On Jun 19, 2006, at 11:25 AM, Patrick Hurley wrote:

> On 6/19/06, Kris Leech <krisleech / interkonect.com> wrote:
>
>> > But I could just rename the compiled so file, write a simple loader
>> > that loads the .so and then do what ever I wanted.
>
>> But would the code in the .so be modify-able?
>
> I could write a routine that creates a thread, and call break point. I
> could alias and breakpoint any routine I care about. So the .so is not
> modified, but I can modify its code in place.

We're talking ruby here... it is much much easier to modify the code  
than that.

>> What do you think to these programs like EXECrypter which adds
>> anti-debug, encryptioned code and other anti-tamper/hack techniques.
>
> They make things difficult, not impossible -- check out how long it
> takes for games to hit Usenet after they are release. Most of these
> are filled with all the best tricks.

Yes, but as I said earlier, cracked games and the like are generally  
doing a single jump over the license check code. That is pretty  
simple. We're trying to provide a level of protection to IP. Not make  
it impossible, but just as difficult as any other compiled language  
out there.

Again, you see cracked games all the time, but you don't see them  
reverse engineered into readable code very much.

>> It looks like Ruby is mostly suited to the service based approach.  
>> And
>> can not be distributed like compiled desktop applications.
>
> I think it is a great tool for desktop applications, but the real
> question is that of your business model. If you want to release code
> that cannot be copied give it up. Secure things need to be on secure
> servers -- everything else can be modified -- it is really just a
> question of difficulty.

*nod* exactly.