KICK OFF 2 + WORLD CUP 90

[dlfrsilver]

This title (Kick Off 2 + WC 90), Anco release is certainly not Copylock by Rob Northen protection. Not any of - not even close. In 1990 his second type protection was widely used.

Anco "copylock" tracks looks like the copylock short version from RN, but this doesn't necessary mean that he made them. Maybe we should ask him.

i know he protected Kick Off (Amiga and ST) and Kick Off 3 (Amiga only). Maybe someone at Anco reworked his protection, it "could be" possible.

Rob Northern always customized his protection for his customers, so why not ?

Example of first type R.N. prot. is for instance Buggy Boy by Elite. You can see this in bootsector:
***************** Protection: ** ** 'CopylockST' ** 20/05/88 ** ** (c)1988 ** ROB NORTHEN ** COMPUTING ** *****************
It is based on track load (track 0 usually, I think) and seeking specific pattern in it.

Oh yes, the CopylockST, the very first copylock version he did, but it was for R-type ST. Buggy Boy was done a bit later.

Example of second type, early version, for instance in Voyager: in bootsector:
Protection (C)1989 Rob Northen Computing. All Rights Reserved. - or later year.
Sector 6 in track 0 is with lower density (slower read). There is txt: Rob Northen Comp at start of it.
Later versions are same considering protection self, but it is made harder and harder to crack by time.

Yes the protections Rob worked on had his name buried in it. That's exact.

[AtariZoll]

Protection used by this (Kick Off 2 + WC 90) is similar to some French protections. It has fuzzy data on tracks 3-6, side 0, + some irregular sectors.
But main sign that it is not Rob Northen prot. is that code for checking is not encrypted.

[ijor]

I know that the software encryption system used by Anco is called "Cobra X-Rom". But about this protection, it's a variant of the copylock "Short" 12 sectors, but here with NFA area spanned on each 4 protection tracks.

i found back this piece of explanation dated from 2008 :

"Analyser: "Anco" Variant: When checking the images using the recently supported Copylock protection variant it was noticed that Atari ST games by Anco (we have some Kick Off 2 dumps as samples) seemed to have similar signs of protection to the recently supported Copylock format. Investigating further revealed that they indeed use a very similar protection and these games now are fully supported."

It's again the same kind of argument. You are always relying on your own naming convention. I don't know exactly what you call "Copylock short 12 sectors". Can you point to some titles using that protection, please.

Anyway, how do you know that what you call "CopyLock short 12 sectors" is related to Rob Northern in the first place? Is is the "classic" CopyLock, with Rob Northern embedded message in the very same copy protected sector that has a different bit rate? Otherwise I doubt it.

Maybe someone at Anco reworked his protection, it "could be" possible.

Everything is possible. The question is if there is any evidence of that, or at least enough hints that make it very probable.

Rob Northern always customized his protection for his customers, so why not ?

He customized the software side of the protection, and some minor details of the disk protection. The basic element, which is a sector recorded with a different bit rate was never customized.

[ijor]

Example of second type, early version, for instance in Voyager: in bootsector:
Protection (C)1989 Rob Northen Computing. All Rights Reserved.

Be careful with that. That's the software side of the protection. The software protection and the disk protection are two separate things. Sometimes his encryption routine were used on titles with a different disk protection, sometimes even without any disk copy protection at all (e.g., with protection based on content on the manual).

Actually, I suspect this might be the origin of the confusion.

Sector 6 in track 0 is with lower density (slower read). There is txt: Rob Northen Comp at start of it.

That's the key evidence. The message in the copy protected sector. Otherwise, IMHO, it is not a Rob Northern product.

[AtariZoll]

Yes, I seen cases where "Rob Northen' was written somewhere on disk, and there was no copy protection. But that was rare.
Voyager has typical second type R.N. protection - I have original disk. STX image is at Atarimania - you can check.

I think that it is very unlikely that lot of titles have written ".. Rob Northen ...", but not his protection. I traced lot of titles, and seen exactly what and how is checked. Second type was at 1989.

What confusion can be in this case ? Totally different than hundreds of R.N. protected titles .

To be 100% sure, we can try to ask him. Just to confirm what methods in which periods he used.

Looking STX of Kick Off 2 I see: as said tracks 3-6 on side 0 with fuzzy, + invalid sectors. Then up to track 44 on side 0 and 1 regular 10 sec/tr . Then no more sectors, just track images. But there is no anything loaded from there. Whole protection checking is very different from R.N. ones.

