Would this be a good submtion?
-
I was thinking of submitting an article about advanced software protection. The article I saw a long time ago about software protectiong that was entited "Software Protection 2.0" did not include many of the techniques I wanted to discuss. The article would get into some of the methods that anti-cracking software encryptors/protectors/packers use to protect other applications like shareware ect. I was wondering if this would be an ok type of a post u know it would be getting into lots of the assembly code protectors, and revealing some of there secrets such as protectors like Aspack, HASP, ect use to detect debuggers, confuse disassemblers, stop applications like ProcDump, WinDiasm ect. I was wondering if you thought it would be a good idea or not? - LiquidKnight
-
I was thinking of submitting an article about advanced software protection. The article I saw a long time ago about software protectiong that was entited "Software Protection 2.0" did not include many of the techniques I wanted to discuss. The article would get into some of the methods that anti-cracking software encryptors/protectors/packers use to protect other applications like shareware ect. I was wondering if this would be an ok type of a post u know it would be getting into lots of the assembly code protectors, and revealing some of there secrets such as protectors like Aspack, HASP, ect use to detect debuggers, confuse disassemblers, stop applications like ProcDump, WinDiasm ect. I was wondering if you thought it would be a good idea or not? - LiquidKnight
-
yes. Just be prepared of compulsive "you can't protect" posts.
Flirt harder, I'm a coder.
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygenI was thinking of including my PE File Encryptor I wrote in masm32 :p - LiquidKnight
-
yes. Just be prepared of compulsive "you can't protect" posts.
Flirt harder, I'm a coder.
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygenTrue. Similarly I can't protect my house from a determined burgalar but I still set the alarm and lock the door. At least that stops the casual thief. --Colin Mackay--
-
True. Similarly I can't protect my house from a determined burgalar but I still set the alarm and lock the door. At least that stops the casual thief. --Colin Mackay--
-
-
-
How am I messing up the word "protect"? messing up with? itself? If it looks like it was a typo... I'm with Colin - there's no perfect protection, still, people lock their front doors.
Flirt harder, I'm a coder.
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygenPeople lock there front doors in hope that there alarm goes off or they hear someone trying to get in. Plus, it keeps out idiots; there never has been a perfect protection on anything thats not the purpose of the word protection protection means to protect, not to make immune. Its unfit to compare a computer program to a door of a house they are entirely differn't in so many ways. Partly because most people don't walk around going up to houses and trying to open them cuz they know if they do they will end up in jail, where as a peice of software is differn't. so yea.. - LiquidKnight
-
People lock there front doors in hope that there alarm goes off or they hear someone trying to get in. Plus, it keeps out idiots; there never has been a perfect protection on anything thats not the purpose of the word protection protection means to protect, not to make immune. Its unfit to compare a computer program to a door of a house they are entirely differn't in so many ways. Partly because most people don't walk around going up to houses and trying to open them cuz they know if they do they will end up in jail, where as a peice of software is differn't. so yea.. - LiquidKnight
People I know don't go around trying to break the protection on software because they know that if they do and get caught they will go to jail. There are enough people who do go around houses and try the door to see if it is unlocked. Sometimes the person is more determined. When I was at school my parents house was broken into. I was the first to arrive home and I noticed something was odd. The patio doors were slanted, the back door had marks in it and the kitchen window was ajar. The house was a mess. When the police did their investigation the opinion was: The burgalar had arrived and trying to open the back door with a chisle like instrument, that failed and tried the patio door and the kitchen window all these attempts failed. Then he climbed onto the roof and in through the skylight (so he must have been thin). He took what he wanted then tried to get out. He attempted to open the patio doors but failed (he succeeded in breaking the mechanism such that it was hanging slighly-off its hinges but wouldn't open futher than a few centimeters - he also left a big Addidas imprinted shoe mark on the glass), he failed to get out the back door as similar marks were found on the inside, but succeeded in cracking the glass. He did eventually manage to get out of the kitchen window. --Colin Mackay--
-
True. Similarly I can't protect my house from a determined burgalar but I still set the alarm and lock the door. At least that stops the casual thief. --Colin Mackay--
The only problem with your analogy is that the burglar seldom picks up your house and takes it to a place unknown to you, where he or she can break into it, out of sight of anyone. :) -- Seraphim Shock. Gold for your ears.
-
People lock there front doors in hope that there alarm goes off or they hear someone trying to get in. Plus, it keeps out idiots; there never has been a perfect protection on anything thats not the purpose of the word protection protection means to protect, not to make immune. Its unfit to compare a computer program to a door of a house they are entirely differn't in so many ways. Partly because most people don't walk around going up to houses and trying to open them cuz they know if they do they will end up in jail, where as a peice of software is differn't. so yea.. - LiquidKnight
hi liquidknight... i tend to agree with you... Sun Tzu (the author of Zen and the Art of War) i think said it best... "You can be sure of succeeding in your attacks if you only attack places which are undefended. You can ensure the safety of your defence if you only hold positions that cannot be attacked." the basic premise, however, between attempting to enter a house or a computer system is basically the same, and i say this with some authority having spent some years as both a physical security analyst and an information security anaylst... i suppose the difference lies in the fact that people feel more 'secure' hacking at a computer/file/etc as 'the nosey neighbour' can't see them doing it... but break and enter/theft/criminal damage is the same for both a house and a computer assuming the intent is the same, to deprive the owner of an object (physical or electronic) by means of removing permanently or damaging the object to a point it is no longer usable, and to enter an area (physical or electronic) for which you have not been given the authority to do so... here in australia, it is covered (i believe) by the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914 Section 7a which includes any unathorised entry be it electronic or physical... ultimately, i also believe that protection can only protect from the vast majority of people who are either not interested in attacking a target (like a house or computer system) or the inept... for those truly determined, they will eventually find a way... so, yes, you are 100% correct (in my mind) when you talk about protection being to protect and not immune, and also 100% correct (in my mind again) when you talk about there never having been any system that can protect 100%, however, i must disgree that it is "unfit to compare a computer program to a door of a house", they, from the purpose of law and general intent, are identical, it is only the motive and manner which are different... either way, your submission idea seems good... i am looking forward to reading it... cheers nik Nik Vogiatzis PhD Candidate: University of South Australia +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Developing new generation Traffic Micro-simulation Tools for Traffic Engineers em: nikolaos.vogiatzis@unisa.edu.au
-
The only problem with your analogy is that the burglar seldom picks up your house and takes it to a place unknown to you, where he or she can break into it, out of sight of anyone. :) -- Seraphim Shock. Gold for your ears.
i'll concede that point... :-D Nik Vogiatzis PhD Candidate: University of South Australia +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Developing new generation Traffic Micro-simulation Tools for Traffic Engineers em: nikolaos.vogiatzis@unisa.edu.au