Code can be made difficult to decompile/reverse engineer, but not impossible. I'd imagine there would be a few discussions on stackoverflow on this subject.
Lol... How do I know YOU’RE not FBI?? Ive been here awhile.I participate on Audioz and Audionews.org.
Encryption? Ive seen code that is decrypted into memory that allows it to be run. I've seen code that goes through checksums that branch differently depending on the result. The latter is harder to detect because it results in instability
Well, imho you don't have to join a group to become a good cracker. Let me quote one of my old friends: "The secret of advanced reversing is KISS - (K)eep (I)t (S)imple (S)tupid" You have some good understanding of assembler code and know how to use the tools of the trade ? Well... then choose your target and go for it - at the end you're limited by your own knowledge only and not by some group membership. You need some help ? Just ask for it... the www is full of knowledge...believe me Cheers AD PS: Don't forget to read the old +hcu tutorials about zen cracking and always try to understand what zen cracking means. Sometimes when you cracked a big target you can ***feel*** the code. This happens when a zen cracker reaches illumination... in a moment you understand how everything works... you just feel it ! If it happened to you too, you will understand what I mean.
Might as well add the Jolly Rogers cookbook, or the anarchists cookbook to the list too. 2600 was a very useful frequency
easy. each compiler has its own peculiarities, like fingerprints or signatures. you can’t understand yourself - there are analyzers that even determine the version of the compiler. best joke of the year =) the source code of the project cannot be received - this is a fact. but it is not needed. developers can only complicate the analysis of executable code and make hacking inappropriate (if the license costs $49, and cracking costs $300, it’s easier to buy a license), but in the end it comes down to assembler and step-by-step tracing in the debugger, changing a few bytes and saving the file. the only way to protect the code is to use cryptographic encryption. without a key or license from the developer, it is impossible to obtain the code of individual functions and a fully functional program.
there is such a thing - minimum wage. Let's say it's $10 an hour. if the license costs $49, and cracking takes more than 5 hours, then the cracker will lose another $10 of possible profit for each next hour. knowing this, you can read NFO file from Cubase SX 3 release by H20 and understand why they did it only once. spoiler: if I'm not mistaken... about 1500 hours... not so simple. even ready-made software protection solutions - protectors - developers use in different ways. you can use the same tread of the same version, but combine the functions so that cracking is several times more difficult than that of a competitor. with cryptographic encryption exactly the same.