[JimDrew]

Thing is that with a copier like powercopy you can copy any copylock (even those made on atari ST), so i guess the NFA has been added to be sure that no home equipment can replicate it.

Supercard Ami (Amiga hardware based disk copier) could duplicate any strong bit (NFA) protection just using it's software-only copy mode.

[dlfrsilver]

It's again the same kind of argument. You are always relying on your own naming convention. I don't know exactly what you call "Copylock short 12 sectors". Can you point to some titles using that protection, please.

Yes of course This protection has been used on quite a number of games : The ones i remember from head :

Doctor Doom's Revenge Euro release ; Prophecy The Viking Child ; Stormlord ;

There are a truckload of other using this protection.

Anyway, how do you know that what you call "CopyLock short 12 sectors" is related to Rob Northern in the first place? Is is the "classic" CopyLock, with Rob Northern embedded message in the very same copy protected sector that has a different bit rate? Otherwise I doubt it.

Because Rob trademark is on those games, so that's impossible to miss it. But since you ask, This Copylock "Short" version spanned on the 6 first tracks of a disk is the second physical disk protection revision.

The first is as you wrote it the CopylockST, released the first time on a commercial title for Activision's R-type, with the message buried inside the game code.

The copylock "Short" 12 sectors version came after the CopylockST. After the copylock Short, the ST had the same type of copylock as the one used on amiga, in track 0 side 1 of the disk.

[Tronic]

I seem to have the same problem with Phantasie III The Wrath of Nikademus. I am trying to write Disk 1 back with 3 bombs too.

Any chance you could have a look at this too??? I imaged this from my original which is now lost
The images can be downloaded here:-

http://www.johncove.co.uk/clients/P3.rar

Thank you! I think this is the last I am having trouble with. I wonder what protection this is? I am very interested.

[dlfrsilver]

Tronic, in order to gain a maximum of space and the smallest possible files, you can crunch your dumps with 7zip. It works way way better on these kind of files than Winrar.

I'll check your dump

EDIT : both disks are modified, Disk 1 is seen as very dirty. Disk 2 looks good, but still modified.

Most of the time, This game from SSI is modified.

And i must add that this game uses a quite nice copy protection : It uses Shifted Tracks with Data over AND beyond the index. So yes basically, if i could have handy a not modified dump, i could possibly make an IPF.....

That's why out of the fact that disk 1 dump is in bad shape the explanation about the impossibility to write it back as it is.

[kodak80]

Not sure if I ever submitted this one but here is my KF RAW dump of Phantasie III:
https://mega.nz/#!UsZQlRwb!8fONeE9tyUwG ... YzitOqYCY4

[kodak80]

I seem to have the same problem with Phantasie III The Wrath of Nikademus. I am trying to write Disk 1 back with 3 bombs too.

Any chance you could have a look at this too??? I imaged this from my original which is now lost

Tronic, you can check your dumps using AUFIT batch tool. It will produce images of the disks that will show any that are obvious bad dumps. Your Phantasie III disk 1 looks bad to me using AUFIT. Disk 2 looks good.

[ijor]

I think that it is very unlikely that lot of titles have written ".. Rob Northen ...", but not his protection

They have his protection, just not his on-disk (magnetic) protection (that makes it hard to copy), only his software protection and encryption (that makes it hard to crack). Anyway I am not saying they are a lot, just that there are some.

Looking STX of Kick Off 2 I see: as said tracks 3-6 on side 0 with fuzzy, + invalid sectors.

It is not exactly fuzzy (weak bits). It is NFA. NFA usually produces some area with weak bits but this is just a collateral effect. Same thing happens with bit-rate variations, sometimes they produce weak bits, but that is not the main goal of the protection.

[ijor]

Doctor Doom's Revenge Euro release ; Prophecy The Viking Child ; Stormlord ;
...
Because Rob trademark is on those games, so that's impossible to miss it. But since you ask, This Copylock "Short" version spanned on the 6 first tracks of a disk is the second physical disk protection revision
...
The copylock "Short" 12 sectors version came after the CopylockST...

I checked that protection that you call "Copylock short", and as I suspected, I'm not sure it is copylock either. In first place, it is not 6 tracks, but 5 tracks. In second place it has NFA!

