|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
tj <tradejacker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> sorry gary, but diamondlock has been busted for about a year now.
> remember ThE ViZiT0R? he was selling unlocked codes some of which were
> diamondlock protected.
Breaking one system doesn't mean DL is "busted." Each DL key uses a
different encryption for the DL opcodes. Each system you wanted to
crack would require going through the decryption process again. Once
you understand the DL structure it would be easier to break another
system, but you still have to figure out the unique code encryption
for the new DL'd system. And a sneaky DL programmer can make that a
LOT harder. It's not impossible by any means, but it's no picnic.
I believe it would be harder than disassembling a DLL, since you
*know* what all the assembler instructions are in the DLL. Plus,
with a DLL, all you have to find (and remove/disable) is the security
checks -- remove those few spots and the rest of the DLL is
unprotected. I think this is probably the weakest point in a DLL
protection scheme. With DL the entire thing is protected -- none of
it will work without the proper DL key -- so you have to reverse-
engineer and re-implement the entire DL subroutine.
And unless the DLL coder hand-built his DLL in assembly language, the
DLL will contain some predictable high-level language structures to
give you some clues. On the other hand, the DLL will be much larger
and more complex than the DL codes, so that would tend to make the
DLL harder to crack. Writing DL code is a major pain for the
programmer. This is the major weakness of DL, since it sharply
limits the amount of code that you can realistically lock up.
> there's no absolute security against any cracker
> who's determined and beyond the reach of the law
No argument there. All you can do is make it more work to crack than
it's worth, and hope that the cracker will move on to easier targets.
Gary
|