Visual LISP, AutoLISP and General Customization
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

"Cracking" protected lisp.

121 REPLIES 121
Reply
Message 1 of 122
Anonymous
2896 Views, 121 Replies

"Cracking" protected lisp.

Now wait. Before anyone gets all upset let me explain further.

What I wanted to know is: What is this group's feeling on
unprotecting an AutoCAD Protected Lisp, in order to see how it was
done? Are we really dealing with stuff that is so *top secret* that
we can't even let someone look at it? Is it really so wrong to take a
peek behind the curtain once in a while? It has been my experience
that the majority of routines available for download are not protected
and for the ones that are, the tool to decrypt them is readily
available.

I had to learn lisp on my own, by looking at an old r11 lisp book and
by looking at code written by others. I believe that there is no
single book or reference that has enough examples on a given topic to
answer all the questions. Looking at dozens of examples is the best
way to learn this stuff and sometimes unprotecting them is the only
way to get a look. Sometimes, even unprotecting the file isn't
enough. There have been several times that I would find kelvinated
files. I can't blame anyone for going to that length to protect their
work, but it sure does stifle the newbie who is just trying to learn a
new trick or two.

In regards to the DEMO thread above, I just can't feel sorry for
someone whose house gets robbed because they left the doors and
windows open. Nor can I feel any pity for the same person who got
robbed, but neglects to lock the doors and windows more securely.
I don't think there's a lisp programmer out there who isn't aware that
there are those out on the net that will take whatever they can get
for as long as it is easy to get. Sending out code that is
unprotected, and then getting upset about someone *stealing* it is
just plain irresponsible. If a programmer is going to be serious
about keeping what's his, he will protect his work or live with the
results.

OK. Thats it. Im going to stop writing, put on my asbestos suit, and
wait for the flames to begin.
121 REPLIES 121
Message 2 of 122
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Trevor-

It seems we are in the same boat. I too am a newbie to Lisp, and have
learned most of what I know from examples. I download the free applications
that are out there, open them up, and try and make sense out of what was
done, and why. This seems the best way to learn, for me at least. I can
also understand the need for copy protection. Unfortunately, the example
that I may need to look at to learn something new, is protected. I don't
want to take their code, rewrite it, and sell it. I just want to learn how
a small part of the code was accomplished. It does get aggravating.

My $.02.....

Scott
Message 3 of 122
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I can understand the curiosity to see how something was done and learn from
it. But you have to understand that someone put a lot of work into creating
the code and logic and they might not want anyone to see how it works
(without paying them).

Just my .02

--
Kevin Nehls
for direct reply, substitute the obvious with the obvious

"Scott Murrah" wrote in message
news:7B09A28E5F08E68CF219FA6A1DA20B52@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Trevor-
>
> It seems we are in the same boat. I too am a newbie to Lisp, and have
> learned most of what I know from examples. I download the free
applications
> that are out there, open them up, and try and make sense out of what was
> done, and why. This seems the best way to learn, for me at least. I can
> also understand the need for copy protection. Unfortunately, the example
> that I may need to look at to learn something new, is protected. I don't
> want to take their code, rewrite it, and sell it. I just want to learn
how
> a small part of the code was accomplished. It does get aggravating.
>
Message 4 of 122
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

No flames, and don't misunderstand my "matter of fact" phrasing for
hostility, it isn't. But ...

"Trevor Tutt" wrote in message

news:bbod9t4gl6v6sqagbf7m4t8qhlpbo6ddkr@4ax.com...
> Now wait. Before anyone gets all upset let me explain further.
>
> What I wanted to know is: What is this group's feeling on
> unprotecting an AutoCAD Protected Lisp, in order to see how it was
> done?

Don't do it. If you are that rivetted by the author's technique write
him or post the question here. I challenge you to post a programming
question that someone here cannot answer, excepting protection questions
of course 🙂

> Are we really dealing with stuff that is so *top secret* that
> we can't even let someone look at it?

That's not the point. The author had some reason to protect it. You,
being the highly ethical person that you are, will honor that. Plain
and simple. It is not up to you to second guess why the programmer
protected it and then try to come up with compelling reasons for you to
rationalize cracking it.

