Software Deletes Files to Defend Against Piracy 544
teamhasnoi writes "Back in 2004, we discussed a program that deleted your home directory on entry of a pirated serial number. Now, a new developer is using the same method to protect his software, aptly named Display Eater. In the developers's own words, 'There exist several illegal cd-keys that you can use to unlock the demo program. If Display Eater detects that you are using these, it will erase something. I don't know if this is going to become Display Eater policy. If this level of piracy continues, development will stop.'"
Hope he likes prison (Score:5, Informative)
Re:very-bad-idea software (Score:4, Informative)
When I first read the link to the author's comments, I noticed that he doesn't actually say what will be deleted. So I was thinking maybe he deletes something that disables his own program - which wouldn't be that outrageous to me; it'd be a hassle to reinstall all the time and would discourage pirated use.
It's mentioned in the older Slashdot story, though, that he's deleting home directories. That's bad.
Also, we should note in the interests of factual correctness (something Slashdot doesn't demand) that he would delete only for cases where a pirated key was used. It doesn't say anything about incorrectly entered keys, just pirated ones. That's a little better, but I still think he's going way too far.
Re:Do you suppose it really does delete things? (Score:5, Informative)
Reading the linked discussion thread, this 'feature' was discovered when someone tried to pirate the software so they could review it against the product they were writing.
So... no, it's not an idle threat, and the author is a freaking asshole who deserves to have his reputation destroyed over this.
Re:Aren't there laws against this? (Score:5, Informative)
It IS against the law: Computer Fraud and Abuse Act [wikipedia.org] - and the penalties were increased under the PATRIOT Act.
So, why not complain and get this guy marked as a "terr'rist"? After all, what's your pr0nn^Wdata worth?
Actually... it doesn't delete your home directory (Score:5, Informative)
The article and submission build on a misunderstanding. I conducted some research of my own and I've found that it does not attempt to delete the full home directory. It only deletes the ~/Library/Application Support/display_eater/ directory, i.e. files created by the trial version of the program. In fact, the developer says that the program will delete something from the home directory, but doesn't say what.
While I didn't acquire one of the pirated serial numbers that trigger the behavior, I have disassembled the program and these are my conclusions: The deletion is done by a function destroy() at offset 0xd148 that takes a single argument specifying the path to delete. destroy is called from a single location in the program:
+276 0000d3e4 3863a020 addi r3,r3,0xa020 ~/Library/Application Support/display_eater/ +280 0000d3e8 4bfffd39 bl _destroydestroy() loops over each thing contained by this directory and deletes it. I've invoked the function in this way, and it does not delete anything since that directory does not exist on my system.
So, while this anti-piracy tactic sure won't convince any potential pirates to actually pay for the software, it is not as egregious as the summary suggests.
It would be nice if someone would verify these conclusions, perhaps using a real pirated key.
Re:Actually... it doesn't delete your home directo (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Actually... it doesn't delete your home directo (Score:3, Informative)
Or, it could be that their home directory was actually deleted -- maybe they were using an older version or destroy() function malfunctioned. It could happen. The developer has probably rarely _tested_ the anti-piracy functionality, which means that it might not behave as he thought it would. I've seen programs that always crash when the trial expires -- the developers were presumably always using the full version.
I doubt that Koingo, as serious Mac developers, would go to such lengths as to use a pirated key just to "investigate the competition". Which is why I suspect that they "embellished" their story about permanently losing data.
Either way, I could have made a mistake in my 10 minute investigation and would welcome someone else to actually try it on a dummy (non-admin) account and see what happens. Personally I will never ever install a program by this developer on a production system.
Re:Aren't there laws against this? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Aren't there laws against this? (Score:3, Informative)
You can't agree to "sign away" your statutory rights. Just like you can't "agree" to be a slave, or to sell your kids as sex toys to Michael Jackson, or to be an actor in a "snuff film."
Re:convinced me (Score:3, Informative)
iShowU [shinywhitebox.com] is my favorite video screen capture tool.
