Crack This! Security Enhanced on Newly Patented Anti-Piracy Software

[Winphuk]

Wednesday March 12, 8:05 am ET


SUNNYVALE, Calif., March 12 /PRNewswire/ -- AnchorSoft, a developer of license-protection technology for commercial software products, announced it has vastly increased the security of its AnchorSoft software license control system. The company also announced it was recently awarded U.S. Patent #6,460,140 by the United States Patent Office for "a system which prevents unauthorized use of copyrighted, licensed software products."
ADVERTISEMENT


The AnchorSoft system offers software publishers a low-cost method for controlling the distribution of licensed software and preventing unauthorized duplication of their programs beyond the licensed number of end user machines.

AnchorSoft has upgraded the security level of the system by switching from the DES encryption algorithm to RSA public key encryption algorithm. The change was prompted by the discovery of a weakness in the DES encryption/decryption method. This enabled the integrity of the AnchorSoft licensing system to be compromised by at least one Russian-based Web site that specializes in the distribution of pirated licenses for popular Western computer software programs.

"The RSA encryption system has not been cracked. It will provide our customers with the highest possible level of protection against theft and misuse of their software," stated Steven Schoch, Chief Executive Officer of AnchorSoft.

Schoch added he was pleased the U.S. Patent Office has recognized the unique design of the AnchorSoft system. "The patent is an important milestone. It re-assures our customers that they are using top-of-the-line license protection technology."

The patent states that the AnchorSoft licensing system "provides a unique system and method for controlling the distribution of software under a license agreement. By identifying the computer utilized by the licensee and specifically aligning the computer with the software being licensed, the licensor is able to prevent unauthorized duplication of the licensed software."

Commercial license control systems typically rely on hardware such as dongles to control the licensed use of software. The high cost of these systems eliminates their use for sub-$200 software packages. As a result, most software sold at the retail level is subject to unauthorized duplication and piracy. The AnchorSoft system uses an online license validation and registration database that ensures customers don't exceed the number of installations of a product. The AnchorSoft system adds less than one dollar to the cost of a software package, compared to $5 to $25 for other commercial license control systems.

The low cost makes it commercially viable to add license control to software products costing less than $20.00 per copy, explains Steven Schoch, Chief Executive Officer of AnchorSoft and co-inventor of the licensing system. "As losses from software theft mount, publishers are looking for new and effective ways to protect their products. For the first time, they can prevent theft without adding significant cost."

About AnchorSoft (www.AnchorSoft.com)

AnchorSoft, founded in 2000, offers next-generation software license protection services to publishers of consumer, small business, productivity, entertainment and other software. The patented AnchorSoft Licensing System offers a low-cost process for controlling the use of licensed software, while at the same time allowing publishers to increase sales by distributing the unlicensed version of the product as a demo version to potential buyers.
Yahoo News- http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030312/sfw037_1.html



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: AnchorSoft

[Krell]

AnchorSoft has upgraded the security level of the system by switching from the DES encryption algorithm to RSA public key encryption algorithm.

What'd I tell ya ! huh huh huh?

[Winphuk]

Do you think it's really uncrackable?

[Winphuk]

I know that hardware dongles have managed to be cracked.

[Krell]

Depends on the key length, and if it's a 2 part key.

How far is someone willing to bust a nut over a $20 piece of software? If the distributor has the private key thats unique for each purchase, then it will making cracking almost impossible.

This isnt some little keygen were talking about here.

[Winphuk]

The difference with this I see is that not only is this software uncrackable, but they also claim it to be uncopyable.
Not something I've seen before.

[Psilaxs]

A unique key for each CD would mean they would have to press seperate glass masters for each disc, which would be VERY costly, i doubt it is anything of the sort.

[Monyak]

As I have said earlier in other threads and posts, 'a safe doesn't sell security rather it sells time - the question is how much time'

If you really wanted to get into the safe, you take out some tools. If that dont work, try dropping it from a hi-rise building and when that doesnt work, try explosives. Something will open it.
Then again, you can always go to a locksmith who understands safes.

