Thanks Bools eye
Runs Perfectly
Now i can play online without CD

Great Work bOOls eYe!!! Could you also send me the SD 2.70.30 loader for Age Of Mythology?

[email protected]

Thanks much!!

safedisc 2.70
 

When will be ready for download an unwrapper for sd 2.70?

Just be patient. Good things take their time.

If bOOls didn't have to keep sending loaders and answering questions it may give him more time to work on 2.70 :D

DrA.

I know bOOls eYe probably doesn't have time to reply to this cuz hes busy helping us out, but can anyone who he had sent the AOM loader to (Advan, Twisted Fate...) please send me the loader to my e-mail: pyroarcticraven**********com ? I dont want my AoM CD to get lost like my Age of Empires 2 CD did...that sucked...

Aom loader....please!
 

Hey guys, my cd drive has pretty much bitten the dust, and i really need to get back on online with aom(have a clan match =))
If anybody could send the loader to gavy44**********com, it would be greatly appreciated.

Also great thanks to people like bools eYe who make this place as great as it is.

i submitted the loader to GCW, so wait until the site is updated.

Will there be a new version of the cleaner in the near future?

don't expect a new version soon. i even doubt IF there will be a new one. v1.2.0 could be the final version...

OMG i've been going to gamecopyworld every 10 minutes or so...WHEN ARE THEY GONNA UPDATE?!?

hey bOOls eYe, will the loader work online with Ensembles Studio Online? cuz when i try that it says AOM was not installed correctly (mainly cuz it knows im using a crack)

I get a BSOD when I try to use the unwrapper or the loader. The same thing happens if I try to run a safedisc protected game w/o a CD. Is there some way I can get past the BSOD so I can create a loader?

Otherwise, in case anyone knows of an existing patch, the game in question is Medieval: Total War 1.1

Never mind, I found the patch at Siedler's.

Still get BSODs without it though. Something to think about perhaps if you're involved with this kind of stuff.

i recently burned 'mafia' and found it had sd v2.70.030, but i don't need to use a fixed exe. i must be lucky or is sd 2.70.xx really shit.

Source code?
 

I would hate to lose this powerful tool. It has helped me save
valuable download times and allowed me to unwrap executables
for games that I couldn't find a no-cd crack.

If you stop producing the Unwrapper b00lseye, why not make its
source code public? This way, your work will be continued by
someone else (hopefully), the same way you continued r!sks
work ;)

What is the new feature in SD 2.80.10 that makes it hard to
unrwap?

I would really like to see how your program works, I have read
ArthaXerXes essays on the subject but a lot of things have
changed with Safedisk in the last two years.

Hope to hear from you soon :)
thebluegr

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

it will make a difference. the sooner everyone can make a crack, the sooner Macrovision will release a new version.

i find that two weak a point to stop any arguments... specially coming from you. given the facts, cracked exe's and games out on the net... etc., what difference does it make if an unwrapper becomes available, publicly? :confused:

So, that means that there should be an unwrapper for the previous version of Safedisk. If the current version is 2.80.10, why not release the unwrapper for all versions up to 2.72.00? Plus, I don't think that versions older than 2.80 are of any concern to Macrovision - even software developers upgrade the Safedisk version used in their programs via patches.

Therefore I propose to release the unwrapper for SD versions up to 2.72.00 :D

thebluegr

Plus, don't forget cd-copying programs like Alcohol, which can beat Safedisk up to its current version :p

Let me rephrase that:
Which one would be easier, creating an OS similar to Linux or
similar to Windows?

Arguments:
- People can access the source code of Linux
- There are many papers about the source code of Linux and it's
architecture (M$ always treats several aspects of Windows as a
black box)
- Many people are working on the source code (that's why Linux
tends to have less bugs than Windows).

Now if we transferred these arguments to Safedisk...

thebluegr

OK I rest my case. I'm tired of debating over this. In the end, the fate of each program is on the hands of its creator. I just hope that there will be a new version of this excellent tool because there is nothing that even remotely resembles it. (except, of course, to do a 1:1 copy of the cds with Alcohol/Blindwrite).

No hard feelings please, I was just telling my opinion (didn't want to offend anyone or push b00ls to do something he doesn't want to do).

thebluegr

As i pointed out earlier: As long as they get released at some point its ok by me.

The AOM loader doesn't work multiplayer for v1.01. When you try connecting to ESO it comes back with "Games was installed incorrectly. Please reinstall". I've reinstalled, repatched still same thing. Singleplayer works though.

Your 3rd mirror on the site scrapped your page.

CirKutz
 

so why defeat it in the first place if your gonna keep it to yourselves? i thought the purpose of this board is to help each other out, its supposed to be a community to help each other backup the games... and part of that is creating a no cd cracked executable to retain the value of the original and thus prolong its life! Geez, if everyone thought that way then there would be no GCW!

again... what difference does it make??? so bOOls eYe's unwrapper is the same as peeps burning 1:1 copies, so why hold it and not release it? if not release it, then make public the info to defeat it! if i had the time and knew how, i'd tell the world... i know i dont just speak for myself! :eek:

these SD are a pain in the arse! if no one breaks it... then we are at their mercy, and that means they can do whatever they want! Wake up!

People should stop complaining and start reading tutorials.