Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!caip!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!hplabs!hao!hull
From: hull@hao.UUCP (Howard Hull)
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: Copy protect methods & paranoia
Message-ID: <169@hao.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 27-Jul-86 18:33:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: hao.169
Posted: Sun Jul 27 18:33:30 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 28-Jul-86 04:42:23 EDT
References: <236@neoucom.UUCP>
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR Boulder, CO
Lines: 42
Summary: writing on write protected disks

In article <236@neoucom.UUCP>, wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) writes:
> 
> Now the bad part is that the algorithm that E-A uses is real slow
> and rather unreliable.  I've been though several copies of both
> programs.  It seems like the disks break after 20 to 30 boots of
> the programs.
> 
> It looks like they decode some part of the program and switch its
> physical location on the disk every time the protected program is
> run.  It also looks like the funky blocks are not noted in the file
> system as used blocks which makes them vulnerable for trashing by
> legitimate writes to the disk.

So you propose a scheme that wants to write on a write protected disk.
Of course if it can't, it won't make any difference, since the disk will
be the same as before.  If that's true, why even try unless the object
is related to something you expect the writers to be doing that you don't
want them to do.  In that case, I'd like to hear what you think that is.
All of my EA disks have been write protected since the day I got them,
and I have not yet had a failure to boot.  I am not tempted to write on
them (With respect to Preferences, 'Ve haf ozer vays'.)
***PaRaNoIa On***
However, I ^have^ wondered when some Micro maker was going to get around
to rigging things so that there was a secret way his "in" SDC's could
write to a physically write protected disk.  This could be used to - zap
a disk which had been specified as both copy protected and required in
print to be "configured to read only" [Read: to prevent tampering] "in
order that the software may function" - in the event that it had been, er,
^violated^.  This might be done by a software packager that uses the
"lazer burned pit pattern" method of copy protection, for instance, or
by one of those outfits that offers packages that ensure that nobody can
read your developmental software while you are away from your machine.
Now then, since the Amiga does not have a "legitimate floppy disk controller"
as such, one wonders just how soft the system is...  If the write protect
tab opens a switch in series with the write-head drive current, that'd be
good enough for me.  If the tab only goes to a switch that is wired to an
XOR gate, that's another matter entirely...
***PaRaNoIa Off*** (I hope).
								Howard Hull
[If yet unproven concepts are outlawed in the range of discussion...
                   ...Then only the deranged will discuss yet unproven concepts]
	{ucbvax!hplabs | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!seismo} !hao!hull