Evaluator pointer out that my main agrument in the DMCA thread was the opinion of selling unpackers, or other de-protection schemes.

At some point of time in life everybody has to think about it. Language of Money is Universal. Unpacker authors deserves more money then the Packer authors. There is nothing wrong with that at all.

Regards, Sope.

Hmm,
I felt that selling unpackers is a wrong motive because it ain't legal.If they want to sell something they should code a better packer or wrapper rather than unpacker.

my 2 sense

Howdy,

You should be able to produce and sell unpackers.
Why should it be any different from anything else.
The big name/s in debuggers dont hear any shit about their product.

Reverse-engineering is a way of life.
It is part of product development for the most part.

What is the law that says I cant take my tv apart to see how it works ?
What about trying to duplicate a food item ? You buy one, look at the ingredients, use your sense of taste and smell and have at it.

These things also need to be "unpacked"

Is it cheaper and easier to buy cake mix ? It sure is but, if you decide to make your own, should Betty Crocker be able to sue you ?

The answer is no, they dont own the exclusive rights to flour egg's and milk.

What is software ? It's code, letters and numbers. Who owns the exclusive rights to letters and numbers ? No-one. So why cant I look at the letters and numbers ? After all, I paid for the product.

Dont get me all riled up

True, there are no laws against taking apart a TV or a food item. However, as much as we don't like it, there are laws against reverse engineering software (in the United States, anyway).

I do not see the reason why not. When I was a cracker, I spend hours learning and learning. When it is time to write my CV for my job application, I realised that I could not write the following line: "Accomplished reverse engineer with a few years of experience and keen to teach".

So, what's left from that? Well, I write my own stuff to sell.

>>After all, I paid for the product
Nops! You paid for license, where you agree not look inside &..&..&..

Well, when I write unpackers, I will simply distribute my own license which states also that you cannot look inside or disassemble it.

Then, if anyone starts to complain about the unpacker's functioning on their protection, or they break it with a specific change, I'll know they looked inside. Two wrongs don't make a right do they?

-nt20

OK,

You need to look at those who lobby for software.
They lick political ass to get them to pass laws.
Why ?

Because "they" need protection.
This is not a matter of who bought what software.
Everyone knows that if your buddy has the latest version
of "mycoolvirusscan", he will "lend" it out so his pal can
copy it onto his own comp.
We all know that this is "the" single largest form of theft
that software companies suffer.

Somehow, some braniac decided that reverse engineering
was a threat to the software business. He did not do
his research and in some totally ignorant ephipany, declared
crackers, hackers, geners, serial freaks and wares all the same.

Back to the topic.....

How many "commercial" unpackers are out there ?
Wait, substitute another word for unpacker.

You write a software using protection "A"
I write an unpacker for protection "A"
I sell my unpacker for protection "A"
You change your protection to "A MODIFIED"
I change my unpacker to "A MODIFIED"

You see the trend here ?
It never ends, just like it is now.
Are crackers destroying the software industry ? No
Even if you bought an unpacker, you still have a lot
of work to do.(unless it is lame)

So, what is the harm ? It's not like you are selling reg codes
for a .99 cents.

Is selling unpackers worth it ? I have no idea.
I can see no way it can be illegal. If you want to play
by "their" rules, it is intellectual property. It's only letters
and numbers that make up code. Anyone can "assemble"
letters and numbers.

Here's another example of foolishness....

I build my own satellite receiver, the people who
broadcast via satellite have a law that says I am
not allowed to receive their signal without paying for it.

Why does that not apply to radio ?

D Wooma,

as I know, commercial-satellite-chanels are coded..
If there are not-coded chanels & they want $, looks stupidly from them.
Does it happens realy!?

I've added reverse-engineering in my CV.

And that's precisely the point that make me the winner for the
job where I'm actually. Against 30 experienced security people.

When you work on the system security field, you have sometimes
to deal with wild binaries.

Only reverse-engineering can help you at this stage.

So you should add this point. Without speaking "cracking related",
there is still some legal field where that can be applied.

Regards
FoolFox

I would like to remind everyone that this also refers to deprotection schemes as well, which is a similar thing to unpacking.

