1.1 Copy Protection Update

[Guest Dlink]

There ya go, wrong as usual. Read the original thread here regarding copy protection, then go to SimHQ, then to UBI to read my response to that particular subject. If you can understand what you read then you'll see that I was critical of Starforce. I was pissed about installing drivers on my rig w/out me knowing.

 

I look at each particular subject and decide how I feel about it on a case by case basis. You on the other hand have posted almost entirely negatively regarding anything LOMAC. You're really beginning to bore me, son.

 

UBI, I haven't been to the UBI forums in months.

 

AND I am not your son, I am probably old enough to be your father.

 

Also, negative about LOMAC, hardly, I love lomac, play it all the time.

 

Yes, I know you said negative things about Starforce, I was referring to you fanboism about flightsims, not copy protection. Please try to keep up.

[Guest ruggbutt]

I was referring to you fanboism about flightsims, not copy protection. Please try to keep up.

 

I've posted in flightsim forums about exactly two sims, LOMAC and PF. I have no idea where you got your "educated" guess. I feel bad for you that w/the effort it takes to post you can only be negative.

 

If I was having that bad a day (week, month,year) I'd go out and get laid.

[Ice]

Are We There Yet ?

 

[Guest Dlink]

I've posted in flightsim forums about exactly two sims, LOMAC and PF. I have no idea where you got your "educated" guess. I feel bad for you that w/the effort it takes to post you can only be negative.

 

If I was having that bad a day (week, month,year) I'd go out and get laid.

 

You sure love to give advice don't you. Are you a professional therapist or something.

[Guest ruggbutt]

Sup Ice!!!

[spearsd]

Not yet, but the kids fighting in the back seat are driving me crazy!

 

Are We There Yet ?

 

[Alfa]

Dlink and ruggbutt...cut it out.

 

- JJ.

[Guest ruggbutt]

Cut what out?

[Dmut]

ruggbutt and DLink, please continue your love-chat on SimHQ forums, where you started it. This forum doesn't need it.

 

... and ruggbutt - don't discuss Moderator's order.

[wsoul2k]

ruggbutt and DLink, please continue your love-chat on SimHQ forums, where you started it. This forum doesn't need it.

 

... and ruggbutt - don't discuss Moderator's order.

 

Starforce can you answer Dmut question few pages ago abou an problem where you told him was solutioned but it was not

[StarForce]

Starforce can you answer Dmut question few pages ago abou an problem where you told him was solutioned but it was not

 

Sorry for the delay. Tried to login several days ago but got "forum is not available" error or something like this.

 

The error appears in prohlp02.sys + prodrv06.sys files. It was fixed in 3.04.066 version (you may check the version in the properties of the protection library, protect.dll by default). This version uses sfhlp02.sys + sfdrv01.sys files. So if you use StarForce driver remover and then starts some newly protected (3.04.066 or above) game in order to install the drivers, then you won’t be able to use the exploit.

[Dmut]

Sorry for the delay. Tried to login several days ago but got "forum is not available" error or something like this.

 

The error appears in prohlp02.sys + prodrv06.sys files. It was fixed in 3.04.066 version (you may check the version in the properties of the protection library, protect.dll by default). This version uses sfhlp02.sys + sfdrv01.sys files. So if you use StarForce driver remover and then starts some newly protected (3.04.066 or above) game in order to install the drivers, then you won’t be able to use the exploit.

Thanks for answer, StarForce.

it's good that you mention about drivers, I didn't realized this first time when you said, that SF protection can be implemented with drivers and without. And games, that uses a driver-less version, doesn't affected by that exploit, I've checked this and this is good.

 

As for versions: right now I don't have a game with protect.dll version higher 3.04.066 and which is installing drivers, so I can not check exploit.

Can you tell a version of those files sfhlp02.sys + sfdrv01.sys, which protect.dll 3.04.066 shall install on user system?

I've installed a driver update from SF site (http://www.star-force.com/support/sfdrvup.zip,229376b) but exploit works fine on those drivers, may be they are too old. Please release a newest Drivers Update pak.

[StarForce]

Thanks for answer, StarForce.

it's good that you mention about drivers, I didn't realized this first time when you said, that SF protection can be implemented with drivers and without. And games, that uses a driver-less version, doesn't affected by that exploit, I've checked this and this is good.

 

As for versions: right now I don't have a game with protect.dll version higher 3.04.066 and which is installing drivers, so I can not check exploit.

Can you tell a version of those files sfhlp02.sys + sfdrv01.sys, which protect.dll 3.04.066 shall install on user system?

I've installed a driver update from SF site (http://www.star-force.com/support/sfdrvup.zip,229376b) but exploit works fine on those drivers, may be they are too old. Please release a newest Drivers Update pak.

It's impossible to fix the bug in the prohlp02.sys + prodrv06.sys files. The newer version of StarForce doesn't use these files. However, if updater finds one of them and contains some newer version it still updates the files. I can send you some recent protect.dll if you're interesting.

[Dmut]

It's impossible to fix the bug in the prohlp02.sys + prodrv06.sys files. The newer version of StarForce doesn't use these files. However, if updater finds one of them and contains some newer version it still updates the files. I can send you some recent protect.dll if you're interesting.

Thank you again for details. Yes, it will be interesting for me to do some tests with new libs.

I have a question about SF driver mode and driverless mode. Is it defined in protect.dll or in protected application? Can I replace protect.dll from the game which use driver-mode protection with protect.dll which use driver-less mode?

