rank your "uncrackable" software protection

[mcp]

LOL
Yes it is.

Is that supposed to be an argument? Since you disagree with my statement

By your logic you should be able to break any instance of it. That's obviously not true.

you must be able to break any problem instance in that domain. How about I give you a RSA4096 public key and you factor it for me?
Quite obviously, you won't be able to do so, and I don't think anyone can arguably disagree with that (without trolling).

[Squidge]

Originally Posted by mcp

How about I give you a RSA4096 public key and you factor it for me? Quite obviously, you won't be able to do so, and I don't think anyone can arguably disagree with that (without trolling).

Whilst I agree, I don't see how that is relevant to software protection. Your analogy is like saying I let anyone download the fully registered version and say its uncrackable as the executable is encrypted by a 4096-bit RSA private key. Sure, it will take many years (maybe longer) to 'crack'.

However, make a piece of software runnable only with a license file, protect the license file with an RSA 4096-bit private key and I guarantee you it will be broken and fully registered versions available within 24 hours.

Same goes for if the license checking is built into a dongle. If you have access to the dongle, the software be made to work without it. I have done this many times for people who worry about the security of their software dongles.

[WRP]

Originally Posted by Squidge

If you have access to the dongle, the software be made to work without it. I have done this many times for people who worry about the security of their software dongles.

How about Senselock and other dongles which are built on smart card technology?

[mcp]

Originally Posted by Squidge

Whilst I agree, I don't see how that is relevant to software protection. Your analogy is like saying I let anyone download the fully registered version and say its uncrackable as the executable is encrypted by a 4096-bit RSA private key. Sure, it will take many years (maybe longer) to 'crack'.

If you read my answer in the context of the original claim that "anything made by man can be broken by man", then my answer makes sense again. It was simply a counter example to that claim, not necessarily related to copy protections in generl.