AW: OT: locking software to one specific machine?

[Richard Gaskin]

Jeff Massung wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Richard Gaskin
> <ambassador at fourthworld.com>wrote:
>
> [... snip ...]
>
>
>> Then write the inverse of the generator to validate your codes, but break
>> up the validation into multiple handlers each doing a small part of it,
>> using obscure function names strewn all over your code base with lots of
>> red-herring handlers with similar names littered among them. Extra bonus
>> points if the handlers you call also call others; the more the merrier.
>>  Anyone tracing your code in a low-level debugger will find it far more
>> annoying than it's worth.

...
> 2. Don't follow the "Extra bonus points" recommendation. This is a *bad
> idea*. You want these functions that check reg codes to be extremely small
> and obfuscated.

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.

--
  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