Same method applies here. Its only a question of time before its broken. I mean Bill Gates put millions of dollars into his Windows key and the first to break it was a 17 year old who can barely speak english. Now everybody can pick up a generator of their own.

You make a standard in any market or community and you will always have someone who will break those standards.

....And The funny thing is that they call them criminals!

[Winphuk]

They can also chose to use it in ways that violates fair use.
Like making backup copies if you purchase from the web.
What if you buy a new computer?
These guys have a patent so just about everyone will use it.
They will be the Microsoft of software security.

Monyak - I hope your right.

[joemama1]

Originally posted by Winphuk
They can also chose to use it in ways that violates fair use.
Like making backup copies if you purchase from the web.
What if you buy a new computer?
These guys have a patent so just about everyone will use it.
They will be the Microsoft of software security.

Monyak - I hope your right.


They will also be the "microsoft gets its tail sued off" TOO! If they in any way violate fair use, just watch and see how many lawsuits come out!

[Scyth77521]

Originally posted by joemama1
If they in any way violate fair use, just watch and see how many lawsuits come out!

You can't "violate fair use". Fair use removes the legal obstacles to certain kinds of copying. It doesn't mean can't take otherl measures to prevent that copying.

[aqlo]

"fair use" is a practice, not a law. It's being referred to explicitly lately in some proposed laws, but it's still just a practice. No one ever one a suit by pleading "fair use" except in education, and usually even then they don't win an exemption (meaning that they can continue to violate). They just win waiver of prosecution for previous "fair use."

[crackerjacker]

ok I will crack it!
Just to make it clear the encyption scheme sounds nice but it just takes one person to buy the program and then share it with others on p2p programs. So no matter what protection scheme it has it will be shared.

nuff said rtws

[Scyth77521]

Originally posted by aqlo
"fair use" is a practice, not a law. It's being referred to explicitly lately in some proposed laws, but it's still just a practice. No one ever one a suit by pleading "fair use" except in education, and usually even then they don't win an exemption (meaning that they can continue to violate). They just win waiver of prosecution for previous "fair use."

That's not correct. If one really is making fair use of a work, then it's perfectly legal and one can continue to do so even after being sued. Fair use is not infringement (see Title 17, chapter 1, section 107 of the United States Code if you don't believe me).

You're probably thinking of cases where somebody thought they were making fair use of a work but actually weren't. In some such cases, damages will be waived but the individual must still stop the infringing use.

[dr. damn]

In the past, advertising products as "uncrackable" has proven to be a mistake. I predict that this won't be any different.

[Winphuk]

Originally posted by crackerjacker
it just takes one person to buy the program and then share it with others on p2p programs.


Not in this case cracker.This protection scheme identifies the computer it was installed on.

[method]

There's always a way :;)

[crackerjacker]

There are only a couple of sure ways to prevent a program from not being cracked.
I wont go into details but I do know that it can be cracked.
:)

[aqlo]

What's to keep someone from distributing the pre-installation copy? Maybe I still don't get this.

Also, while ordinary decryption programs on one computer could certainly never succeed against something this high (this year) what would keep distributed efforts from working? "Download Honest Hacker and use your free cpu cycles to break DRM" kind of a thing.

Thanks Scythe I wasn't being exact in speaking, the lesson in the letter of the law is not lost on me. But what I mean is that in following the courts I have found very few instances where "fair use" served as a successful defense, sometimes it was considered as a "mitigating factor." I realize that this excludes huge amounts of material that is "public domain" and "fair use" and therefore never has to get challenged. But in speaking of peer-to-peer we are almost always talking about a huge volume over an extended period. This tends almost universally to exceed the boundaries of real "fair use".

