Talk:Software cracking

From
Groan. . ., whilst the "we reflect how things are, not how they should be" this entry also has to acknowledge the many other activities, most of them legal, that many programmers call hacking, and will probably have to explore the degree of disjointedness (though sometimes not as clean as some would claim) between the PC cracking/warez communities, the demo coders and their ilk, and the Unix hackers that have gravitated to Linux, BSD and so on. --Robert Merkel.

This page answers the question asked on Hacking wondering why Hackers got confused with Crackers. Thanks a lot, buddy. -- Ed Poor

Redirected to talk:Hacker and talk:Software cracking — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Cunctator (talk • contribs) 07:36, 12 December 2001 (UTC)

re first para
What's the difference between illegal and criminal? --bodnotbod 04:50, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Its a grey area really, for example in the USA reverse engineering a program thats encrypted is "Illegal" according to the DMCA but its not really "criminal" as far as intent goes. Whereas someone cracking software protection for purposes of distributions not only "illegally" breaking the law but is "criminal" in intent. Basically its a matter of legality vs. intent.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 15:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. "Criminal" is something you can be prosecuted for - not sued by a private party, prosecuted. Reverse engineering in violation of the DMCA is a violation of civil law (not civil law as opposed to common law, civil law as opposed to criminal law - sometimes called private law). You have to have a private party sue you for a civil offense. Trademark and copyright infringements fpr noncommercial purposes are a few examples. A copyright infringement where somebody is selling, AFAIK, is actually criminal. 74.78.116.93 (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Simple copyright violation (rights infringement) is contrary to statute (hence illegal), but not criminal. It could result in a civil suit where the offended party could claim recourse for the infringement, but not a criminal prosecution and possible convition.  The concerted effort to deliberately circumvent protection technologies is not only illegal it has been made expressly criminal, and subject to prosecution.  Cain Mosni 22:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC

Needs a History section
Needs a History section. The famous Bill Gates letter accusing everyone of being a pirate might frame the discussion though of course the first Microsoft software didn't have any copy protection. I assumed the first software cracking was on early games on the Apple II and C64. There should be a discussion of the use of aliases and splash screens and the distribution network of BBCs (often with the phone number on the splash screen). This is tangential to the subject of actually doing it, but there is a real history there that ought to be documented here. Tempshill 18:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ite... that's going to be a hack, er, heck of a project, trying to find resources that can document the history of software cracking. I'm also curious: Do we mention specific groups? Link to possible articles about them? Link to their websites (if still extant)?


 * Not that I'm saying I'm not interested in working on the history here, of course, but it'll take some doing. If nobody minds, I'll be legally conservative in my linking and try to not get wikipedia in trouble. c.c


 * lilewyn 01:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed outside links
These links seem to be self serving and not entirely relevant to the article. Although they do contain a small amount of history, it seems that they have been posted here to increase someone's google ranking than to actually contribute to the article. I think a general references section should be added however. I haven't found any suitable sites as most disappear quickly due to their nature or are simply spam havens with no useful content. Also, sites that contain huge lists of outdated cracks with no actual academic content are simply not appropriate. I don't feel this article should become a shelter for links to direct sources of pirated software, but rather a way to gather information on the culture and technical data related to software cracking. fintler 13:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing links b/c you don't want to create a "shelter for links to direct sources of pirated software" isn't helpful. Most people looking for cracks will type "cracks" into Google while those researching the issue would find it helpful. If you want to squelch the ability of people finding cracks for software you should delete the whole article so they don't know the concept exists. I don't recommend this though. Dcsutherland 20:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Text removed 5-July-2006
User 87.230.120.46 (talk · contribs) appended the following to the intro para:
 * It is a great way to get back at the money hungry software corperations who only gives out demos and want you to pay for the full version. It's free but (Sadly) illegal. There are groups like Revenge Crew, Agression, etc. that help people get the full versions for free.

I've removed it because it seems POV and unencyclopedic. Does anyone want to argue for restoring it, or try to create a more acceptable version?

Cheers, CWC (talk) 08:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like something someone would say in a chat room, and besides the general idea of what is said here is being brought up in the BSA reference and a few other places. 152.131.13.1 17:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

desperate and damaging measures
"publishers have resorted to desperate and damaging measures such as StarForce"

is this really needed to be said in this way? Does not sound like NPOV to me. -Sedimin 10:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. (On further thought, our StarForce article says it has been damaging, both to publishers and to players. Nevertheless, this language is not encyclopedic.) Cheers, CWC (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Has a point!! Shareware nag screens are annoying and it should be legalized!!

It's a good thing for Microsoft and Adobe
I removed the following paragraph because it is unverifiable and uncited:

Cracking has also been a significant factor in the domination of companies such as Adobe Systems and Microsoft, all of whom have benefited from piracy since the 1980s. Vast numbers of college and high school students adopted readily available applications from these companies. Many of these students would then go on to use them in their professional lives, purchasing legitimate licenses for business use and introducing the software to others until the programs became ubiquitous. Cornlad 20:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, well done extermin8tor

Hey! I was looking for that!! well atleast its here! - Annonymus.