Yes, it has the Rob Northern copyright message, but not on the copy protected sectors. Only on the boot sector, or on some other area where the software protection is present. Furthermore, in some titles it shows as "Copylock ST (c)1988-90 Rob Northen".

So I think that all your arguments and reasoning fall apart.

You claimed that this "CopyLock short" protection was earlier than the classic one (slow sector on track 0). But doesn't seems to be the case. Because we see it was still used at least at 1990, when the classic CopyLock was already present by 1989. And it is not simply "used" at 1990. It has a 1990 copyright, which means it is not that they were using an older version. The version was, at least, as new as 1990.

You claimed that Rob Northern developed the NFA protection as the latest and most advanced copy protection. But we see it appeared even earlier. So again it doesn't make much sense to this protection being a Rob Northern development. Are you saying that Rob Northern used NFA, then switched to bit-rate variation, then back once again to NFA?

But then again, for me the most important fact is that there is no Rob Northern message on the actual disk copy protection. If the on-disk protection was a RN development, we would see his name (or at least his initials) on all the 5 copy protected tracks.

So this tells me, once again, that these titles have only the software side of CopyLock protection. And that the copyright message belongs to the software routines. The on-disk magnetic protection is something else.

[JimDrew]

I agree with Igor. There were several titles that pre-date CopyLock and used NFA on the Amiga.

[AtariZoll]

Considering SW side of R.N. protections: it's trademark is encrypted code, what decrypts usually line by line, and after exec. crypts back. Made hard traceable. But with Steem Debugger is really easy to trace. And as I said there is nothing of it in case of Kick Off 2 + WC 90. Code for check is not encrypted, all is visible. Especially strange considering year of release - 1990. And yes, there would be some signo of him too somewhere.
But it is always with dlfrsilver like here - he claims by some partial facts, and won't consider facts what other write after their experience.

[dlfrsilver]

I checked that protection that you call "Copylock short", and as I suspected, I'm not sure it is copylock either. In first place, it is not 6 tracks, but 5 tracks. In second place it has NFA!

It is Copylock short version. Rob Northern signature is present in most of them.

Yes, it has the Rob Northern copyright message, but not on the copy protected sectors.

Correct.

Only on the boot sector, or on some other area where the software protection is present. Furthermore, in some titles it shows as "Copylock ST (c)1988-90 Rob Northen".

Which titles did you checked ?

So I think that all your arguments and reasoning fall apart.

Not a second. They stand perfectly.

You claimed that this "CopyLock short" protection was earlier than the classic one (slow sector on track 0).

Read more carefully, i said the exact opposite. CopylockST was created for R-type from Activision. R-type was release in 1987-88 on Atari ST.

The Copylock Short version was used on games released for ST from 1989 (Dr Doom's, Stormlord, Prophecy the Viking Child (90), and so on).

You claimed that Rob Northern developed the NFA protection as the latest and most advanced copy protection.

That's your words, not mine. I never wrote nor said that.

But we see it appeared even earlier. So again it doesn't make much sense to this protection being a Rob Northern development. Are you saying that Rob Northern used NFA, then switched to bit-rate variation, then back once again to NFA?

You're basically in a mental fog !

But then again, for me the most important fact is that there is no Rob Northern message on the actual disk copy protection. If the on-disk protection was a RN development, we would see his name (or at least his initials) on all the 5 copy protected tracks.

Some games use the RNC protection, and do not show the RNC writing. This was mostly to fool the crackers, because when you announce which protection it is, the cracker knows what he is going to deal with.

So this tells me, once again, that these titles have only the software side of CopyLock protection. And that the copyright message belongs to the software routines. The on-disk magnetic protection is something else.

That's your version personal opinion. The on-disk protection used on Prophecy the Viking is the same as the one used on Dr Droom's Revenge.

Prophecy the Viking doesn't show the RNC strings, but that's exactly the same protection.

[AtariZoll]

Well, just as expected - show must go on ...
I looked R-Type . At Atarimania it is Electric Dreams release , 1988 .
To dlfrsilver:
So, dlfrsilver, please point us where can get Activision release of it, from 1987 .
It is Rob Northen early Copylock indeed, and encryption part is not so developed as in later revisions. Still, I don't see what Kick Off 2 protection has with it - pretty different.
You mean seriously that could fool, or even just slowdown some experienced cracker by omitting protection signo (writing in your words) ? 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.

