AtariZoll wrote:Well, just as expected - show must go on ...
I looked R-Type . At Atarimania it is Electric Dreams release , 1988 .
So, dlfrsilver, please point us where can get Activision release of it, from 1987 .
Rob Northern developed on Atari ST with Devpac assembler the very first Copylock, called "CopylockST" in 1987 for R-type. R-type got released in December 1988.
Let's see what the man said about it himself :
"It was in 1987 that I first used this technique reliably on the Atari ST. One of the tracks on the floppy, probably track 0, had one of the sectors on the track written using a reduced bitcell. Using a carefully written piece of code I was able to detect this special sector by comparing the times to read in both types of sector. From memory, I think the 'slow' sector had to take at least 15% longer to read than the other sectors or it failed the protection test."
followed by this :
"This is true. I wanted to test how effective the protection was, so I buried my telephone number in the heart of the encryption. I did receive a call from a German hacker several weeks after the game was released (I think the game was called R-Type on the Atari ST) very early one morning. I don't remember receiving any other calls. In my opinion the protection had passed its test!"
So he confirmed himself that CopylockST was used first time on R-type for Activision and the goal was to see if the protection was effective enough.
Still, I don't see what Kick Off 2 protection has with it - pretty different.
You have not read me either properly. I have explained above that Kick Off 2 was basically the same thing as the Copylock Short 12 sectors.
R-type doesn't use the Copylock Short 12 sectors protection, but the very first one, called CopylockST. The CopylockST simply used a reduced bitcell.
You mean seriously that could fool, or even just slowdown some experienced cracker by omitting protection signo (writing in your words) ?
You're mixing up 2 different things : The fact that the protection type/name is hidden, and the fact that the experienced cracker could be slowndown by it.
What i was pointing, is that when the experienced cracker knows which protection he is going to deal with, he will go faster to deprotect, because he already know where to look, what to find, and what to remove.
When you don't know what protection is used, of course you will in the end have the protection removed, but you will not go as fast as when you know the road.
It's like in real life, when you know the road you take, you can go full speed, when you don't know the road, you're more prudent (otherwise accidents can arise
Cracker don't care for blah, he traces, analyzes code and then put there necessary changes to fool protection. Sometimes it is just simple branch over protection code, sometimes it is much more. In 1988 it was usually not hard.
"Not a second. They stand perfectly." - yes, I would bet on seeing it one moment here. Believe, people will respect you more when will say something like " sorry, I was wrong in that" . Especially when discussing with floppy and copy protection experts.
I'm an expert in this field too. I have not been promoted member just because it was fun. I'm floppy/copy protection expert too, and on 3 platforms :
CPC, Amiga, ST. You only know the ST, and even then, sometimes you say incorrect things. It happened in the past.
Now SPS France representative since the 19th of June 2014. Proud to be an SPS member !