> Is it really so wrong to take a
> peek behind the curtain once in a while? It has been my experience
> that the majority of routines available for download are not protected
> and for the ones that are, the tool to decrypt them is readily
> available.

Plenty of tools for breaking into houses/vehicles/etc. abound. Does
that make it right?

> I had to learn lisp on my own, by looking at an old r11 lisp book and
> by looking at code written by others. I believe that there is no
> single book or reference that has enough examples on a given topic to
> answer all the questions. Looking at dozens of examples is the best
> way to learn this stuff

It's one way, though not necessarilly the "best".

> and sometimes unprotecting them is the only
> way to get a look.

Not an ethical option. You shouldn't do it.

> Sometimes, even unprotecting the file isn't
> enough. There have been several times that I would find kelvinated
> files. I can't blame anyone for going to that length to protect their
> work, but it sure does stifle the newbie who is just trying to learn a
> new trick or two.

Repeat.

> In regards to the DEMO thread above, I just can't feel sorry for
> someone whose house gets robbed because they left the doors and
> windows open. Nor can I feel any pity for the same person who got
> robbed, but neglects to lock the doors and windows more securely.
> I don't think there's a lisp programmer out there who isn't aware that
> there are those out on the net that will take whatever they can get
> for as long as it is easy to get. Sending out code that is
> unprotected, and then getting upset about someone *stealing* it is
> just plain irresponsible. If a programmer is going to be serious
> about keeping what's his, he will protect his work or live with the
> results.

I'm not sure what side you're arguing now.

< deleted paragraph in interests of peace >.

> OK. Thats it. Im going to stop writing, put on my asbestos suit, and
> wait for the flames to begin.

Well those were my thoughts. But not flames. Have a good weekend
Trevor.
Message 5 of 122
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I started off with the example thing, but I've gotten so used to posting
questions here that this is my only real source of information when it comes
to writing in LISP (besides the AutoCAD help file, of which I really only
use the list of functions).

I've gotten away from looking at examples (unless it was posted here, and
done so so that it's easy to understand), since I'd rather try and pick
other's brains. I tend to get more info that way, and it's usually cleaner
information than looking at examples. Each lisp file I might use as an
example has the potential of making me believe that I need something extra
in my work, when only it was needed for that specific purpose. I rarely
open up other lisp files beyond my own, anymore, unless something seems to
be wrong.

--
Joshua Tapp
jtapp@tlthornhillarchitect.com
Designer/Intern
Terence L. Thornhill, Architects P.S.

"Scott Murrah" wrote in message
news:7B09A28E5F08E68CF219FA6A1DA20B52@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Trevor-
>
> It seems we are in the same boat. I too am a newbie to Lisp, and have
> learned most of what I know from examples. I download the free
applications
> that are out there, open them up, and try and make sense out of what was
> done, and why. This seems the best way to learn, for me at least. I can
> also understand the need for copy protection. Unfortunately, the example
> that I may need to look at to learn something new, is protected. I don't
> want to take their code, rewrite it, and sell it. I just want to learn
how
> a small part of the code was accomplished. It does get aggravating.
>
> My $.02.....
>
> Scott
>
Message 6 of 122
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Trevor Tutt wrote:

> I had to learn lisp on my own ...

So did I. I read the book, then I read the book, then I read the book,
then I read it again each new version.

There's plenty of unprotected lisp out there as examples.

Terry
Message 7 of 122
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Trevor:

> What I wanted to know is: What is this group's feeling on
> unprotecting an AutoCAD Protected Lisp, in order to see how it
> was done?

It's wrong, and if you do it you've decided to throw ethics out the
window. 🙂
--
Owen Wengerd
President, ManuSoft ==> http://www.manusoft.com
VP Americas, CADLock, Inc. ==> http://www.cadlock.com
Message 8 of 122
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I'm firmly in the middle on this. I want to protect the work I do, and I
want to respect, and pay for when required, the work of others. But....