[dlfrsilver]

Well, just as expected - show must go on ...
I looked R-Type . At Atarimania it is Electric Dreams release , 1988 .
To dlfrsilver:
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.

Of course

"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.

[ijor]

Some games use the RNC protection, and do not show the RNC writing. This was mostly to fool the crackers, because when you announce which protection it is, the cracker knows what he is going to deal with.

Are you serious? Do you really mean that?

What you are saying doesn't make any sense. Can you point to a single title with the "standard CopyLock" (slow sector 6 on track 0) protection, where the RN signature is not present in clear text? So why RN never tried to fool the crackers when used that protection?

Also, in most titles with the protection that you call "CopyLock short", the RN signature is present on the disk, just not on the copy protected sectors. So it would have been a very silly way to attempt to fool the crackers. The crackers knew perfectly well that the encryption was RN routine. The crackers never cared about the on disk copy protection, only about the software protection.

So this tells me, once again, that these titles have only the software side of CopyLock protection. And that the copyright message belongs to the software routines. The on-disk magnetic protection is something else.

That's your version personal opinion.

It is my personal opinion. Yeah. So my opinion is personal, but yours is authoritative and absolute?

I think it is more than obvious that you are just trying to defend a position. Nothing more. But doesn't matter. You are perfectly entitled to have a different opinion in any case. Of course you do. But then, next time when I disagree, don't say that I am perfectly wrong. Say that you have a different opinion, even when you don't have any factual evidence that proves that those protections that you call CopyLock are indeed related to RN.

[dlfrsilver]

Are you serious? Do you really mean that?

What you are saying doesn't make any sense. Can you point to a single title with the "standard CopyLock" (slow sector 6 on track 0) protection, where the RN signature is not present in clear text? So why RN never tried to fool the crackers when used that protection?

What you call standard copylock is.... inaccurate in fact. The word Copylock doesn't comply with the word "standard".

Every Revision 0 (what you call Copylock with with slow sector 6 on track 0) have the RN mark on track 0 and inside the sector. But i'm NOT talking about this one. I'm talking about the NEXT revision, called Copylock Short, which is spanned on the First tracks of the games.

The fact is Prophecy the Viking child for instance use exactly the same protection as Dr Doom Revenge, but it has No RN marking inside the sector, and not even the copylock marking on track 0.

Also, in most titles with the protection that you call "CopyLock short", the RN signature is present on the disk, just not on the copy protected sectors. So it would have been a very silly way to attempt to fool the crackers. The crackers knew perfectly well that the encryption was RN routine. The crackers never cared about the on disk copy protection, only about the software protection.

Well that's correct

It is my personal opinion. Yeah. So my opinion is personal, but yours is authoritative and absolute?

I should return you your question in fact => LOL

I think it is more than obvious that you are just trying to defend a position. Nothing more.

As everyone do, you included. YOU defend your own position. I defend mine, that's natural.

But doesn't matter. You are perfectly entitled to have a different opinion in any case. Of course you do.

Pfuuu, we're safe ! Thanks to say it

But then, next time when I disagree, don't say that I am perfectly wrong.

Look, Let's pose an evidence : i have seen all the existing copy protections existing on Atari ST, on Amstrad CPC, and also on Amiga.

You only know the ST. And this is a fact. Not any other platform, only the ST.

the experience showed me that some games while using the Rob Northern protection do not always show the RN mark, and this happens only the Atari ST with the copylock Short 12 sectors/track.

This revision of the copylock has a particularity, it does not exist on the Amiga, because it's a specific Atari ST/IBM PC copylock.
(i have stormlord for IBM PC on 3.5 disk, which use this protection.)

Prophecy The Viking Child use this protection on Atari ST, but it has no marking anywhere.

Say that you have a different opinion, even when you don't have any factual evidence that proves that those protections that you call CopyLock are indeed related to RN.

You don't have any proof either, and worse, you talk to me about a different revision of the copylock than the one i'm talking about.

Apple vs bananas.....

[AtariZoll]

OK. I don't see the point to continue this talk about why, which version and like ... Will say straight what I see as real problem in this case - what started this topic. Kryoflux team approach is it. They made some rules of preservation which are not popular among Atari people (and make no sense for SW old over 25 years). They talk with us from high in most cases. The result is that no cooperation, and they did not improve their SW as much could, so some titles can not be duplicated by user (without need to send images, waiting and so on). Reminding on some other, recent Amiga people project ?
They should choose someone with better Atari SW knowledge to deal with Atari SW images than ... you know who I'm talking about. And it is not only lack of that knowledge, but simply whole his approach and way of thinking what is just not on level - that's what I see, and I'm sure that many others here see the same.
I just can laugh on "i have seen all the existing copy protections existing on Atari ST, on Amstrad CPC, and also on Amiga." . It may be that he saw all it, of course very unlikely, but certainly did not understand and even not distinguish all them properly.