As a matter of fact, there is a wide spread theory that creacked software CAN be good to some companies. This is because hardware/OS companies require third-party companies to produce software for their hardware/OS,m but the software companies are only going to produce the software IF the hardware/OS is popular enough. So while Cracked OS don't give the producer money directly an as a matter of facts, makes them lose some, they may help more than they hurt. Picture that Creacked OS make the OS more popular (particularly among those who would have not buy it otherwise=, and the increse in popularity leads to more software creation by third-party companies, which in return attracts more users who are willing to pay for say software.

Besides, if the thrid-party companies software are cracked, it means that users who have that OS will be able to obtain a better experience from their OS without paying extra money, making the OS more interesting to the consumers.

We need to look for some good source of this for citation (some academic study, maybe?), but otherwise is good info. - Ancho_panza, 2011

Effects section
The effects section is'nt entirely ontopic, this article is about computer software cracking, this is done by crackers and warez groups, so why is the distribution of xvid and mp3 included in the article. In my fairly informed opinion I think that someone should correct this, as it is off-topic.

corect me if im wrong though

Annoying!
Shareware is annoying!! With the nag screens and limited feature im glad cracks exist!

This has nothing to do with this article & is off topic, please stay on topic --VandalRemover 22:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Cracks.AM = Dangerous
Cracks.AM should be removed, because it's a very dangerous site that may destroy your computer. According to SiteAdvisor Cracks.am is RED

Evidence:

According to WOT Protection rating system, it's rated as "Untrustworthy"

Thank you for your time, Jinyaho. --Jinyaho 13:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Jinyahoo, I totally agreed with you, Cracks.AM should not be in this article, 2nd it's dangerous, 3rd it shouldn't be any "Copyright Material Cracking" On wikipedia, for these reasons it WILL get Removed

Commodore floppy drive. Wha?
Currently says: "For floppy drives at first errors to the floppy were intentionally written to the floppy and the software would look for the errors. Because of the operational of Commodore Floppy Drives this would cause the floppy drive heard to bang against the edge and could cause the drive head to become misaligned."

I think this is unclear. I'm not certain of the facts of this case, but I think it should probably be corrected to something like this:


 * For floppy drives, errors were first intentionally written to the floppy disk and then the software would seek to read the errors. Because of the operation of Commodore floppy drives this would cause the floppy drive head to bang against a limiting edge and could cause the drive head to become misaligned.

If my changes remain true to the facts I think they improve the intelligibility of the passage. Alas, I did not save my old C= magazines where one might find reliable sources on this. (This was before the public Internet, for you youngsters.) If you can verify or falsify this, please comment here or make the change. I think it would help to state (or restate, since it is mentioned in other contexts) why the software seeking to read the errors served as copy protection in this case. —Blanchette (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have rewritten some of the history section (in particular the parts about floppy drives and ROM cartridges) before I saw this discussion. Check out the newer version and see if the intelligibility is improved.  Feel free to change as needed.  Someone needs to add some info about usenet and internet activities, as I left only a token sentence from the previous version. —Blazotron (talk) 04:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

engineering dongle thing
"An example of this could be an expensive engineering software that requires a dongle to operate." - Can someone give an example? Just curious, I'm not doubting that it happens. 74.78.116.93 (talk) 02:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Can't think of any engineering software, but how about CUBASE? 109.155.158.221 (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Changes by David Calman
Oh really? Malicious users should be banned off the site right now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ms dos mode (talk • contribs) 05:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

timeline trouble?
"Microsoft reduced common Windows based software cracking with the release of the NGSCB initiative in future versions of their operating system."

I don't follow this statement; it seems to say that Microsoft reduced software cracking in the past by doing something in the future. 75.17.157.194 (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Fragment Alert!
Under the History section: "Of course cracking the software to expect good sectors made for readily copied disks without the need to meddle with the disk drive." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.5.68 (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate this article's neutrality.
Thanks to the contributors of this page, I think that it is an excellent example of neutrality! Steven (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed the following as its opinion
Cracking has also been a significant factor in the domination of companies such as Adobe Systems and Microsoft, as these companies and others have benefited from piracy since the 1980s. Vast numbers of college and high school students adopted readily available applications from these companies. Many of these students would then go on to use them in their professional lives, purchasing legitimate licenses for business use and introducing the software to others until the programs became ubiquitous.

