Article View: comp.sys.dec.micro
Article #47Re: Professional Computer FAQ
From: Charles Lasner
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 1992 16:44
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 1992 16:44
68 lines
4697 bytes
4697 bytes
I just finished using Teledisk in the attempt to copy the copy-protected disks. The analysis section of Teledisk told me some interesting stuff: Apparently the scheme is to put "funny business" in track 39 past all of the files. The two descendents are indeed different from each other, and also from the original. I still don't know why COPYIIPC can't just make a direct copy, but in any case I at least have a slight handle on what's being attempted: The Broderbund disk apparently has sectors 1-9 everywhere but on track 39. On 39 you get something like most of 1-7 and then something like sector 222 and 242. On side 2 of track 39 you get 1-8 and then 45. Additionally, 45 is a 256 byte sector, not 512. Further, all of the "funny" sectors have a non-standard CRC in them so disk copiers will complain the data is corrupted. Since Teledisk can't copy bad sectors, it creates "good" ones there and the copy-protection can't be thwarted. When checking the two variant COPYIIPC-created descendents, they are both subsets of the above, which I don't understand, and also they do have the variant CRC property, thus perhaps this aspect of the copy protection has been overcome. But since it is also not a correct copy of the overall sector scheme in either version, this is a likely reason why it doesn't work either. So, perhaps the COPYIIPC quirky message indicates that there is a mis-recognition of just what's going on due to a bug, or just that Broderbund has something nastier at work here. (Maybe this is one of those disks with a laser hole in it; they read differently every time as part of the scheme; in which case there is no way to copy it; it has to be patched to be brain-dead in this way instead.) In any case, this points out further nice frills in Teledisk, since it can be used to notice any format variations. This helps to document how to make DECmate and/or Rainbow variant RX50 formats correctly regarding stagger and interleave zone issues. As a consequence of the apparent mechanism in Teledisk, it does seem capable of getting around certain forms of copy protection. Potential candidates are programs like PC Flight Simulator which are merely non-standard enough to be distasteful to DISKCOPY and DISKCOMP. Also any disk that isn't a standard MS-DOS disk where the low-level format is compatible such as a CP/M diskette or the backup disks from certain packages, etc. If the data compression feature of Teledisk could be totally defeated, then it would lend itself to data compression from other utilities. This could produce more desirable results since the two options are either essentially quick and dirty or slow and thorough. There are other packages available that perhaps compress better in terms of either size (marginally) or speed. Since data compression isn't a stagnant issue, Teledisk bucks that trend by offering an arbitrary (albeit useful) compression method. Further, since compressed data can't be further compressed, this means that when you attempt to archive these files with another utility such as LHARC or PKZIP, there are some problems: LHARC has no mechanism to turn off its compression mechanism. Thus, when using LHARC to archive Teledisk files, they invariably get larger in the archive. Thus Teledisk files are not an attractive candidate for archiving using LHARC (from which the compression algorithm was acknowldegeably lifted from). PKZIP attempts to compress the file and invariably takes quite awhile in the attempt because of the semi-random appearance of the already compressed data, so it *eventually* gives up and does a straight store into the archive, but this wastes some time. There is a switch option to make it always just store without a compression attempt, but then it applies to all files being added at once. The best workaround is to invoke the switch and add all Teledisk files first, then do an unrestricted file add for the rest of the files in the archive, etc. cjl
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Aug9.164459.22118@news.columbia.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.columbia.edu!watsun.cc.columbia.edu!lasnerReferences:
<1992Aug8.040318.12346@news.columbia.edu> <BARRY.92Aug8111328@chezmoto.ai.mit.edu> <1992Aug9.042457.13980@news.columbia.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.sys.dec.micro Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.columbia.edu!watsun.cc.columbia.edu!lasner From: lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner) Subject: Re: Professional Computer FAQ Message-ID: <1992Aug9.164459.22118@news.columbia.edu> Sender: usenet@news.columbia.edu (The Network News) Nntp-Posting-Host: watsun.cc.columbia.edu Reply-To: lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner) Organization: Columbia University References: <1992Aug8.040318.12346@news.columbia.edu> <BARRY.92Aug8111328@chezmoto.ai.mit.edu> <1992Aug9.042457.13980@news.columbia.edu> Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1992 16:44:59 GMT Lines: 69