Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!qantel!hplabs!oliveb!glacier!mips!kim From: kim@mips.UUCP Newsgroups: net.micro Subject: Re: copy-protecting software disks/tapes Message-ID: <552@mips.UUCP> Date: Thu, 10-Jul-86 17:16:36 EDT Article-I.D.: mips.552 Posted: Thu Jul 10 17:16:36 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 11-Jul-86 23:15:04 EDT References: <1066@ihlpl.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: MIPS ... where RISC is a way of life Lines: 118 > I'm interested in the state of the art (and perhaps > a little history) on copy-protecting copyrighted > software disks and tapes. > > Pointers to references, mail, etc greatly appreciated. First, a couple of references: There was a good "technical survey" article article in the December, 1985 issue of "PC Tech Journal" that covers the various CP techniques that are in use, the problems they create, and the methods available for combatting them. It also touches briefly on some of the legal issues and implications of CP and CP-busting programs. Good reading. The current (Jul/Aug) issue of "Micro/Systems Journal" has an excellent technical "how to" article on *creating* a protected program on a PClone using elementary techniques (futzing around with the disk-controller parms, sector-headers, etc.) Must reading, if you're looking for technical details. Now for a couple of recent news items on the subject (with editorial comments): On the positive side of things ... about a month ago, I read (in Electronic Engineering Times, I think) that Vault Corporation had filed for Chapter 11. Those are the folks who brought you Prolok ... the most "advanced" version of which purportedly could/would trash your hard-disk if *it* decided you were using an illegal/unauthorized copy. I don't *think* this version of Prolok was ever shipped ... possibly due to the legal liability they could have been subjected to; possibly due to the hue and cry that went up when news of this built-in time-bomb first came out; or possibly because no s/w vendor in their right mind would touch it. I wonder how this will affect their lawsuit against Quaid Software (the CopyWrite people)? As I understand it, Vault claims that Quaid had to have disassembled the Prolok code in order to break it ... and disassembly of the code is forbidden in their stupid shrink-wrap agreement. Anyway, it looks like the worm has turned on Vault (sorry, I just couldn't resist that one :-) )! On the negative side ... another recent article (from PC Week ?) mentioned that the Justice Dept. has ruled (decreed ?, decided ?, advised ?, stated ?) that the ADAPSO-developed and backed h/w protection mechanism (usually called a "dongle") will not violate anti-trust and/or trade-restraint laws. In case you don't know, a dongle is an insidious little device that plugs into your RS-232 (serial) port in a supposedly transparent fashion. A s/w vendor provides a "key" along with the s/w which plugs into the dongle. The s/w itself can then interrogate the (supposedly transparent) dongle, and make sure the key is present before it will run; or it can use the key's "action" as part of an operational algorithm, etc. Naturally, each key will be unique (or at least there will be many different keys), and each piece of s/w that uses this brain-damaged technology will require a key. This means you will need a dongle with dozens of key-slots (which you buy at your expense, of course) to support a good-sized s/w base *conveniently*. Of course, the keys will never break, nor will the dongle. And of course the dongle/keys/key-checking-software will all peacefully coexist together ... especially while you're multi-tasking several "donglized" programs together ... and you're using the serial-port to talk to your modem ... etc. Who is kidding whom, here? What is the bandwidth of your serial port? Supposedly, there will be "master-keys" for file-servers and network applications. And I suppose super-keys and sub-master-keys and ... The benifit of dongles (as with CP) is that the s/w vendors won't be getting ripped-off by unauthorized use of the products that they sell. Now they won't have to pass the costs of lost profits along to the legitimite user, and consequently their prices will be lowered, and we will all live happily everafter. And if you believe that, I have some property in Florida ... it's a really good investment deal ... Finally (if you're still reading this), I have a question for the s/w vendors who insist that I don't *buy* their product, but rather *license* it: If it is true that I don't *buy* your product, how come I have to pay *SALES* tax on it? I've always subscribed to the philosophy that "if it looks like a skunk, walks like a skunk, and smells like a skunk ... then it probably *is* a skunk." This in spite of any "paint" you may spray on the outside of the animal. Now aren't you glad you brought the subject up? /kim Disclaimer: I have no affiliation with any publication, organization, or company mentioned in this article, or with any competitor of the same. Prolok is probably a trademark of Vault Corporation. The views expressed herein are my own, and not necessarily those of my employer, my girlfried, or her cat. You are hereby granted a license to agree with these opinions, and may make back-up copies as necessary for your own personal use. You may even redistribute these opinions for a profit if you can find someone who'll pay you for them. You may not, however, "reverse-engineer" this work; any use of the individual words expressing these opinions outside of this context is prohibited, and will terminate your license. Etc, etc, etc. -- UUCP: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!mips!kim DDD: 408-720-1700 x231 USPS: MIPS Computer Systems Inc, 930 E. Arques Av, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 CIS: 76535,25