Industry response section - antivirus companies
Are there any reliable sources that go into antivirus purposely giving false positive results for cracked software? Here is a forum thread at norton.com where the forum leaders are saying that Norton Antivirus is supposed to flag illegal patches as viruses. [] That is a huge part of the software industry response. Information on it, along with countermeasures, would be informative. 94.222.176.14 (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Industry response section
I'm thinking that the "Industry Response" section needs to be removed or merged into the history section. The stuff said there is a bit outdated. fintler (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Crack intro Merge
I oppose a merge of Crack intro. Consider merging Crack intro into Demoscene instead. fintler (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Lawsuit
Reading the source and http://daledietrich.com/imedia/pleadings/Microsoft_v_Viodentia_%28Complaint_Sept_22_2006%29.pdf, it appears the lawsuit wasn't over the crack, but over using copyrighted code in the crack. The copyright infringement charge was over the suspected use of Microsoft's code. I don't think this should be labeled as a lawsuit "over cracking software".

Also, "The distribution and use of cracked copies is illegal in almost every developed country" is an absurd statement without any citation. "almost every", "developed country", and there is not an example of a single country where it's illegal. 67.166.35.150 (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Citations Needed Template
Guys, I'm adding a citations needed template because there is a severe lack of references. Please help out and add any citations that verify information you find here without breaking Wikipedia's content standards, such as the previous use of "Cracks.AM" within the article. I know this can be a bit tough due to the subject, but I'm sure we can make it happen. 70.60.159.97 (talk) 05:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

A citation which is no longer available
Noob here who hasn't done any wiki editing before and doesn't want to touch stuff for fear of doing it wrong-

I noticed the 11th citation leads to a no longer existing web page

That citation is: Fravia (November 1998). "Is reverse engineering legal?"

which leads to link: 

I was able to Wayback Machine this link to find what it was supposed to be pointing to. I think there's a precedent for using archives for citations which become unavailable? If so this one should be changed, I found it to be a worthwhile read, though probably a bit dated as it was written in 1998 (it seems).

Thanks,

NightHawk475 (talk) 10:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Software cracking is based on reverse engineering
@MrOllie why you keep deleting the sentence that I'm adding even when I added the reference to a book from which it comes? The sentence:

The foundation of software cracking is reverse engineering, which involves translating (reversing) a compiled program back into a programming language, which is usually assembly. 46.204.12.214 (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Because it isn't actually correct, and it was first uncited and now not cited to a reliable source. MrOllie (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you think is incorrect in it? I think it is totally correct. Also how a book which is only about software cracking and has over 300 pages is not a reliable source? 46.204.12.214 (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Many (probably most) cracks are simply a result of examining the state of memory in a debugger rather than disassembling the program. MrOllie (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Both analyzing assembly code in a debugger while the program is running and analyzing assembly code in a disassembler when it is not running are techniques used in reverse engineering.
 * "Reverse engineering can either be performed statically or dynamically. Static reverse engineering involves looking at the assembly code of an application and attempting to understand its function without running it. Dynamic analysis, on the other hand, runs the application code and observes its results." resources.infosecinstitute.com/topic/kali-linux-top-8-tools-for-reverse-engineering/ 46.204.12.214 (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, but that doesn't bear on what I said. MrOllie (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * How come? Software cracking is most commonly performed by performing dynamic analysis of assembly code while the program is running in a debugger such as OllyDbg mentioned in the link. Also in another book already linked to this wiki artlice that is: Eilam, Eldad (2005). "Reversing : secrets of reverse engineering" there are 4 main chapters and one of them is only about software cracking. This chapter about cracking has over 100 pages in this book and first few sentences of that chapter also confirm what I wrote: "This subject is closely related to reversing because cracking, which is the process of attacking a copy protection technology, is essentially one and the same as reversing. In this chapter, I will be presenting general protection concepts and their vulnerabilities. I will also be discussing some general approaches to cracking." 46.204.12.214 (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @MrOllie Why you keep deleting the information that I add even when I added a reference to a different book which confirms what I added? I already referenced two books about cracking and reverse engineering which are both reliable sources about those topics but you say that you do not like it for no reason and keep deleting valid information that I add. 46.204.12.214 (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said, I find your addition to be inaccurate (most cracking is accomplished by modifying data in a debugger, not reverse engineering a program). It is not an accurate summary of the book you cited. MrOllie (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Most cracking is accomplished by analysing assembly code of a program and modifying its code so that is closely related to reverse engineering. Also the sentence that I added is an accurate summary because it is from first paragraph of the chapter about cracking in this book which pretty much summarizes the whole chapter of this book (Eilam, Eldad "Reversing : secrets of reverse engineering"). 46.204.12.214 (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also even the fact that in a book about reverse engineering which has about 500 pages there are over 100 pages only about software cracking shows something. So really deleting this information that cracking is closely related to reverse engineering does not seem to make sense. 46.204.12.214 (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It remains in the article body, I am simply removing an inaccurate and overly simplistic statement from the lead section. MrOllie (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Then I will move it to a different place because now at some point it references to reverse engineering without any logical explanation how cracking and reversing is related. 46.204.12.214 (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)