breakable, but it's very hard to do it. You can check all constant sections (code and read only data) with this technology. It's done during execution, so patching the executable code (to restore crippled features or to eliminate protection) is very hard. You will need an application, that can identify the data locations and patch your compiled executable with the hash codes, because the code can only be computed _after_ the linking is done. For code readability protection, there is no real cure. If a code runs, then it can be traced and disassembled manually. So this technology is good for stopping or slowing piracy, but it can't stop reverse engineering. Viktor
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<9f459d85.0309020009.444d6027@posting.google.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!news.crayne.org!clax86!robomod!not-for-mailReferences:
<7db38e60.0308250121.6135ebc1@posting.google.com> <bieiii$8dsqb$1@ID-165313.news.uni-berlin.de> <7db38e60.0308260511.4b9a371@posting.google.com> <bigi38$36e$1@titan.btinternet.com> <7db38e60.0308270023.1d3f4cf@posting.google.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: feaef,44f17f79ebe31523 X-Google-Attributes: gidfeaef,public X-Google-Thread: f7d8d,44f17f79ebe31523 X-Google-Attributes: gidf7d8d,public X-Google-Thread: 114917,44f17f79ebe31523 X-Google-Attributes: gid114917,public X-Google-Thread: 1093da,44f17f79ebe31523 X-Google-Attributes: gid1093da,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-09-02 01:56:20 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!news.crayne.org!clax86!robomod!not-for-mail From: nospam777@freemail.hu (KVP) Newsgroups: comp.lang.asm.x86,alt.lang.asm,alt.os.assembly,borland.public.tasm Subject: Re: Absolute addresses, relative addresses Approved: CLAX86 Moderators <ccrayne@crayne.org> Date: 2 Sep 2003 01:09:38 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <9f459d85.0309020009.444d6027@posting.google.com> X-CLAX86-Policy: http://www.pacificsites.com/~ccrayne/clax86.html X-CLAX86-Faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgroup/comp/comp.lang.asm.x86.html X-CLAX86-Info-1: Send submissions to comp-lang-asm-x86@moderators.isc.org X-CLAX86-Info-2: Send technical complaints to ccrayne@crayne.org X-CLAX86-Info-3: Send complaints about policy to ccrayne@crayne.org X-Comment: moderators do not necessarily agree or disagree with this article. References: <7db38e60.0308250121.6135ebc1@posting.google.com> <bieiii$8dsqb$1@ID-165313.news.uni-berlin.de> <7db38e60.0308260511.4b9a371@posting.google.com> <bigi38$36e$1@titan.btinternet.com> <7db38e60.0308270023.1d3f4cf@posting.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted), SpamAssassin (score=-0.3, required 4, FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS 0.74, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT -0.48, REFERENCES -0.50) X-UIDL: eV/"!V@Y"!`;R"!~=G"! X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 23