![]() |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Answers;
1. The vendor daemon is designed to accept the lowest common denominator of FLEXlm license, hence it being the one reliable place for digging out the seeds. I commented on a previous thread elsewhere that a lot of implementations now explicitly check for HOSTID=ANY licenses and reject them, alternatively your target may be using the Security Builder routines, identifying lm_pubkey_verify() and checking to see if the code reaches it is a pretty good way of determining which problem your license has ;-). 2. FLEXlm's major flaw is its licensing layers backwards compatibility, that and in the marketplace FLEXlm operates (high-end CAD/CAM applications) developers are loathed to change licensing schemes and annoy customers, a lot of FLEXlm's internal functions are circa 1995-97, in fact I've seen the same bugs in several of the functions since about v5 ;-). The other reason that developers won't upgrade is one Macrovision wouldn't care to publicise, the Security Builder add-on is something like $10k, since it can be compromised with a 1-3 byte patch, I'm rather pleased Macrovision's customers aren't desperate to upgrade. I would like to add that with some work FLEXlm could also become a really good protection. Regards CrackZ. |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Finding which packer has been used | rcer | General Discussion | 16 | 11-03-2019 01:56 |
| Finding Correct EP | RaptorX | General Discussion | 2 | 02-17-2011 14:53 |
| Finding API Address | britedream | General Discussion | 5 | 10-05-2006 21:28 |
| Flexlm 7.2 LIC file use on Flexlm 9.2 display error -73 ? | hanzi | General Discussion | 9 | 07-05-2006 18:51 |