[ijor]

You're basically in a mental fog !
...
Pfuuu, we're safe ! Thanks to say it
...
You only know the ST. And this is a fact. Not any other platform, only the ST.

I am leaving this debate. You are taking this to personal levels, being ironic, aggressive and offensive. And even starting to make yourself a bit of ridiculous. How on earth you could possible know and be so certain if I'm familiar with protections on other platforms or not?

[dlfrsilver]

OK. I don't see the point to continue this talk about why, which version and like ... Will say straight what I see as real problem in this case - what started this topic. Kryoflux team approach is it. They made some rules of preservation which are not popular among Atari people (and make no sense for SW old over 25 years). They talk with us from high in most cases. The result is that no cooperation, and they did not improve their SW as much could, so some titles can not be duplicated by user (without need to send images, waiting and so on). Reminding on some other, recent Amiga people project ?

If the rules don't suit you, you're not forced to post or follow the kryoflux thread. You feel maybe they talk to you from a great high, but that's maybe because you have a very high opinion of yourself. Arrogant people just don't like when more knowledgeable people tell them what it's all about.

We don't need the kind of cooperation you talk about because we have already a Guru (IFW) for this matter. You can't replace him, and he knows more than enough to not ask for your help. He doesn't need it.

They should choose someone with better Atari SW knowledge to deal with Atari SW images than ... you know who I'm talking about.

What you don't understand, and this since the beginning is that we DON'T NEED your SW knowledge ! And i will tell you the same thing as i said to Ijor, you only know the Atari ST, and the software side !

Basically, the Atari ST uses the exact same copy protections as the Amstrad CPC and the IBM PC ! So please don't come and argue with me saying that i have no knowledge, you know you're wrong, and that's pure none sense trolling (one of your speciality btw).

The only difference is that the CPC games never used copylocks and games using NFA protected tracks. All the remaining exists and is used on CPC.

And it is not only lack of that knowledge, but simply whole his approach and way of thinking what is just not on level - that's what I see, and I'm sure that many others here see the same.

I'm not a programmer, but my knowledge is enough for preservation and working with SPS. If you're persuaded that programming knowledge is required for preserving games, you're not only wrong, you're fooling yourself.

Keep deprotecting games, and let the other people "do their job".

I just can laugh on "i have seen all the existing copy protections existing on Atari ST, on Amstrad CPC, and also on Amiga." . It may be that he saw all it, of course very unlikely, but certainly did not understand and even not distinguish all them properly.

I have seen all the possible copy protections on Amiga, CPC, and ST. Sorry

I was not trying to make an effect, that's indeed the truth. I don't need for preservation to understand in a programming way how a protection works.

That's what you think and you're wrong. Because the tool i use don't require this knowledge. I just need to know which protection is used if the tool doesn't find it, but it find the right protection in 99% of cases.

[dlfrsilver]

I am leaving this debate. You are taking this to personal levels, being ironic, aggressive and offensive.

No, not on a personal level. I just don't understand your reactions, neither those of Atarizoll.

I noticed you feel easily offended, without even be insulting or whatever. And that's a problem, because this means that someone can't discuss with you without fearing to be what you call "insulting, agressive or offensive" as you could said.

And even starting to make yourself a bit of ridiculous. How on earth you could possible know and be so certain if I'm familiar with protections on other platforms or not?

I'm not ridiculous. You're working for the Atari platform only, i've never seen you on any other, sorry if i base only what i say on what i'm "seeing".

[Tronic]

I seem to have the same problem with Phantasie III The Wrath of Nikademus. I am trying to write Disk 1 back with 3 bombs too.

Any chance you could have a look at this too??? I imaged this from my original which is now lost

Tronic, you can check your dumps using AUFIT batch tool. It will produce images of the disks that will show any that are obvious bad dumps. Your Phantasie III disk 1 looks bad to me using AUFIT. Disk 2 looks good.

OK, does anyone have a version I can write back to disk using Kryoflux that works please?