Re: software protection and licensing question

From: Howard (do_not_use_this_address__at_hotmail.com)
Date: 01/12/04 

Date: 12 Jan 2004 01:52:03 -0800

Thanks for the info. Armadillo is one of the packages I have come
across while searching the web, and I will definitely be checking it
out.

The other posts/comments etc have been interesting reading, but as my
original post said, I'm mainly interested whether it's possible to
allow debugging for the application code written by users of our SDK,
whilst still preventing them from seeing/debugging our own code.

There are clearly different philosophies on the pros and cons of
giving people access to your source code, but this choice has already
taken by our company.

I'm also well aware that code protection can never be perfect - people
will always be able to find a way to break into your code. However, we
want to put in some measures that will at least mean it takes a
reasonable amount of time and effort to do this. This should prevent
all but the most determined hackers.

I like the locks/keys analogy. I know that I cannot prevent someone
from breaking into my house and stealing my possessions, and I know
that locks can be broken, but I still put locks on the doors and
windows to stop the less determined thieves!

Howard

gerryq@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn) wrote in message news:<TzRLb.4316$HR.8944@news.indigo.ie>...
> In article <5cbfad6b.0401090842.2812cfe6@posting.google.com>, do_not_use_this_address_@hotmail.com (Howard) wrote:
> >I am currently looking at the various packages that are available for
> >software protection. I have a particular question that I'd welcome
> >your feedback on.
> >
> >Background info:
> >I work for a company that develops software, and typically releases
> >software SDKs. Development is in C++ using MS Visual C++. We need to
> >apply software encryption/protection to achieve:
> >
> >1) Time-limited versions (e.g software expires after X days)
> >2) Machine-locking (once activation key entered, software will only
> >run on the machine it was installed on)
> >3) Anti-debugging/reverse-engineering protection
>
> I would recommend you take a look at Armadillo from
> www.siliconrealms.com . I know it has some restrictions relating to
> debugging and DLLs, but I suspect it can be configured suitably. You
> can download a trial version and check it out.
>
> >3rd party developers using our SDKs access the core functions using a
> >supplied dll, and it is the dll which needs to be protected. We do not
> >want them to be able to debug the dll we supply, but we *do* want them
> >to be able to debug the code that they write!
> >
> >The encryption/anti-debugging employed by PCGuard means that they are
> >not able to debug their own code, which is a major problem.
>
> If all else fails, an alternative option you might consider is to issue
> two separate DLLs, with the same general functionality. One would be
> the distributable DLL, protected but not debuggable. The other would be
> debuggable, but would have undesirable behaviours that prevent it being
> used in a distributed program. Of course, care would have to be taken
> to make this hard to crack.
>
> - Gerry Quinn

Relevant Pages

  • Re: software protection and licensing question
    ... Thanks for the info. Armadillo is one of the packages I have come ... allow debugging for the application code written by users of our SDK, ... I'm also well aware that code protection can never be perfect - people ... >>supplied dll, and it is the dll which needs to be protected. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: software protection and licensing question
    ... Thanks for the info. Armadillo is one of the packages I have come ... allow debugging for the application code written by users of our SDK, ... I'm also well aware that code protection can never be perfect - people ... >>supplied dll, and it is the dll which needs to be protected. ...
    (comp.security.misc)
  • Re: software protection and licensing question
    ... >software protection. ... debugging and DLLs, but I suspect it can be configured suitably. ... >supplied dll, and it is the dll which needs to be protected. ... the distributable DLL, protected but not debuggable. ...
    (comp.lang.cpp)
  • Re: software protection and licensing question
    ... >software protection. ... debugging and DLLs, but I suspect it can be configured suitably. ... >supplied dll, and it is the dll which needs to be protected. ... the distributable DLL, protected but not debuggable. ...
    (comp.security.misc)
  • Re: software protection and licensing question
    ... >software protection. ... debugging and DLLs, but I suspect it can be configured suitably. ... >supplied dll, and it is the dll which needs to be protected. ... the distributable DLL, protected but not debuggable. ...
    (comp.programming)