I'm in a mental battle right now trying to determine the best CAD platform
for my business, which is me and a part-time student. My clients use R14,
R2000, ADT, and who knows what else. I have to be able to work with their
files, regardless of how they're assembled. Line weights/colors are never
the same, although it seems that all proxy objects are in the color that I
use for extra-wide lines (and which I can't easily change because of the
number of files under the present standards. Also, my clients almost
never supply a pen table....). Bottom line is that I've been trying a
variety of options and different programs. At this point I run LT98 and
LT2000, sometimes with third-party add-ons. Full R2000 seats are out of
the question due to cost. What I'd really like is a 2D only version of
R14 that can deal directly with R2000 files, including all the
"enhancements", at a reasonable price. Where I run into problems is
trying to take the lisp based toolbars I've assembled that work in R14 to
other programs. No real problem tweaking my stuff, but there is a problem
if I've bought a utility that I've come to rely on, but it won't work in
whatever program I'm evaluating. If I can't get to the source code I
can't fix it. I also have a concern with downloading locked utilities. I
know that CadDepot et. al. check things to some extent, but it's still a
bit uncomfortable to load a utility that came from someone I've never
heard from. I'd much rather be able to look through the routine to be
sure my hard drive, etc., will survive.

Sorry for the ramble.

Martin

Trevor Tutt wrote:

> Now wait. Before anyone gets all upset let me explain further.
>
> What I wanted to know is: What is this group's feeling on
> unprotecting an AutoCAD Protected Lisp, in order to see how it was
> done? Are we really dealing with stuff that is so *top secret* that
> we can't even let someone look at it? Is it really so wrong to take a
> peek behind the curtain once in a while? It has been my experience
> that the majority of routines available for download are not protected
> and for the ones that are, the tool to decrypt them is readily
> available.
>
> I had to learn lisp on my own, by looking at an old r11 lisp book and
> by looking at code written by others. I believe that there is no
> single book or reference that has enough examples on a given topic to
> answer all the questions. Looking at dozens of examples is the best
> way to learn this stuff and sometimes unprotecting them is the only
> way to get a look. Sometimes, even unprotecting the file isn't
> enough. There have been several times that I would find kelvinated
> files. I can't blame anyone for going to that length to protect their
> work, but it sure does stifle the newbie who is just trying to learn a
> new trick or two.
>
> In regards to the DEMO thread above, I just can't feel sorry for
> someone whose house gets robbed because they left the doors and
> windows open. Nor can I feel any pity for the same person who got
> robbed, but neglects to lock the doors and windows more securely.
> I don't think there's a lisp programmer out there who isn't aware that
> there are those out on the net that will take whatever they can get
> for as long as it is easy to get. Sending out code that is
> unprotected, and then getting upset about someone *stealing* it is
> just plain irresponsible. If a programmer is going to be serious
> about keeping what's his, he will protect his work or live with the
> results.
>
> OK. Thats it. Im going to stop writing, put on my asbestos suit, and
> wait for the flames to begin.
Message 9 of 122
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:05:04 -0800, "Terry W. Dotson"
wrote:

>So did I. I read the book, then I read the book, then I read the book,
>then I read it again each new version.
I poured over the books the same way and learned the most from them.
I resorted to looking at code when the pittiful few examples in the
book didn't help.

>There's plenty of unprotected lisp out there as examples.
true, but I would like to give an example of why I looked in a
protected file. I have worked on an elaborate system of files and
menus for a long time. When I changed employers, they used a third
party system for the same things I used mine for. I tried their
system for a week and it was just useless. I was told that I didn't
have to use their system, but I had to make my work the same as
everyone else's. there was only one setting that it could have saved
anywhere and I need it so my system would leave a setup in their
format. I got into the file, found what I was looking for and that
was all I needed to know. There was no harm done here.

