Avoid blacklist trick for DT

[al1uk]

This is probably too late for DT4, but could be useful in the future.

Anyway, I once used a keylogger that allowed the user to change the names of the files to a single name at the end of the installation, that could trick a user in thinking it was legitimate software. Sounds complicated, so I've given an example below.

If this was implemented in DT3, and I choose the name of the files to be "mshelp", then the name of the DT3 files in the install dir would be as follows:

• daemon.exe = mshelp.exe
• pfctoc.dll = mshelp.dll
• 1033.chm = mshelp.chm
• 1033.dll = mshelp.dll
• etc
• etc

I reckon this could be useful against copy protections that might (in the future) look for common file name. At the rate Starforce invades privacy, who know what they might cook up next.

I ain't no programmer :-(, but I'm sure the DT team would find a way to implement this.

[evlncrn8]

sorry, sounds like a totally idiotic idea, the blacklisting usually isnt just a simple name check, its a bit more advanced than that

[kukubau]

Give the man a break! These days nothing seems stupid anymore, at the rate protections are "cooked" up by night. And quit that attitude with, I'm smart, big programmer, and the rest of you suck.
Cheers!

[al1uk]

sorry, sounds like a totally idiotic idea

Lets hear the opinion of the DT team first

[LocutusofBorg]

nowadays, copyprotections are very advanced complex
applications. They usually don't search for file-names as
it's simply too easy for us to change them, f.e. we can
without a problem release every day new version with new
filenames - but the "advanced" protections search for bitpatterns
in memory (just as an example), or other traces, registry-
entries and so on.

Important corefiles can be even now renamed to whatever user
want them to be named. (because protections searched
for the old driver-names). So yes, the idea is not bad in
general but already implemented where it is necessary

[al1uk]

Alright, cheers.

[Werlii]

nowadays, copyprotections are very advanced complex
applications. They usually don't search for file-names as
it's simply too easy for us to change them, f.e. we can
without a problem release every day new version with new
filenames - but the "advanced" protections search for bitpatterns
in memory (just as an example), or other traces, registry-
entries and so on.

Important corefiles can be even now renamed to whatever user
want them to be named. (because protections searched
for the old driver-names). So yes, the idea is not bad in
general but already implemented where it is necessary

Now that is how you answer ppl!

[Nikos]

but the "advanced" protections search for bitpatterns
in memory (just as an example)

Hmm. I'm not aware of any protection that does that (yet).

[JoelEllison]

I'll take his word for it.

[Exceededgoku]

Does anyone else think that copy protection is bordering on being rediculous?

[Underheaven]

...

I think that's the whole point of hanging out on this forum.