🚀 go-pugleaf

GRRRRRR !!

In article <1992Nov3.164319.4116@msdhsv.ingr.com>, john@fl_gator.b17a.ingr.com (John Eason) writes:
>
>   I noticed with DOS 5.0 that each floopy and hard disk has a unique
>   serial number. I would like to access this serial number from code.
>   If my code could check the number against a known serial number
>   I could detect whether the user has copied my code to another disk.

... and if the user happens to buy a new floppy or a new system: His
program will just crash, while all users who obtained a cracked version
have actually an improved version. The best Copyprotection is still a 
good documentation and a good service.

Walter

In <1992Nov3.164319.4116@msdhsv.ingr.com> john@fl_gator.b17a.ingr.com writes:

>  Hello,
>  
>    I noticed with DOS 5.0 that each floopy and hard disk has a unique
>    serial number. I would like to access this serial number from code.
>    If my code could check the number against a known serial number
>    I could detect whether the user has copied my code to another disk.
>    I am trying to hinder the piracy of my software as you might have
>    guessed. If anyone has any info it would be greatly appreciated.

This is one of the simplest, and most easily defeatable, copy
protection schemes. I have seen things like that in commercial
programs, but *after* people (non-expert users) told me that the copy
'protection' is defeated by just using the DISKCOPY of DOS 3.x. The
same holds for vendor-specific code in the boot block.

Copy protection is generally a complicated thing, and many people
argue that a complete protection cannot be achieved. And many think
that forcing the users to use dongles or keydisks is a Bad Thing.

MfG,
        Olaf
-- 
    o     Olaf Titz - comp.sc.student - univ of karlsruhe - germany
 _ /<_    s_titz@iravcl.ira.uka.de - uknf@dkauni2.bitnet - praetorius@irc
(_)>(_)   +49-721-60439 - did i forget something?
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous. - Shakespeare, Caesar

In article <1992Nov3.164319.4116@msdhsv.ingr.com>, john@fl_gator.b17a.ingr.com (John Eason) writes:
- 
-   I noticed with DOS 5.0 that each floopy and hard disk has a unique
-   serial number. I would like to access this serial number from code.
-   If my code could check the number against a known serial number
-   I could detect whether the user has copied my code to another disk.

So what you want to do is to force people who pirate your software to also
pirate the copy of MS-DOS under which your program is run ?.

And you want to ensure that your customers who upgrade to DR DOS 6.0 or some 
relevant Microsoft effort have to come back to you for a new copy ?

                                           Thomas

-- 
*** This is the operative statement, all previous statements are inoperative.
*   email: cmaae47 @ ic.ac.uk (Thomas Sippel - Dau) (uk.ac.ic on Janet)
*   voice: +44 71 589 5111 x4937 or 4934 (day), or +44 71 823 9497 (fax)
*   snail: Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine
*   The Center for Computing Services, Kensington SW7 2BX, Great Britain

In article <1992Nov4.111537.1806@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> S_TITZ@iravcl.ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz) writes:
>Copy protection is generally a complicated thing, and many people
>argue that a complete protection cannot be achieved. And many think
>that forcing the users to use dongles or keydisks is a Bad Thing.
>
And the keydisk/dongle code can be dug out from the program binary and altered
or removed. I am one of those who think that any human-made copyprotection
CAN BE broken by another human. The case is just whether or not breaking
the copy protection is "worth the job".

Look for example at AutoCad. At least the versions officially sold in Finland
are protected with some hardware kludge that plugs into the parallel port.
I've heard about "versions" of AutoCad from which the code related to the
parallel port "kludge" has been removed. As AutoCad is very expensive program,
and a program of very good quality, this definitely has been worth of the job.

I think if a program that costs just some USD 30 had some parallel port
protection, it would not be cracked. The same holds true (I think) for programs
of inferior quality.

..Wolf

PS. Flames about supporting piracy to /dev/null. These were just my thoughts.

In article <1992Nov4.111537.1806@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> S_TITZ@iravcl.ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz) writes:
> This is one of the simplest, and most easily defeatable, copy
> protection schemes.

Actually, on some computers that have had this feature since the start it
works better than fancier schemes. I did this on one game I wrote for the
Amiga, and none of the fancy copy protection crackers would solve it. You
had to use a "verbatim" copy, which most people didn't try since it almost
never worked on "normal" copy protection. Plus, it was less likely that
the game would become unusable because of disk errors or users writing random
stuff (like patch files) to the disk.

You gotta do the unexpected to stay ahead in this game...

> [...] forcing the users to use dongles or keydisks is a Bad Thing.

I agree, but it was a requirement by the publisher.
-- 
% Peter da Silva % 77487-5012 % +1 713 274 5180 %
true(<<VV$@\\$'&O 9$O%'$LT$&$"V6"$&$<4$?'&$ #I&&?$=$<<@)24 24 scale 3 21 moveto
{dup 36 eq{pop not}{dup 7 and 4 sub exch 56 and 8 div 4 sub 2 index{rlineto}{
rmoveto}ifelse}ifelse}forall stroke pop showpage % Har du kramat din varg idag?