I'm just curious, do you have the same feelings for the OpenDWG
Alliance? It seems to me that they are making a career out of doing
what amounts to the same thing to the DWG file format.
Message 10 of 122
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:16:26 -0800, "Owen Wengerd"
wrote:

>Trevor:
>
>> What I wanted to know is: What is this group's feeling on
>> unprotecting an AutoCAD Protected Lisp, in order to see how it
>> was done?
>
> It's wrong, and if you do it you've decided to throw ethics out the
>window. 🙂

Ethics went out the window the first time I exceeded the speed limit
on purpose or when I looked in a closet that I had no need to look in.
I have looked at files in the past, but the last time was only as a
last resort when the owner of the file decided that it was a waste of
his time to answer my question and was quite rude about telling me so.
I looked at the file, no harm was done. (read my reply to Terry for
the rest of the story)

you have to be carefull with playing the ethics card. it would seem
to me that the same level of ethic has to apply to every aspect of
ones life if it is to apply at all. This is a moral debate that
exceeds the intent of my post.
Message 11 of 122
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:28:43 -0800, "Michael Puckett"
wrote:

>No flames, and don't misunderstand my "matter of fact" phrasing for
>hostility, it isn't. But ...
>
>"Trevor Tutt" wrote in message
>
>news:bbod9t4gl6v6sqagbf7m4t8qhlpbo6ddkr@4ax.com...
>> Now wait. Before anyone gets all upset let me explain further.
>>
>> What I wanted to know is: What is this group's feeling on
>> unprotecting an AutoCAD Protected Lisp, in order to see how it was
>> done?
>
>Don't do it. If you are that rivetted by the author's technique write
>him or post the question here. I challenge you to post a programming
>question that someone here cannot answer, excepting protection questions
>of course 🙂

I tried contacting the author. he treated me like dirt for even
asking. what I did (several years ago) caused no harm.
>
>> Are we really dealing with stuff that is so *top secret* that
>> we can't even let someone look at it?
>
>That's not the point. The author had some reason to protect it. You,
>being the highly ethical person that you are, will honor that. Plain
>and simple. It is not up to you to second guess why the programmer
>protected it and then try to come up with compelling reasons for you to
>rationalize cracking it.

so, technically, I don't have to encrypt my work, just put a note at
the top saying "do not read further". ethics has me covered. or
perhaps a sign in my car window saying "do not steal". My point is
that if it is important enough, then appropriate measures have to be
taken by the concerned party. anything else is just irresponsible.
>
>> Is it really so wrong to take a
>> peek behind the curtain once in a while? It has been my experience
>> that the majority of routines available for download are not protected
>> and for the ones that are, the tool to decrypt them is readily
>> available.
>
>Plenty of tools for breaking into houses/vehicles/etc. abound. Does
>that make it right?

but are your examples really the same as my question? is there a
matter of degree to be considered here? If I look in a closet I have
no need to look in, is that the same as barging into the womens locker
room at the gym? Certainly it isn't the same as breaking into
someones house or car, lets not get carried away.
>
>> I had to learn lisp on my own, by looking at an old r11 lisp book and
>> by looking at code written by others. I believe that there is no
>> single book or reference that has enough examples on a given topic to
>> answer all the questions. Looking at dozens of examples is the best
>> way to learn this stuff
>
>It's one way, though not necessarilly the "best".

not many courses available to learn this stuff. what other resources
are there other than the provided documentation and spending hundreds
on other books that pretty much rehash the same stuff?
>
>> and sometimes unprotecting them is the only
>> way to get a look.
>
>Not an ethical option. You shouldn't do it.

see reply to Terry.
>
>> Sometimes, even unprotecting the file isn't
>> enough. There have been several times that I would find kelvinated
>> files. I can't blame anyone for going to that length to protect their
>> work, but it sure does stifle the newbie who is just trying to learn a
>> new trick or two.
>
>Repeat.
>
>> In regards to the DEMO thread above, I just can't feel sorry for
>> someone whose house gets robbed because they left the doors and
>> windows open. Nor can I feel any pity for the same person who got
>> robbed, but neglects to lock the doors and windows more securely.
>> I don't think there's a lisp programmer out there who isn't aware that
>> there are those out on the net that will take whatever they can get
>> for as long as it is easy to get. Sending out code that is
>> unprotected, and then getting upset about someone *stealing* it is
>> just plain irresponsible. If a programmer is going to be serious
>> about keeping what's his, he will protect his work or live with the
>> results.
>
>I'm not sure what side you're arguing now.

thats just it. these kinds of issues aren't black and white. there
is no their side and my side. If that were true, there would only be
a death penalty and no prisons.
>
>< deleted paragraph in interests of peace >.
story of my life. I get interested in a magazine article, and someone
had gone an torn out the last page.
>
>> OK. Thats it. Im going to stop writing, put on my asbestos suit, and
>> wait for the flames to begin.
>
>Well those were my thoughts. But not flames. Have a good weekend
>Trevor.
Message 12 of 122
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

This issue is black and white. Should you crack protected code? No.

