With the frequent blacklist game Copy protection makers have been playing recently (esp. SecuROM);
INSERT INTO `portal_posts_text` VALUES
I was wondering if the following option would be possible (or worth the effort):
I noticed part of the newer securom blacklisting involved looking up the 'Driver' name (in HKLM\HARDWARE\DEVICEMAP\Scsi\....) for the target cdrom.
Here's what i was thinking:
At installation time, generate an X char string randomly; that would be used as the driver identifier for that particular machine (i.e: no need to have support for the user to specify one, as for the device name). The installer would then patch every instance of that name in the kernel driver/registry/etc..
Would that be worth the trouble? would they start looking up other detection methods? would they start denying scsi drives altogether (like star-force) when an IDE/ATAPI one is present?
INSERT INTO `portal_posts_text` VALUES
I was wondering if the following option would be possible (or worth the effort):
I noticed part of the newer securom blacklisting involved looking up the 'Driver' name (in HKLM\HARDWARE\DEVICEMAP\Scsi\....) for the target cdrom.
Here's what i was thinking:
At installation time, generate an X char string randomly; that would be used as the driver identifier for that particular machine (i.e: no need to have support for the user to specify one, as for the device name). The installer would then patch every instance of that name in the kernel driver/registry/etc..
Would that be worth the trouble? would they start looking up other detection methods? would they start denying scsi drives altogether (like star-force) when an IDE/ATAPI one is present?
Comment