Appologies regarding poasting a message to point to another message on this board.

But I feel the subject may be overlooked if I don't

Have a look at Disavoweds, message regarding
"British Firm develops Unbreakable Polymorphic Encryption"

Many of us have a real problem with Bit-Arts.

Not cracking their stuff but their attitude and lies.

Here is a quote from the computer user article,
--------------------

To date, the firm says that its products remain uncracked by attempts from the cracking community as a whole, and several world renowned testing laboratories.

--------------------

That isn't exactly true is it

I feel a grudge match developing

Kilby...

Of course they are lying... what would be the point saying the truth?
After all it's a business and they need the customer who eats lies out of their hands...



Wasn't Bit-Arts getting shred to pieces a few months ago? I don't remember the context but it was of a published crack somewhere...

H'm Any of you had some experience with their programm:Trialwrap ?? cause it is troubling my brains !!
Made some dumps after the "purchase/continue message" but till now anything fails...
think the oep is 401000 and didn't notice an damaged
iat.

SpekkeL

Bit-Arts must be fishing for something. I find it strange they would talk big shit and not allow you to download something to evaluate.
Peace, Woodmann

splaj and me made some past tests with revirgin applied to titanium from bi-Tarts , no problem ever. Easy dumps and easy resolve, maybe it's time for us to apply for a job in their company ;-)

I don't see what's the problem with their advertisement, sure their product remains uncracked, we simply remove it entirely from the target :-)

I just find it strange about such a large lie.

So pardon my thoughts in this Email, I appear to have been reading way too much Robert Anoton Wilson.

I could see them claiming that their product was difficult to crack (hmmmm), or that it slows down crackers so much (hmmmm), but to be so boastful.

It looks like thay are trying to land themselves in the brown and smelly, big time.

I assume that this has a lot to do with their MP3 product (with napster being in the mainstream press regularly).

As for polymorphic code, which is constantly changing 'while it is running', that also sounds like crap to a certain extent.

These are my thoughts on that point

1:Normal self modifying code, which possible due to the amount of honesty thay appear to have


2: Something like the old RNC protection on the Amiga where, large blocks of encrypted code existed (these all had to be illegal instructions)

Therefore the following process occured

a: illegal instruction is executed
b:the exception vector points to a decrypt routine
c: the instruction is decrypted and executed
d: exception routine is exited
e: next instruction is executed (so back to point a)

Oh yes Bi-Tarts I want that performance hit on my applications, it will meake me really happy.

or

3: The app IS constantly modifying itself, therefore eating processor cycles.

Oh yes Bi-Tarts I want that performance hit on my applications, it will meake me really happy.

This brings an interesting thought however for point 3,

If the code was constantly being modified but all code would have to be valid hence a dump would work anyway

However another thought comes to mind, if that is really happening then actual instructions could be used to fingerprint the dump

If either 2 or 3 are true then I suggest that Intel and AMD own Bi-Tarts, and want to force us to upgrade our processors.

Regards,

Kilby... the ever happy !

Ahh, Amiga/ST 68000 protections! I remember that one. They also had a trace vector decryption routine where they put the decrypt algorithm at the trace vector address, then stuck the CPU into trace mode for a few hundred instructions or so.

Lotsa fun..