Trevor wrote ...

> these kinds of issues aren't black and white.
Message 13 of 122
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

ok. heres the deal. I believe that within the scope of my original
post, there is just no harm in *looking* if it is easily accessible.
Stealing is another issue, and you just cannot equate looking with
stealing. If it is truly critical that no living soul see whats in a
file, then it should be better protected than the protected lisp
method. That's kinda like expecting RSA encryption but using rot13: a
pitifully poor substitute.
Those of you who consider this issue important enough have already
taken many steps past that point and I'll bet you didn't have to have
your arm twisted to take those steps either. This kind of concern
about security only comes with the prospect of making money or more
importantly, keeping someone else from making money from your work.
Unfortunately, I am the kind of person that gives stuff away. Im the
type who takes work home and stays late just to get something done
whether my boss knows about it or not. I just don't concern myself
with squeezing every penny out of my employer like some co-workers I
have known. I have people tell me that doing so is stupid and that I
shouldn't just give my time away, but that isn't what is important to
me.

Despite what you may think of me now, I am not a theiving moocher who
will steal anything I can get my hands on or take the pennies from a
blind mans cup rather than do a days work. I do pay for what I *use*.
I do stop using demos after they expire. I'm not out here with a hex
editor and a multitude of cracker utilities to break the protection on
a multi thousand dollar application. I just had need to look in a
protected file and I did so. Big deal. That was years ago.

I should have known better than to post this kind of question after
the Demo post. I can't tell you how bad I wanted to just give the guy
a case routine , but I didn't think the group would approve. another
character flaw. at least I didn't tell him about the utility i used.
If he's going to find that, it will be all on his own.

I finally saw that Alex shared a routine which only makes me curious.
Why didn't anyone try to help earlier, rather than rant about the guy
for two days?
Message 14 of 122
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Trevor, you are either a very good friend of Jon "whoever-he-is" Baker,
and you´re in the plot, or your soul is just too innocent and pure
to see what was going on.
Bless you, my good man, "almost-an-angel" Tutt!

Saludos, Jorge

Trevor Tutt wrote:
>
> ok. heres the deal. I believe that within the scope of my original
> post, there is just no harm in *looking* if it is easily accessible.
> Stealing is another issue, and you just cannot equate looking with
> stealing. If it is truly critical that no living soul see whats in a
> file, then it should be better protected than the protected lisp
> method. That's kinda like expecting RSA encryption but using rot13: a
> pitifully poor substitute.
> Those of you who consider this issue important enough have already
> taken many steps past that point and I'll bet you didn't have to have
> your arm twisted to take those steps either. This kind of concern
> about security only comes with the prospect of making money or more
> importantly, keeping someone else from making money from your work.
> Unfortunately, I am the kind of person that gives stuff away. Im the
> type who takes work home and stays late just to get something done
> whether my boss knows about it or not. I just don't concern myself
> with squeezing every penny out of my employer like some co-workers I
> have known. I have people tell me that doing so is stupid and that I
> shouldn't just give my time away, but that isn't what is important to
> me.
>
> Despite what you may think of me now, I am not a theiving moocher who
> will steal anything I can get my hands on or take the pennies from a
> blind mans cup rather than do a days work. I do pay for what I *use*.
> I do stop using demos after they expire. I'm not out here with a hex
> editor and a multitude of cracker utilities to break the protection on
> a multi thousand dollar application. I just had need to look in a
> protected file and I did so. Big deal. That was years ago.
>
> I should have known better than to post this kind of question after
> the Demo post. I can't tell you how bad I wanted to just give the guy
> a case routine , but I didn't think the group would approve. another
> character flaw. at least I didn't tell him about the utility i used.
> If he's going to find that, it will be all on his own.
>
> I finally saw that Alex shared a routine which only makes me curious.
> Why didn't anyone try to help earlier, rather than rant about the guy
> for two days?
Message 15 of 122
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 21:26:14 -0800, Jorge Jimenez
wrote:

