Is it possible to uniquely identify a PC by means of hardware?

[Yves M]

I'm not sure about this HASP solution, but I do know that a sizeable portion of legitimate users have problems with legitimate dongles. That goes from parallel port dongles that don't work with certain printer types to USB dongles that will (obviously) not work on NT4, or versioning problems, or problems with people who have non fully-standard USB ports (the early USB support on motherboards...) etc. In addition to that, dongles have a more or less limited life span (depending on whether the user uses it as a key-chain or not ^^). I'm just saying this to emphasize that it is not "the saviour" solution to copy-protection.

It's better than pure software protection, but there are cracker programs that are targeted against specific dongle producers. That means, if you happen to use the same company, your software is unfortunately cracked before it was even written.

[Mick]

wOOt now I have to chime in...the startup company I use to work for (in talks with amd/intel/saic (how did you forget saic there gstercken?) was the only company in direct competition with mickeysofts pallidum effort (that I know of)...key was, we provied a software only solution...thus my driver experience....needless to say we were to ambitious...and investment at the time the stock market was tanking was not there. MickeySoft will F this up again, I await to snicker.

But I do agree, we were ambitious, software only solution would require much much co-op with mickeysoft, of which we had none of course, but not withstanding that, the only way, can I say only way again, to defeat piracy is to tie the keygen to hardware or to make a truly secure OS (and mickeysoft has so much experience in that)

/End of rant...you may continue..

[Sam Hobbs]

If dongles were effective at protecting software from use by unauthorized use only then they would be used much more than they are.

[iq0]

so..pretty stupid, ha ?

i forgot to put the link...

http://www.codeguru.com/forum/showth...hreadid=248720

so a pretty thing about the protection using my described method, is that it mangles data...the program is still running, but isn't running right...

in one of my software where i've implemented this, when the program writes to disk some data, it writes with a size equal to "correct_size + decrypted_struct[0]", so if decrypted_struct[0] is not 0, then...

this is a simple way, but you can embed it where you want...

and of course it is crackable...any software is...

[Mick]

Originally posted by iq0
and of course it is crackable...any software is...

And we will be dancing, a dancing in the streets...we will be dancing a dancing in the streets.

Another thread where people will spout off about everything you can find when you overturn the rocks in the stream. Until the industry changes nothing will change, and we can blow all the hot air we want to about it....

But I'll still be dancing...a dancing in the streets...

When do you think your software will be secure? When you take control out of the users hands. When will that happen? Never, unless the world wants to turn into a facist police state, not gonna happen.

well maybe....

/tHe MaTrIx

[ovidiucucu]

Originally obviously posted by Mick_2002
"I claim this planet in the name of Mars. Hmmm. Isn't that lovely, hmmm?"
"At last, after 2000 years of work, the Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator"
"The Earth? Oh, the Earth will be gone in just a few seconds."
"Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth shattering kaboom!"

/End of rant..can we continue..?

[Mick]

Originally posted by ovidiucucu
/End of rant..can we continue..?

Delays...Delays...

[ovidiucucu]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
Delays...Delays...

Well, what can I say more... Just kaboom++

[Deniz]

Originally posted by ovidiucucu
Well, what can I say more... Just kaboom++

while(1){
    kaboom++;
}

[ovidiucucu]

Originally posted by Deniz

while(1){
    kaboom++;
}

Is this the first successfully infinite loop you have written?
So you can enjoy also with kaboom--, kaboom,kaboom, and even with no kaboom.

[Sam Hobbs]

Originally posted by ovidiucucu
/End of rant..can we continue..?

Notice you got your wish. The rants continue.

If you did not want the rants to continue, then you would not have posted this.

Actually, this is one of those questions that always degrades to rants.

[Mick]

Originally posted by Sam Hobbs
Notice you got your wish. The rants continue.

If you did not want the rants to continue, then you would not have posted this.

Actually, this is one of those questions that always degrades to rants.

You kidding???? and what...hmm you posted what??? it would have died but you just had to post Sam ...heh heh

[Deniz]

Originally posted by ovidiucucu
Is this the first successfully infinite loop you have written?
So you can enjoy also with kaboom--, kaboom,kaboom, and even with no kaboom.

while(1){
    for(;;){
        kaboom*=kaboom;
    }
}

[ovidiucucu]

Originally posted by Sam Hobbs
Actually, this is one of those questions that always degrades to rants.

Quite true. So let's make peace,
forget "Is it possible to uniquely identify a PC by means of hardware?" and go there...
http://www.codeguru.com/forum/showth...hreadid=262296

[Sam Hobbs]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
it would have died but you just had to post Sam ...heh heh

If it truly was destined to die then I apologize. Notice that my reply was less that half an hour after the previous reply. I would not have replied if this thread had not been on the first page.