Tutorial Idea
-
So, what's next? how to write a keygen using software's own routines, ICE debugging, changing resources to enable disabled software functions, change JNE for JE opcodes to bypass registration schemes, how to bypass IsDebuggerPresent and CheckRemoteDebuggerPresent, ... Nah... Not on CP, maybe it's better on http://neworder.box.sk/ Perl combines all the worst aspects of C and Lisp: a billion different sublanguages in one monolithic executable. It combines the power of C with the readability of PostScript. -- Jamie Zawinski
Hey Daniel, I have actually written a couple of articles for neworder :D :D and also judging by your knowledge of the terms seems you've spent a lot of time on the site too :D but seriously what i wanted to write about was how great the language independence of .Net is (The decoder is IL code and the application is a winforms project). But i guess you're right CP isn't the place for that...ahh well guess i'll just have to write an article about some goody stuff :)
I always think that the idea of a compiler that compiles another compiler or itself is rather incestuous in a binary way. - Colin Davies My .Net Blog
-
So, what's next? how to write a keygen using software's own routines, ICE debugging, changing resources to enable disabled software functions, change JNE for JE opcodes to bypass registration schemes, how to bypass IsDebuggerPresent and CheckRemoteDebuggerPresent, ... Nah... Not on CP, maybe it's better on http://neworder.box.sk/ Perl combines all the worst aspects of C and Lisp: a billion different sublanguages in one monolithic executable. It combines the power of C with the readability of PostScript. -- Jamie Zawinski
I think that's a bit unfair. Nothing in the original post indicates (to me) an intent to subvert copy protection. Rob Manderson **Paul Watson wrote:**What sense would you most dislike loosing? Ian Darling replied. Telepathy Then I'd no longer be able to find out everyones dirty little secrets The Lounge, December 4 2003
-
Yesterday i was going through some code which was obfuscated, the strings were all encrypted. Well that got my curiosity running and i wrote a small app that used the decryption routine of the code itself to decrypt the strings. Now i am thinking of writing an article about that, is anyone intrested? and more importantly is it appropriate?
I always think that the idea of a compiler that compiles another compiler or itself is rather incestuous in a binary way. - Colin Davies My .Net Blog
I'd be interested in such an article. In fact, I've had a similar article idea half written for about 5 months now - maybe it's time I finished it and published :) Rob Manderson **Paul Watson wrote:**What sense would you most dislike loosing? Ian Darling replied. Telepathy Then I'd no longer be able to find out everyones dirty little secrets The Lounge, December 4 2003
-
Yesterday i was going through some code which was obfuscated, the strings were all encrypted. Well that got my curiosity running and i wrote a small app that used the decryption routine of the code itself to decrypt the strings. Now i am thinking of writing an article about that, is anyone intrested? and more importantly is it appropriate?
I always think that the idea of a compiler that compiles another compiler or itself is rather incestuous in a binary way. - Colin Davies My .Net Blog
-
Yesterday i was going through some code which was obfuscated, the strings were all encrypted. Well that got my curiosity running and i wrote a small app that used the decryption routine of the code itself to decrypt the strings. Now i am thinking of writing an article about that, is anyone intrested? and more importantly is it appropriate?
I always think that the idea of a compiler that compiles another compiler or itself is rather incestuous in a binary way. - Colin Davies My .Net Blog
-
I think that's a bit unfair. Nothing in the original post indicates (to me) an intent to subvert copy protection. Rob Manderson **Paul Watson wrote:**What sense would you most dislike loosing? Ian Darling replied. Telepathy Then I'd no longer be able to find out everyones dirty little secrets The Lounge, December 4 2003
Rob Manderson wrote: I think that's a bit unfair. Nothing in the original post indicates (to me) an intent to subvert copy protection. Why do you think I was unfair? The post was mentioning an article about how you can decrypt strings on an obfuscated .NET assembly. Even the original poster agreed with me. I just can't think of a single "fair use" for this. I can only think of breaking software copy protection (as finding all code that references the "Invalid registration key" string is a common cracking tool, and obfuscated code is still readable by a crafted IL programmer) and/or decompiling some important routine or algorithm to copy it on my own program. Not that I don't think that people shouldn't try to break copy protection schemes: I think that yes, they should, this is a good thing. I won't digress here explaining why. I just don't think that cracking software tutorials is the right kind of article on CP. If CP started hosting cracking tutorials, I'd immediately remove my articles from here, and I think that most authors too, as I don't want to have my name associated with that kind of thing. This would ruin CP as we know (and love) it. As I pointed, there are more appropriate sites for this. Perl combines all the worst aspects of C and Lisp: a billion different sublanguages in one monolithic executable. It combines the power of C with the readability of PostScript. -- Jamie Zawinski
-
