Jeff Massung wrote:
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Richard Gaskin
...
I agree with everything else you wrote, and it seems very reflective of
much of the Delphi Anti-Cracking FAQ, but on this I'm confused:
It seems like we're saying the same thing about obfuscation. Or maybe I
just wrote poorly.
Having obscure, small handlers in your validation scheme calling other
obscure, small handlers, some of which are are red-herrings, seems to only
further obfuscate the code, no?
At least, that was what I had intended to suggest. I think we're in
agreement here, unless I misunderstand something.
Fundamentally, I this we are in agreement. My experience here has been that
calling out to any other code (even red herrings) just increases the number
of possible failure points that a cracker can hone in on... and they only
have to break one.
While you don't want to funnel the registration check into a single
location, you just as equally don't want to explode the code location of the
registration check as opposed to exploding the number of places where the
check is located.
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. Yes, that makes sense.
Jeff M.
P.S. I like this thread... dunno why, but I really get into things like
this. ;-)
Yeah, me too. The Delphi Anti-Crack FAQ was one of the more fun reads
I've come across. It's almost too bad that I'm not all that concerned
about piracy anymore, since it's kind of fun to play with. I suppose
another good outlet for that sort of thing is securing Internet
transmission - got any tips there? (esp. since we don't have SFTP)
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World
Rev training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
Webzine for Rev developers: http://www.revjournal.com
revJournal blog: http://revjournal.com/blog.irv
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