Otherwise, I don't know the way, how can I check a new protect.dll for drivers, that protect.dll installing.

 

Dublication in russian:

Дублирую для лучшего понимания, потому что сомневаюсь в своём английском. Разделение на режимы работы защиты с драйверами и без происходит в protect.dll или в самом приложении на этапе его криптования? смогу ли я протестировать новую protect.dll просто заменив ею ту которая использовалось ранее в приложении, которое использует бездрайверную схему защиты?

[Orao]

@SF

 

I bought Silent Hunter 3 last weekend. That game uses SF protection. If I install FC (Lockon 1.1 ) will I have some sort of conflict between SF from FC and SF from SH3 ???

 

Thank you for awnsering.

[Dmut]

@SF

 

I bought Silent Hunter 3 last weekend. That game uses SF protection. If I install FC (Lockon 1.1 ) will I have some sort of conflict between SF from FC and SF from SH3 ???

 

Thank you for awnsering.

I'm not SF, but I'll answer - no, you won't have any problems with different games, because SF always automatically update system drivers to latest versions, right on the first run of new game.

Russian publishers uses SF for a last 3 years (at least) and I have many old games, protected with SF and they perfectly run with new SF drivers, installed by newest games.

[StarForce]

Thank you again for details. Yes, it will be interesting for me to do some tests with new libs.

I have a question about SF driver mode and driverless mode. Is it defined in protect.dll or in protected application? Can I replace protect.dll from the game which use driver-mode protection with protect.dll which use driver-less mode?

Otherwise, I don't know the way, how can I check a new protect.dll for drivers, that protect.dll installing.

The version and settings are defined while the protection process and are hardcoded into the protection library as well as into the protected application. Therefore, you cannot replace the protection library from one title to another (otherwise, there is no lot of sense in the protection system, isn't it? :)). You can install drivers by simple calling LoadLibrary function on any protection library. I can send you a sample if you privmsg your e-mail address.

[Dmut]

The version and settings are defined while the protection process and are hardcoded into the protection library as well as into the protected application. Therefore, you cannot replace the protection library from one title to another (otherwise, there is no lot of sense in the protection system, isn't it? :)).

That's right and I've checked that this morning.

Let's say we have two protect.dll - one from Demo, and it doesn't ask for activation, and second from LO:FC, which must be activated before running.

LO:FC Demo run with protect.dll from LO:FC and ask for activation, but when I place protect.dll from Demo to LO:FC(I hoped to fool protection with that simple trick :rolleyes: ), application won't run. That's fine.

 

You can install drivers by simple calling LoadLibrary function on any protection library. I can send you a sample if you privmsg your e-mail address.

PM sent.

[Bogun]

Mr. StarForce, Mr.Dmut

 

Gentlemen,

It is kinda hard to follow the whole thread.

Can you please confirm that old “elevated privileges backdoor” will no longer be present in new version of StarForce drivers installed with LOCON v1.1?

For many people, this would make the difference between buying or not buying StarForce protected games, including LOCON.

Thanks.

[Dmut]

Mr. StarForce, Mr.Dmut

 

Gentlemen,

It is kinda hard to follow the whole thread.

Can you please confirm that old “elevated privileges backdoor” will no longer be present in new version of StarForce drivers installed with LOCON v1.1?

For many people, this would make the difference between buying or not buying StarForce protected games, including LOCON.

Thanks.

Yes, I can confirm that latest release candidate of LO:FC, available for beta-team, does not contain "elevated privileges" issue.

 

btw: I can not reproduce this vulnerability with FC Demo also. Can someone make same experiments and confirm it?

experiments has following steps:

1) get starforcemeat exploit (search for it) and SF drivers updatepak from SF site.

2) run SF remover

3) restart

4) run exploit - it must fail.

5) run SF drivers updatepak

6) restart

7) run exploit - it must success.

we can see that exploit works.

 

Let's test LO:FC Demo

8) run SF remover

9) restart

10) install and run LO:FC Demo

11) run exploit - it fails in my case.

[S77th-GOYA]

Yes, I can confirm that latest release candidate of LO:FC, available for beta-team, does not contain "elevated privileges" issue.

 

"Release candidate"?

[Dmut]

"Release candidate"?

if I would say "release", then somebody will post something like "DAMN, ED already has release, but don't releasing it...".

so, until it officially released, I will name it as "release candidate".

[S77th-GOYA]

Rgr, I was hoping you would say that. ;)

[Bug11]

It's not just this forum. He does the same thing on SimHQ too. I'd bet that he's one of Bard's cronies from the diesimfanboi website. They live to hate.

 

..only if he's over there under another name.

 

i see you're registered over there but banned....

 

... I see why now. You do the same sort of shit you're doing here over at simhq, he takes the piss out of you and makes you look like a fool, you get all hero like and threaten to punch his lights out because you can't take the heat?

 

any forum that bans your type of person gets props from me.

[Guest ruggbutt]

 

i see you're registered over there but banned....

 

 

 

any forum that bans your type of person gets props from me.

 

Actually I told Frugal to remove my account if he continued to allow personal attacks against Stormin' and Wags. I got a shitty response from Frugal so I told him where to go. Then he steps up w/the "ban". Whatever. At least on the other forums I frequent the F4 fanbois aren't allowed to run rampant. And if you'd like to discuss this further either PM me or contact me via ICQ (158060740).

 

Edit: In fact, check your PM's. I will not discuss this further w/you on public forums.