For example, Elcomsoft sells ZIP and RAR password crackers. To create such devices, they would have had to disassemble ZIP algorithms.

What about DVDXCOPY, and DVD2ONE, etc, which also are being sold, and remove CSS protection. (Which I find strange, CSS decryption has been outlawed, then how could these programs continue to be "legal"

It still continues to appear the creation and sale of the product isn't the "problem", but rather the use of said product. Of course, until some one whines and gets a law passed about it (like we need more laws...)

DVDXCOPY can hide under the term of the rights of an individual to make a backup copy. An unpacker can follow the same rules. What if the protector code does not seem to work properly? FOr example, it triggers my AV protector, or it simply crashes when I upgrade my O.S.? Yes, I COULD write to the author to ask for a fix. But if I already have a tool (unpacker) to fix it, why should that be wrong to use?


-nt20

What burden of responsibility is placed on the author of the cracker/decompiler/hacker proggie to maintain and support his work if someone complains that it has a verified bug? Certainly a fix, generally as a prog upgrade, must be generated. How then do the other "customers" get their upgrade? Must the author provide a phone number? Maybe an address? Maybe a web-site? And how do they know that their existing version is flawed? Having taken on the "plus side" of getting money, shouldn't he be obligated to take on the "minus side" of support? Just what obligation does the author owe to his customers? Is the money worth the effort?

I suppose this is typical when you go into or start a new business. Does the selling the program constitute a "business", thus requiring the above-mentioned burden of support?

To date, I continue to provide RACE for free, for this reason. (But you can bet your balogna that I'm keeping my eyes open!)

Sarge

nt20,

before we continue discussion, lets clear one simple thing:

Is MONEY default reason for you?
(or you more like fight with law? etc.)

evaluator, no, this is not about money. I have a day job

I'm really only bringing up the issue because even writing an unpacker it looked upon as so hush-hush and no-no by the software industry. My argument is that an unpacker author's work has as much right to exist as any other, even if it is to be on the market for sale. Since, basically, no one would take it "seriously" unless it was on the market, no? I mean it would not attract legal attention. So in some ways, I am asking people how they think unpackers and deprotection programs stand legally.

As I've stated already, programs like ZIP and RAR password crackers exist. DVD2ONE exists. But "supposedly" there are "laws" that are supposed to, in reality, prevent these tools from existing. But yet they do exist and are on the market as well. I find it hard to understand the fact that, when it's against "EULA" to disasm and such, that these tools exist without any penalty. One could conclude then, that such "license agreements" are a puff of hot air and smoke.

I don't think I would personally at this time want to "sell" any tool, mainly for the reason that I think it's good just to get knowledge out, but also for the support reasons. Just release something and watch how many emails you get However, one has to admit that a monetary compensation, in any form, allows you to pursue goals with much more vigor and effectiveness. In other words, the product "should" usually improve. (Not that it always happens, though).

The main purpose of the thread is for discussion, not only for my pointing out my viewpoint. I just want to hear other's thoughts about these issues.

-nt20

Sigh, my field of work does not involve software/security. It doesn't even need computers! Just the professional know-how is required.

well,

So if not for money, let's say shortly:
-Selling unpacker is Wrong Business Idea.

Now we can mark this interest as theoretical.
But what is theory without practice? Practice should be first.
(& more time no theory need..)

Really, only for interest,
try to sell publicly(via web) one non-generic unpacker for little $(5-10)
& you will have big practice in few days!
Probably you will be under attack of law or ethic etc.. Cool!

after will be possible to build some theory based on this practice.
If not a theory, then maybe cool Story.

Point taken.

But remember, this poll was your idea

-nt20

but i thought, you was about only $.

Are there degrees of unpacking/decompiling? If you do half the job, have you really reversed the prog, from a legal point of view? Or maybe you are only half-illegal? What about VBREZQ, that gives you forms, control, declarations, graphics, and sub and functions, but without the source code? Is he half-legal? Maybe his price is only half-price!!?? At what point have you crossed the line?

Sarge

Even if you did sell unpackers... who would buy them?