SnapZProX [ambrosiasw.com] is okay, but much too expensive. Its interface isn't as good as iShowU
I tried Display Eater a while ago, before this nonsense, and it wasn't very good. That's probably been a limiting factor in sales, which the developer interprets as piracy.
Re:convinced me (Score:3, Informative)
I remember in the previous discussion (linked in TFBlurb) the author of a particular program complained that he'd had several million downloads, but zero registrations. In his mind, all those millions of downloads were "piracy".
Well, I could have told him why no one registered his program: I'd long ago downloaded and tried it, but no way would I pay for it -- it's just not very good, in fact it's probably the most limited, most poorly designed, and least useful of the many apps in its field that I've tried. And there are a ton of better alternatives available for free.
What he didn't grok was that if you want to sell something, it's got to be at least comparable to the competition at that price point. Just because YOU made it and YOU love it doesn't mean it's necessarily something anyone else will feel is worth paying for.
There are FAR better antipiracy measures (Score:2, Informative)
First step is simple. Update your program, and update it often. Add small new features, fix bugs, fix typos, and try to update every week or two. Have a facility to autoupdate in your program, even if its just grabbing a text file from a web server. Updates make users feel that the program is well maintained by a responsive author or development team.
Second step. If you use Java or
Now, the pirate groups are forever in catchup mode. When they have a patch for version 1.2.1, 1.2.3 is available for download and fixes a number of bugs.
Yes, pirates can work on a keygen, but if you do the algorithm correctly, they most likely will be forced to patch your code, rather just than a keygen. Of course, you can take the step of online activation like Sunbelt does.
From the website.. (Score:3, Informative)
I hope the public will read this entire letter.
There has been alot of confusion regarding the copy protection of the program called Display Eater.
It is described here in:
There exists two illegal cd-keys that can be used to register the program without paying for it. When Display Eater detects these keys, it would delete your home directory.
However, this is not the case in reality. The whole purpose was to create a scare campaign. You can download, the file linked from the main page, which is now down(the link is still intact), and check it for yourself. It has http://reversecode.com/index.html [reversecode.com]
It was my hope that by creating a scare campaign, I could stop wasting time writing copy protection routines to be broken over and over. But, I was wrong, it backfired.
People started buying multiple keys, which I never intended, and in the beginning when the protection was in place, people who did not even know they had committed piracy or what piracy was were left in the dark. Legitimate users started fearing the program, which I never imagined.
A reporter called me today, and suggested that I make it free, and then have users pay for support. Or open source the program. I will consider all of these. -Reza
Re:Aren't there laws against this? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Aren't there laws against this? (Score:3, Informative)
In the UK, I believe this kind of thing falls foul of the Computer Misuse Act [opsi.gov.uk] - deleting the user's home directory in this example seems pretty well covered by the Act as being an offence.
Authors repsonse (Score:1, Informative)
Public Letter:
I hope the public will read this entire letter.
There has been alot of confusion regarding the copy protection of the program called Display Eater.
It is described here in:
There exist two illegal cd-keys that can be used to register the program without paying for it. When Display Eater detects these keys, it would delete your home directory.
However, this is not the case in reality. The whole purpose was to create a scare campaign. You can download, the file linked from the main page, which is now down(the link is still intact here), and check it for yourself. It has been this way since 2/7/07.
It was my hope that by creating a scare campaign, I could stop wasting time writing copy protection routines to be broken over and over.
It turned out to be a mistake.
People started buying multiple keys, which I never intended, and when the protection was in place, people who did not even know they had committed piracy or what piracy was were left in the dark. Legitimate and prospective users started fearing the program, which I never imagined.
A reporter called me today, and suggested that I make it free, and or open source. I plan to do both. Once the code is cleaned up, a GPL'ed version will be released.
Since the program is free, this key will activate it, until it is released as such.
display eater
reverse@reversecode.com
PROD-9PNRM6-4RPRY-JUA5D-XW20G-J0MPY-9MTWX-2L9KW-1
-Reza