if you have a good burner that corrects EFM encoding ("2 sheep"-burner), you shouldn't have any problem.

i have a LiteOn 40125S

Re: Source code?
 

i will never release the source code, as it would help Macrovision. i'm sure they have disassembled my tool, but it's harder to analyse it without the source, isn't it ? ;)

yep... you can find lots of information about SD1, but almost nothing about SD2.
i think the few people who are able to crack the latest SD versions, have understand that they crack against themselves if they release an unwrapper. as soon as there's an unwrapper for a new version available, Macrovision will update their protection. only quite small changes, but for every new version you have to create a new unwrapper.

why do these companies even bother with protections anyway? i mean there's heaps of people out there that can find a way past them so why bother, i know i wouldn't

OK, point taken about the source code

Why don't you make an essay on SD2 then? Not a lot of people
have information about it as you said, and an essay would not reveal your program's inner workings

thebluegr

Macrovision doesn't need your source.
 

Macrovision doesn't need your source or even to disassemble your tool. They already know all the ways to unwrap their own stuff since they wrote it. They know the vulnerabilities of their system, and they also know that with enough time and effort others will discover them. That is why they constantly change their protection. Regardless of what you do, Macrovision will constantly revise its protection. You only hurt the user community by withholding it.

Rather than focusing on a keyless unwrapper, I would like to see a tutorial or utility which makes use the original CD-ROM. I think that is the inherent weakness of these copy-protection systems. The key to decrypt them is widely available since it is embedded in the original CD. There is no real need to guess it.

why make it easy for Macrovision? You don't have to show them exactly what you have done to reverse their protection

"oh the nasty hackers set a breakpoint there??!! Well, we'll fix that in the next version which we'll release tomorrow"

Please excuse my lame attempt to put some sarcasm here :D

It's already easy for them.
 

It is already easy for them. They have already obsoleted Bool's unwrapper without his code. So, he should share his code and knowledge with other like-minded users. Many heads are certainly better than one.

The user community will always be playing catch-up because the copy-protection developers do not sit on their products. The developers certainly realize that any protection can be broken especially when the key for the protection is distributed with it. The only chance users really have to counter this continual change to the protection is through collaboration, and that requires sharing of knowledge and resources. As talented as individuals like Bool are, there are dozens of developers who are just as talented working full-time with tremendous resources behind them to create and revise these protections. A "lone wolf" mentality will not be successful in this situation, and we are seeing the results of that right now.

Although you make good points hugh I think that it's mostly opinions, not guaranteed facts.

I agree it's *not* a good idea to have the lone wolf mentality in this case, but there are a few things one must consider.

First, it is up to bool and we should respect him for that. Whether or not he continues for whatever reason should not be a call for the community to *thumbs down* the move. If we all liked his work, isn't it polite to give him breathing room and let him off the hook?

Secondly, who *knows* if bool is truly a lone wolf? :)

As far as I've seen he's pretty social and actually finds time to answer questions and emails. ;)

First: no, i'm not a "lone wolf". So far, some people have been very helpful to me.

Second: i have never said that i will definitely stop with this project. i only said that you will have to wait for support for new versions. in case you may be interested: i do have an unwrapper for Safedisc 2.70.30 and 2.72.00 and a half-automatic one for 2.80.1x, but it would be very stupid to release them now, for the reason i have explained in a previous post. i will think about releasing them when Safedisc 3.60 is out :p.

Cracks are available for most games anyway.
As long as it gets released at some point for games that no one makes cracks for thats fine.

No need to wait.
 

There is absolutely no reason to wait on those versions then as they are already obsolete.

More is needed.
 

While that is currently true (depending on your definition of "available" and "most"), I'd like to see more people working on the problem so that the number of available cracks is closer to "all" versions of "all" games. Copy-protection is getting more prevalent and more evolved every day, and the only way to counter it is with alot more people working on the problem.

Macrovision has moved on.
 

From a useage standpoint, those versions are obsolete. New games won't be released which use them. Macrovision is already up to at least v2.80 of Safedisc since the latest games use that. Older versions are only used for updates to games which have already been released and even then some publishers release the updates using the latest version of Safedisc instead of using the one originally used on the game when it was released.

I don't understand the logic that an unwrapper for a SD version should be released when this version is obsolete. SoftICE will always exist to unwrap games and there will always be sites that have nocd cracks. So what is the point? Macrovision already know that the current version of their protection has been defeated, so what difference will this tool make to them? Probably none.

thebluegr