>Trevor, you are either a very good friend of Jon "whoever-he-is" Baker,
>and you´re in the plot, or your soul is just too innocent and pure
>to see what was going on.
>Bless you, my good man, "almost-an-angel" Tutt

I don't know anything about the other guy.
As far as innocent goes, I do tend to take people at face value. If I
start to suspect everyone's motives, then it gets out of control and I
can trust no one. This is why Im not in business for myself.

I get the impression that those here who are in business for
themselves are the ones who get instantly outraged when this kind of
subject comes up. Others take a little while longer to get to that
point. Honeslty I don't see how they can stay in a business that
leaves them so vulnerable to theft of their product, when just the
mention of the subject angers them so. Aside from the Honor System,
their only defense is to better encrypt their work so that it can't be
stolen. I brough that point up, but no one really responded to it.

It is up to the developers to take proactive measures to protect their
products because the crackers are surely taking proactive measures to
get into them.
Message 16 of 122
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Trevor,

Why ya gotta do these things Trevor. I was quite content staying
semi-in-the-background. Now ya gotta start bringing up these moral issues.
What you have to understand is that your rationalizing something to make it
seem right when it isn't. If you look around here you'll notice (and have
noticed) that most do not share your opinion.

> ok. heres the deal. I believe that within the scope of my original
> post, there is just no harm in *looking* if it is easily accessible.

It wasn't. Measures had to be taken to gain access to the information you
were seeking, that went far beyond merely opening the file in a text editor.

> Stealing is another issue, and you just cannot equate looking with
> stealing.

This is true, if it was in plain sight.

> If it is truly critical that no living soul see whats in a
> file, then it should be better protected than the protected lisp
> method. That's kinda like expecting RSA encryption but using rot13: a
> pitifully poor substitute.

The amount of encryption is not really the point here. It was encrypted,
ie: the man didn't want you looking.

> Those of you who consider this issue important enough have already
> taken many steps past that point and I'll bet you didn't have to have
> your arm twisted to take those steps either. This kind of concern
> about security only comes with the prospect of making money or more
> importantly, keeping someone else from making money from your work.

Sounds like a noble cause.

> Unfortunately, I am the kind of person that gives stuff away.

Also sounds like a noble cause.

> Im the
> type who takes work home and stays late just to get something done
> whether my boss knows about it or not. I just don't concern myself
> with squeezing every penny out of my employer like some co-workers I
> have known. I have people tell me that doing so is stupid and that I
> shouldn't just give my time away, but that isn't what is important to
> me.

Strong work ethic. Nothing wrong with that. I'm the guy that used to read
the Machinery Handbook at lunch. I'm the guy that worked 64 hours a week
and got paid for forty when I first discovered this AutoCAD thing. Let'em
laugh. I make about half again as much as they do, doing the same thing.

I'm not just a designer at night, I'm a designer all day, every day. That
still doesn't give me the right to go where I don't belong.

>
> Despite what you may think of me now, I am not a theiving moocher who
> will steal anything I can get my hands on or take the pennies from a
> blind mans cup rather than do a days work. I do pay for what I *use*.
> I do stop using demos after they expire. I'm not out here with a hex
> editor and a multitude of cracker utilities to break the protection on
> a multi thousand dollar application. I just had need to look in a
> protected file and I did so. Big deal. That was years ago.
>

Back in my formative years I too used a decryptor. I did it once, I was
wrong, I never did it again. Oh yea, and I did inhale!

> I should have known better than to post this kind of question after
> the Demo post. I can't tell you how bad I wanted to just give the guy
> a case routine , but I didn't think the group would approve. another
> character flaw. at least I didn't tell him about the utility i used.
> If he's going to find that, it will be all on his own.