[Winphuk]

"What's to keep someone from distributing the pre-installation copy? Maybe I still don't get this"

I remember when Del@#$ 5 trial was released to the public, and in order to install it a password was required. The catch was that it required a "unique" password. What worked for one user didn't work for the other, like say, the serial no.
You had to go to the Del@#$ site and request a password to be emailed to you so that Del#$% setup would run.
The setup instr. claimed that the software took a fingerprint of the computer it was being installed on and will only work on that computer.
This might have been cracked too, but I didn't follow up.

[zaphodiv]

The patent is here (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6460140.WKU.&OS=PN/6460140&RS=PN/6460140)

This is just another example of the US patent office allowing
rediculus software patents. Patents are supposed to be
granted only on ideas that are non obvious to an expert in the
field.

I doubt MS has licensed this patent. It looks to me as if the
XP activation scheme falls in the scope of this patent.
I wonder if these nitwits will try to sue, MS has enough
lawyers to get their patent thrown out so I doubt they will
try.

This is 100% crackable, without tamperproof hardware it
all boils down to some obfustication that will take a
cracker a couple of days to unwind and a software check
equivalent to
IF received_key=some_algorithm(info_gathered_from_sys tem) THEN
run_program;
ELSE
PRINT("invalid key");

Edit the .exe to allways jump to run_program and it's cracked,
end of story.

[joemama1]

Originally posted by Scyth77521
That's not correct. If one really is making fair use of a work, then it's perfectly legal and one can continue to do so even after being sued. Fair use is not infringement (see Title 17, chapter 1, section 107 of the United States Code if you don't believe me).

You're probably thinking of cases where somebody thought they were making fair use of a work but actually weren't. In some such cases, damages will be waived but the individual must still stop the infringing use.


@ aglo....IT sounds like you need to READ! I was going to post this section of the law, but scyth77521 beat me to it! Fair use makes it possible LEGALLY for you to make a backup CD of software..... WIN XP (for example).... or some other software PROVIDED that you OWN a legal copy the disc! This makes it so that a user can use the recorded CD and keep his original from getting scratched......which in my case would be a $200.00 CD!

[joemama1]

Originally posted by Winphuk
Not in this case cracker.This protection scheme identifies the computer it was installed on.


THATS what they said was SUPPOSED to happen with windows XP! Remember?? All I can remember is people on ISO News talking about the "devilsown" version that was a cracked retail copy of win xp and people had it on their computers WAY before it even came out in the stores! What you want to bet that this will be no different????

[joemama1]

Originally posted by Scyth77521
You can't "violate fair use". Fair use removes the legal obstacles to certain kinds of copying. It doesn't mean can't take otherl measures to prevent that copying.


No....but it DOES mean that if someone can't make a legal copy of something THEY HAVE A LEGAL LICENSE TO for a BACKUP and that software cost a lot of money (like win xp pro full or upgrade...I own a legal copy of BOTH....but think of people who oiwn an AUTO CAD CD!), that the manufacturers are gonna HAVE to find a way for people to make a backup copy! If people can't make a backup of them,because of their anti-copying technology... THEY WILL GET SUED! You can't expect me to plunk down 200.00 on a disc (win xp pro upgrade) and have it get scratched...then expect to turn around and say it is going to cost me an extra 35 00 to REPLACE the disc!! (win xp pro upgrade....that actually happened to me with microsoft!) The HELL WITH THAT! I could make a copy for 89 cents with my CD Burner! But if it wasn't for fair use, I would not be able to do that legally and have to depend on microsoft or the software company I got it from to replace my disc! (I didn't think of making a backup for the cd and using IT , instead of my original disc at the time it got scratched....BUT I DO NOW!!) To tell you the truth, If I am gonna have to plunk down 200.00 on a disc I know can get scratched and they(the software company I got it from) are gonna make me PAY 35.00 for a replacement CD that didn't cost 89 cents....I would rather plunk my money down on a LAWYER and take their butts to court next time!! See what a judge says about paying good money for a CD and then not being able to back it up?? I think that it would go all the way to the Supreme Court!