Scarface v1.00.2 *UPDATE + CRACK*

[BarryB]

The reason the Activemark EXE works on the retail is it's the same EXE just wrapped up in Activemark!

Also, a cracked Activemark EXE may not work on it's own Download version! Why? Because if the vendor has compressed any data files using the Activemark SDK, removing the Activemark protection also removes the ability to decrypt those data files, so the EXE won't work.

So a cracked Activemark EXE has more chance of running on a retail game than the download game it came from.

[DABhand]

Originally Posted by BarryB

The reason the Activemark EXE works on the retail is it's the same EXE just wrapped up in Activemark!

Also, a cracked Activemark EXE may not work on it's own Download version! Why? Because if the vendor has compressed any data files using the Activemark SDK, removing the Activemark protection also removes the ability to decrypt those data files, so the EXE won't work.

So a cracked Activemark EXE has more chance of running on a retail game than the download game it came from.

Just wrapped?

[maciozo]

not exactly. it is a wrapped exe, but obfuscated and integrated with activemark overlay. as far as i see there is no method to FULLY remove activemark to produce a virgin exe (you can strip many unuseful datas & imports though).

[DABhand]

I was wondering, I was about to say thats a pretty useless protection if its only wrapped hehehe.


Well if you have the original game and the OEP you could easily dump each section, .rdata etc and rejoin and fix the header.

[TippeX]

not quite that easy, then you have to 'pop' the files from the virtual file system (if used), fix api redirects and fix up other bits of code that have been mangled..

but all protections are essentially wrappers anyway..

[maciozo]

the key problem is dumping - it's not easy to produce a 100% compatible dump, especially to make it work under legacy system. and also comes patching. but the more you crack, the faster & the better you do it. check out another one which will be here soon

[BarryB]

I guess my use of 'wrapper' was a bit loose! As TippeX/maciozo have stated, it's more complex than a simple wrapper!