Well considering he writes assembly and other languages and is communicating with other people he might be able to do things that would surprise you.
JB > On Oct 22, 2019, at 10:38 AM, Tom Glod via use-livecode > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Funny, I just sat down to fire up LC to check on the encryption option. > That will be the first thing I will do. > > My dad will do this using a C++ / assembly debugger, and he finds the point > at which the trial limitation is lifted or enforced, and does all his work > there. So he'll be looking at memory directly and will try to inject a > 'simple' workaround. > > I'm not sure about this, but probably the arrangement and sequence of > variables in the applications' memory space will be different each time it > starts? I could be wrong but I believe cracks and patches often use a > specific byte offsets to make changes to specific portions of the program, > assuming their location is always the same within the applications > memory. This is where I think an LC standalone is different, but thats > just speculation on my part. > > With enough time ....sure...everything can be cracked......., I don't think > it will be easy for him at all, given he's never seen LC. > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 11:20 AM J. Landman Gay via use-livecode < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> That was my first thought too, password protecting the stack makes the >> scripts unreadable. The hacker would have to read the memory directly and >> I'm not sure what that would show, but I don't think it would be >> particularly organized. >> -- >> Jacqueline Landman Gay | [email protected] >> HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com >> On October 22, 2019 10:09:40 AM Bob Sneidar via use-livecode >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I'd be curious to know how well simply pass protecting the stacks does. >>> Given the "hacker" doesn't know the key that was used for the >> encryption, >>> it shouldn't be possible. >>> >>> Bob S >>> >>> >>>> On Oct 22, 2019, at 07:46 , Tom Glod via use-livecode >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> JB, of course thats true, its just a matter of how long it takes and how >>>> skilled the cracker must be. Its definitely not a reason not to try. >>>> >>>> Kee, that sounds like quite the scheme.... a self-destructing stack. My >>>> initial instinct is to create some trap using hashing also. >>>> >>>> Thanks. :) >>>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 11:03 PM kee nethery via use-livecode < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> My wife built a Hypercard stack standalone that was protected by a >> dongle. >>>>> But, every call to the dongle was something you could search for in the >>>>> scripts. So she had scripts that did hashes of the scripts that talked >> to >>>>> the dongle. And she had scripts that did hashes of the scripts that >> checked >>>>> the hashes of the scripts … >>>>> >>>>> Plus, she broke up the calculations into various sections of other >> code. >>>>> When a script noticed stuff was being altered, it would start erasing >> stuff >>>>> in the app stack. And it would look for Hypercard itself on their disk >> and >>>>> start erasing stuff in it. It would hold on as long as possible doing >> as >>>>> much damage as possible. >>>>> >>>>> Setting the code to do all this protection was a carefully scripted >>>>> process because one false step and it would self destruct and damage >> her >>>>> Hypercard. It was pretty obvious to me when that happened because the >>>>> cursing would be rather loud and prolonged. >>>>> >>>>> She’d do things like add up all the chars in a script, do a modulo on >> that >>>>> number, and then go to script ID <that answer> to execute a line of >> code in >>>>> that script. >>>>> >>>>> I’m sure someone could have eventually gotten past all that stuff but >>>>> don’t think anyone ever did. >>>>> >>>>> ------ >>>>> >>>>> All that said, shareware authors would routinely hang out on crack >> sites >>>>> and seconds before releasing their app, they would post a crack. No one >>>>> wants to be the second person to crack an app so the author would be >> the >>>>> only crack. That crack would allow someone to use the app for some >> period >>>>> of time (months) and then it would develop some kind of error. Users >> would >>>>> call in for support on XYZ error and the answer was, the more recent >>>>> version fixes that. It’s a simple upgrade, here’s the URL for users >> with >>>>> this error. And those folks would become paid users. >>>>> >>>>> Kee >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> use-livecode mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your >>> subscription preferences: >>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> use-livecode mailing list >> [email protected] >> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your >> subscription preferences: >> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode >> > > > -- > Tom Glod > Founder & Developer > MakeShyft R.D.A (www.makeshyft.com) > Office:226-706-9339 > Mobile:226-706-9793 > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > [email protected] > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription > preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