Rob Manderson wrote: I think that's a bit unfair. Nothing in the original post indicates (to me) an intent to subvert copy protection. Why do you think I was unfair? The post was mentioning an article about how you can decrypt strings on an obfuscated .NET assembly. Even the original poster agreed with me. I just can't think of a single "fair use" for this. I can only think of breaking software copy protection (as finding all code that references the "Invalid registration key" string is a common cracking tool, and obfuscated code is still readable by a crafted IL programmer) and/or decompiling some important routine or algorithm to copy it on my own program. Not that I don't think that people shouldn't try to break copy protection schemes: I think that yes, they should, this is a good thing. I won't digress here explaining why. I just don't think that cracking software tutorials is the right kind of article on CP. If CP started hosting cracking tutorials, I'd immediately remove my articles from here, and I think that most authors too, as I don't want to have my name associated with that kind of thing. This would ruin CP as we know (and love) it. As I pointed, there are more appropriate sites for this. Perl combines all the worst aspects of C and Lisp: a billion different sublanguages in one monolithic executable. It combines the power of C with the readability of PostScript. -- Jamie Zawinski
I think I've said enough to justify my position. I've written most of an article (it would have been my 6th article had I finished it and I've posted 11 articles) on almost the same subject. Why didn't I post? Because it seemed almost trivial once I read it back. Your position seem analogous to a prohibition on an article on how Yale locks work. Of course such articles belong on CP if only so that I (and many others) can learn how the other side works. Rob Manderson **Paul Watson wrote:**What sense would you most dislike loosing? Ian Darling replied. Telepathy Then I'd no longer be able to find out everyones dirty little secrets The Lounge, December 4 2003
-
Hey Daniel, I have actually written a couple of articles for neworder :D :D and also judging by your knowledge of the terms seems you've spent a lot of time on the site too :D but seriously what i wanted to write about was how great the language independence of .Net is (The decoder is IL code and the application is a winforms project). But i guess you're right CP isn't the place for that...ahh well guess i'll just have to write an article about some goody stuff :)
I always think that the idea of a compiler that compiles another compiler or itself is rather incestuous in a binary way. - Colin Davies My .Net Blog
Sijin wrote: I have actually written a couple of articles for neworder and also judging by your knowledge of the terms seems you've spent a lot of time on the site too :D No, I didn't, I am a fast reader Seriously, I know most of these techniques from long date, I didn't read neworder tutorials. When you were 3 years old, I started programming, and most of the coding at that time was done in Z80 ASM and BASIC, since computers had 2K of RAM. Later, with 16 years old, having lots of free time, and if you're a geek, cracking code on a Z80 is a damn fun puzzle. Things didn't change much since then, actually, they are much easier today, with all that memory and powerful tools. Can you imagine what can be done with Bochs, VMWare or Virtual PC while debugging those beasts? :rolleyes: Perl combines all the worst aspects of C and Lisp: a billion different sublanguages in one monolithic executable. It combines the power of C with the readability of PostScript. -- Jamie Zawinski
-
I think I've said enough to justify my position. I've written most of an article (it would have been my 6th article had I finished it and I've posted 11 articles) on almost the same subject. Why didn't I post? Because it seemed almost trivial once I read it back. Your position seem analogous to a prohibition on an article on how Yale locks work. Of course such articles belong on CP if only so that I (and many others) can learn how the other side works. Rob Manderson **Paul Watson wrote:**What sense would you most dislike loosing? Ian Darling replied. Telepathy Then I'd no longer be able to find out everyones dirty little secrets The Lounge, December 4 2003
Crackz and warez on CP? No, thanks. What's the limiting line? Rob Manderson wrote: Your position seem analogous to a prohibition on an article on how Yale locks work. Of course such articles belong on CP if only so that I (and many others) can learn how the other side works. You didn't read my post fully, or didn't understand it: I do think that people should break these copy protection schemes, for reasons I will not treat here, as it's digressing. Now, my position is that CP should not host these articles. In the same sense that CP should not host porn. CP should not host MP3, even if they are free. In the same sense, if you want articles about crackz and warez and 1337 h4x0rz, you should look somewhere else. But I can say nothing about it. This site is free and Chris owns it, and he will be the one who decides that. This is just my opinion. Perl combines all the worst aspects of C and Lisp: a billion different sublanguages in one monolithic executable. It combines the power of C with the readability of PostScript. -- Jamie Zawinski
-
Yesterday i was going through some code which was obfuscated, the strings were all encrypted. Well that got my curiosity running and i wrote a small app that used the decryption routine of the code itself to decrypt the strings. Now i am thinking of writing an article about that, is anyone intrested? and more importantly is it appropriate?
I always think that the idea of a compiler that compiles another compiler or itself is rather incestuous in a binary way. - Colin Davies My .Net Blog
I think you should write the article because it will likely shed light on some the claims obfuscator vendors make about their products. A lot of organizations are gaining a perhaps false sense of security based on commercial obfuscator vendors' claims. I think your idea adds value since it will likely make the commercial products better and perhaps give others a means to confirm the vendors' claims. Erik Westermann