Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Defeating a 40-year-old copy protection dongle

dmitrybrant.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 302 posts

Re: Defeating a 40-year-old copy protection dongle

#51

Post by icameron »

charcircuit wrote: post #43
SecretDreams wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which, from a business point of view, is especially important in a field where regulations do not change very fast, because users have little incentive to upgrade This take is diametrically opposite to what end users need. In a world where "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is perfectly fine for the end user, buying a one off license for a software seems much more sane then SaaS. SaaS is like a plague for end users.…

If a user gets ongoing value from software it makes sense for them to be willing to pay ongoing for that value. What users need is that the value they get from a product is more than the money they are trading for it. A one off license would be the result of a race to the bottom due to competition.

Sure, if there is increasing or evolving utility being offered. But it’s also fair to charge for upgrades in that case.

Re: Defeating a 40-year-old copy protection dongle

#53

Post by ryandrake »

SecretDreams wrote: post #48
charcircuit wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a user gets ongoing value from software it makes sense for them to be willing to pay ongoing for that value. What users need is that the value they get from a product is more than the money they are trading for it. A one off license would be the result of a race to the bottom due to competition.

If I get ongoing value from my fully paid off car, should I keep paying the OEM? How about my house or my bike or my shoes? My toilet (huge ROI on this one)? My fridge?? Why do we feel that software gets to impose this ridiculous SaaS model? The only real answer is "because they can", not because it's helping anyone. Reality is that many modern software developments have plenty in common with designing a toilet. You…

Seriously, I have a house full of appliances, tools, clothing, and so on, that I get "ongoing value" from and whose manufacturers don't have the gall to try to charge me monthly for. Totally unacceptable business model.

Re: Defeating a 40-year-old copy protection dongle

#56

Post by anyfoo »

antonvs wrote: post #36
ruleryak wrote: post #7

Many a crack back in the day was even more simple still, we'd just find and alter the right JE or JNE into a JMP and we're off to the races. As the author found, the tough part is just finding and interpreting where and how the protection was implemented. If throwing the exe in a hex editor gave you access to String Data References (not always the case, but more common than not) then you'd just fail the check you wer…

> Many a crack back in the day was even more simple still, we'd just find and alter the right JE or JNE into a JMP and we're off to the races. I did that with dBASE III, which used ProLok "laser protection" from Vault Corporation - a signature burned onto the diskette with a laser. Back then, I found it amazing that Ashton-Tate actually spent money to contract with a copy protection company for something that could b…

Was ist ever confirmed that it was in fact a laser? I wanted to make a trivia question out of this ProLok protection, because “lasers for copy protection” sounds just weird enough to potentially be a nonsense answer without context, but I couldn’t confirm that the holes were indeed made with lasers, and not with other means.

Re: Defeating a 40-year-old copy protection dongle

#57

Post by mschuster91 »

dataflow wrote: post #35
nsoonhui wrote: post #27

I write civil engineering software [0] and am familiar with this kind of dongle. Yes, even today there are users who want this kind of dongle instead of, say, cloud-based validation. They feel secure only if they have something tangible in hand. Since we sold (and still sell) perpetual licenses, it becomes a problem when a dongle breaks and replacement parts are no longer available. Not all users want to upgrade. Als…

> from a business point of view, is especially important in a field where regulations do not change very fast, because users have little incentive to upgrade. Why should users upgrade or keep paying you when they already bought what they need and don't need anything else?

> Why should users upgrade or keep paying you when they already bought what they need and don't need anything else?

Because things evolve and inevitably, hardware dies, and you can't get a replacement.

With an old "dumb" piece of machinery, when something breaks you can either repair the broken part itself (i.e. weld it back together, re-wind motor coils), make a new part from scratch, have a new part be made from scratch by a machining shop, or you adapt a new but not-fitting part. It can be a shitload of work, but theoretically, there is no limits.

With anything involving electronics - ranging from very simple circuitry to highly complex computer controls - the situation is much, much different. With stuff based on "common" technology, aka a good old x86 computer with RS232/DB25 interfaces, virtualization plus an I/O board can go a long way ensuring at least the hardware doesn't die, but if it's anything based on, say, Windows CE and an old Hitachi CPU? Good fucking luck - either you find a donor machine or you have to recreate it, and good luck doing that without spec sheets detailing what exactly needs to be done in which timings for a specific action in the machine. If you're in really bad luck, even the manufacturer doesn't have the records any more, or the manufacturer has long since gone out of business (e.g. during the dotcom era crash).

And for stuff that's purely software... well, eventually you will not find people experienced enough to troubleshoot and fix issues, or make sure the software runs after any sort of change.

Re: Defeating a 40-year-old copy protection dongle

#58

Post by anyfoo »

foresto wrote: post #49
antonvs wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many a crack back in the day was even more simple still, we'd just find and alter the right JE or JNE into a JMP and we're off to the races. I did that with dBASE III, which used ProLok "laser protection" from Vault Corporation - a signature burned onto the diskette with a laser. Back then, I found it amazing that Ashton-Tate actually spent money to contract with a copy protection company for something that could b…

> I was able to replicate that protection mechanism just by scratching a diskette with a pin. How did you figure out where to scratch it? Was the laser mark visible on the original disk, or did you have to read the code and orient based on the diskette's index hole?

Yes, it was apparently very visible: https://martypc.blogspot.com/2024/09/pc-floppy-copy-protecti...

But as I mentioned in a sibling comment, I’m not sure it was ever confirmed that it was really a laser that made that mark.

Re: Defeating a 40-year-old copy protection dongle

#60

Post by Dylan16807 »

nsoonhui wrote: post #47
dataflow wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> from a business point of view, is especially important in a field where regulations do not change very fast, because users have little incentive to upgrade. Why should users upgrade or keep paying you when they already bought what they need and don't need anything else?

Because 1. Physical dongle tends to break, and when it does, they expect us to give them replacing parts 2. They do expect bug fixes-- especially calculation bug fixes-- as the bugs are discovered. It's hard to leave their production critical apps broken like that once you know that the bugs can cause monetary or even life loss.

Wanting to say in business makes sense, bug fixes make sense.

But the actual dongle... look, something like that should have a 30+ year warranty. There should be a plan for how to replace it a couple times before making the initial sale.

Post reply on HN