Does anyone know anything about how Armadillo calculates this ID? I know the various components that make up the ID, but I don't know how the hardware id itself is actually calculated.

What I'm trying to do is this - I have an Armadillo protection application that has no default certificate, so can only run by entering a valid registration code. I have a valid registration code, and the program itself, and the original hardware ID (fingerprint). I trying to find out how to get the program to run on a different machine without paying out another £800 for another license. The authors of the software refuse to transfer the license to another machine, and the old machine is no longer operational.

So my guess is that since I have all the ingrediants (software, hardware fingerprint, registration name & code), I should be able to fool the loader into generating the same fingerprint to allow the registration code to be used on the new computer.

Any ideas?

Well i've now fixed the problem - I've faked the hardware id so Armadillo thought it was the original computer and then to prevent it reoccuring, I've removed the program completely from it's Armadillo shell, and then reprotected it with Armadillo, but with my own key so I can easily generate more keys if necessary

I feel you ought to send this info on my email. You know me as "volodya" on exetools forum and you now my email address %)

I feel you ought to send such personal messages in PMs.

Volodya :

Really there's not much to say. It was only easy because I just butchered up a version of my Armadillo unpacker, and modify it to change the value of particular processor register at a certain place in the unpacking phase, so the hardware id would always be the same. It was then registered with the original registration information and unpacked like a normal program by my unpacker. I then packed it back up using Armadillo again, but using my key this time instead of the authors

It would be a lot more involved without my unpacker, and since I'd rather keep the unpacker private, there is really not much more to say about it. The method is not generic in any shape or form, but since I only wanted to do this to one program, it was very easy as I was using direct memory addresses. It would be a lot more complicated if I tried to make it generic.