Tweet
hey is deamon tools making ide filter just wondering guys cause the would be great.
-
-
they are making an ide jammer but public info about it is limited, even to customers. it'll be a tool like sfnightmare so that starforce games will work without unplugging. -
i dont think that SF3.5 and newer protected games will work if they dont with sfn. why should they work with ide jammer???
if they dont work i'll become customer and get vIDE...Comment
-
As far I know from another forum, the IDE Jammer and IDE virtual drives are much ahead in development, actually existing, but will need some testing of course. I think, that using once more the concept of SFn is obsolete and the authors know this well. There is very strong probability that it will work properly, well at least if this SF people don't think to blacklist IDE drives as well, lol. Well I would register too for such a software peace, it's really complex programming. Many people don't even believe that virtual IDE drive is possible, but it exists already. Good luck to the DT team, I'm sure they'll surprise us soon!Last edited by ziegfrid; 22.12.2005, 12:49.Comment
-
OK I know the virtual IDE is a revolutionary step in cd emulation. And daemon team working hard on anti reveres engineering. But I have one question in my mind .
If daemon tools pro will detect which is virtual IDE and mount img file, why not other 3rd party protection software like starforce, securom.Comment
-
Originally Posted by ISO
well, that is a secret only the devs know
Comment
-
Don't think, that DT should detect anything. Suppose, that the virtual IDE will go integrated with a vesrion of DT. Or if it goes separately, there is always the option - you to choose from DT to which IDE to mount img. In fact, every user is supposed to know his machine.Comment
-
So even if the Pro version will fool the game into thinking it's on a real IDE device what is to prevent it from looking at the myriads of places where it can find components of DT?
There are many entries in the Registry, not to mention files that just scream out Daemon Tools. It doesn't take a genius to find just one of them and abort the game because emulator software was found.
Personally I see it as a losing battle. IMO many more games will require that no software like DT be on the users systems. So unless DT can hide itself completely, which I doubt it can, I only see bad things coming down the road.
Just my 2 cents.Comment
-
I don't think any game developer would even consider forcing users to uninstall software they have bought as a requirement for the game to run.Originally Posted by streetwolf
But no doubt they will still blame daemon tools and other similar software for problems when the game doesn't work.Comment
-
Well look at the latest patch to Serious Sam 2. It now looks for the SCSI entry for DTSCSI. If it finds it you can't run the game.Originally Posted by al1uk
Sure, renaming DTSCSI to something else makes the game run but to me it's just the beginning of things to come. Even if they gave this a username like Alcohol does for it's driver there still are lots of places in the Registry that I can search to see if DT is on my system. Or even WAS on my system. It's very rare that ALL traces of installed software is eliminated.Comment
-
Quote from DT4 release announcement:
Refusing to let a game run just because DT is installed would just not work (my opinion.) But checking if the game is run from a SCSI drive when IDE drives are present is actually quite a simple and effective copy check.Drivername randomly generated on each machine (not finished yet)
Drive-vendor and versionnumber randomly generated
Obviously you can't hide all traces of DT, but hopefully the IDE jammer will do the job. Personally, I'd rather take the DT Devs. statements that it will work as proof that it will. But I agree that things look bleak for vdrives.
btw I don't play Serious Sam 2, but does it actually refuse to run if DT is installed or only if it is run from a virtual drive with no hiding tools.Comment
-
"Drivername randomly generated on each machine" It is very interesting to me, but I think this generated name is based on a specific algo. So it is not very hard to fined the algo and banned the driver name. All the key Gen doing the same thing. Isn't it??Drivername randomly generated on each machine (not finished yet)
Drive-vendor and versionnumber randomly generatedComment
-
Software like Norton AV need to use a specific algorithm to validate software, but is it may be possible to program dt to create driver names on a completly random basis. There is no need to use an algorithm for dt driver names. e.g. "skjgsg.sys" [randomly pressed keys] would be just as valid as "dtscsidriver.sys" as long at dt knows this. there is NO way to blacklist driver names if they are completly random and not based on a specific algorithm. dt might even choose words from a dictionaryOriginally Posted by ISO
the problem would be if the copy protection discovers the name of the driver file and blacklists that on a specific pc.
Have a look at this site, not exactly what I was looking for, but it gives you an idea of what I mean: hxxp://www.nexi.com/fun/rw/
put some random words in and have a look at the result.Comment
-
al1uk, you are absolutely right. Random driver names are very close to mind. And there is unbeatable random routines (if it's really true randomness, it's unbeatable by definition). Also, the option everyone to choose the names of his own for drivers is not bad. Even things could go as far up to permutated code of the drivers, (like the most sophisticated viruses), to not be detected by pattern. Just I don't like such a paranoid extremes. What a times are comming...Last edited by ziegfrid; 26.12.2005, 14:24.Comment
-
The random driver name must be stored somewhere in the registry, as the expert installation mode in past was so. In the other way, If they use random filename with fixed DeviceName once again it can be found in Current Control Set/Services by enumerating registry keys. The best way is changing the names both in device name and filename , in this case the signing artichect will be affected. So the dev team may not be able to do so. In the other hand, Filename checking is the worse blacklisting way as ppl can simply rename their files in order to pass the dumb protection.
I let the dev team decide on this themselves, as THEY RULE enough to know all the side-effects of what they do.Comment
Comment