Best not to promote bad behaviour in other. Good man. Just a point though.
If you really don't think it's wrong, why wouldn't you tell him where to get
the cracker, eh?

Also, if you can help him with something free, isn't that showing him that
he really doesn't need to be stealing other peoples things to get what he
wants? Isn't that better?

>
> I finally saw that Alex shared a routine which only makes me curious.
> Why didn't anyone try to help earlier, rather than rant about the guy
> for two days?
>

I was walking down the street one day heading to Micky D's for lunch. I
didn't work in a very nice part of town, so there were always what one might
call lower class types hanging around. One of the fellows approached me and
asked if I had a couple dollars I could spare so he could get a hotel room
to get a shower (they got cheap rooms for these types around here). Anyway,
I tell him if he wants to come have lunch with me, all I got is a twenty,
but he can have the change when we're done.

If he would have come at me with a knife, I would have died before he got a
penny.

I think that is why no one helps people when they come in trying to get at
things that aren't thiers for the taking.

And yea I probably spelled thiers wrong cause the wife says I do it all the
time. It's just looks better spelled that way.

Lighten up, give it away, just don't take it, but above all...

Have fun,

Dave
Message 17 of 122
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

One final note.

> It is up to the developers to take proactive measures to protect their
> products because the crackers are surely taking proactive measures to
> get into them.
>

Just cause you can,
Don't make it right.

Have fun,

Dave
Message 18 of 122
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

2nd final note:
i before e except after c
:)
dave.ddp having fun watching the "action"

"Dave Seibert" wrote in message
news:BB6FA03C3D9AE4C508707FD9D2D89B47@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> One final note.
>
> > It is up to the developers to take proactive measures to protect their
> > products because the crackers are surely taking proactive measures to
> > get into them.
> >
>
> Just cause you can,
> Don't make it right.
>
> Have fun,
>
> Dave
>
Message 19 of 122
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Michael (and Trevor, and anyone else who is listening):

This is not a hypothetical situation.

I have a legit, licensed copy of an AutoLISP program which runs just fine in
R14, and which I use daily to produce drawings, to earn my living and thereby
pay the bills. The main program file is ~43kb.

The program will not run in R2000, as written, and I am unable to contact the
original author. I would be *more* than happy to pay the original programmer
for an R2K update, if I were able to contact him. I use his program every day,
and it is an essential part of my R14 tool kit. I am unable to "upgrade" to R2K
(for which privilege I have duly paid my AutoCAD dealer) without the
functionality of this program, among others.

The program is "protected" AutoLISP, which has been Kelvinated prior to
protection. I know this because I have decrypted it. So, once it is decrypted,
I still have plenty of work to do.

I am quite capable of writing improvements to the original program, strictly
for my own use. Additionally, I would be *more* than happy to supply the
original programmer with my personal "improvements," at no charge, for his
benefit in case he wished to use them in future versions of his product. In
this case that seems unlikely, as I am unable to contact the author.



> I challenge you to post a programming
> question that someone here cannot answer
>

OK, I would be happy to send you a copy of the file, and have you tell me why
it will *not* run in R2K (without unprotecting it, of course).

Sorry, I had to do that (no offense intended).



My point is that there are legitimate circumstances (at least, IMO) where
decrypting the original source file is a (or possibly the only) legitimate
option.

w/best regards,

hm
Message 20 of 122
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I would still have to argue that decryption is not an option even in the
case you sited.

Say I have a program that I concider essential to my business. Say I
upgrade my operating system from oooohhh DOS to Windows 95. Now my program
that I really need doesn't work. I cannot locate the original
Author/Company to see if there is an upgrade. Because it is well within my
personal capabilities to crack this program and make it work, is it then ok
for me to do that?

I don't think so. There are plenty of other people writting programs out
there and one of them surely has a comparable program.

Hacking is an art form, cracking is crime, buy a new program and get on with
life. Really...

Either way,

Have fun,

Dave

>
> My point is that there are legitimate circumstances (at least, IMO) where
> decrypting the original source file is a (or possibly the only) legitimate
> option.
>
> w/best regards,
>
> hm
>

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report

”Boost