rank your "uncrackable" software protection

[Syoma]

This topic is not about CodeMeter. Anyway, I said enough. You may do a research and share more results with all of us.

Originally Posted by h--

Ditto, i haven't seen anything in the "wild" protected by it, only some people claiming that it's adequate.

Not in the wild, but it is used successfully to protect some custom software.

I know this because i implemeted the protectiopn for a small company

[quosego]

Well if that program is custom and barely used then no real cracker has seen it yet, so it has not been tested against cracking. So perhaps it is not successfully protected.

[foosaa]

There will never be a software protection that will be uncrackable! If it executes it can be cracked / patched / loaded / keygenned / replicated / duplicated or whatever. 'They' can only make it harder and harder, but it's just that one has to posses the necessary knowledge or invent it and have lots of patience!

It can be me or you or any body. This is the circle of life. I am not gonna talk about ethics and bla bla, but, just emphasizing on one thing.

Don't try to outsmart reverser's. We are here to quench our thirst for knowledge and we are watching."
-
FooSaa

All media protectors(Securom, Starforce, SafeDisc(Cast), ProtectDisc, SolidShield, ActiveMark) is possible to launch/crack/bypass without original cd or activation key etc so they can't be good. Mostly likely uncrackable protection will be hardware approach with multi-threaded VM and shared context unfortunately there no such protection Imho best was Starforce 3.7 but still ...

That`s seems WinLicense&Themida very Rock and Inscrutable...
Protecting with software + obfuscation and encoding seems best way.
But all software-protection be crackable.

[greengo]

Enigma, WinLicense & Themida, Nooby.

[cybercoder]

Enigma, winlicense & themida.

[sendersu]

I don't know for sure guys what are you talking about here, but the truth is that VMP is #1 is SW protectors
that is not the ads, but a sad reality.
I don't say its not crackable, but for sure, very strong and well organized beast.

[quosego]

Well then, opinions differ.

Though VMprotect is less documented, it's hardly more difficult than Winlicense.
And definitely not as well coded as WL.

[mari0 b0ss]

VMprotect is more difficult than WinLicense ?

Examples please.

[metr0]

Is there public information available about VMProtect VM? Is there information about RISC VM?

At least the latter seems way harder to me.

[mari0 b0ss]

Sorry. I do not know if I understand correctly.

You're referring to the difficulty for non-public information or documentation.
Right?

I ask about difficulty of protections. I thought until now that was stronger WinLicense although there a lot of public documentation.

[metr0]

Oh, I see your point. Yes, the fact that WL is pretty good documented (quo, Deathway, ...) doesn't say it's less secure. Security by obscurity usually doesn't work in cryptography, why would it be any better in RCE.
Edit: Other way round, sometimes security by obscurity is all you can rely on in RCE. Disproving my own arguments, that's the way to go!

I just compared VMs from what I know about them and RISC seems to be way more confusing than VMP.

[quosego]

Definitely, the RISC VM is awesome. Well coded and most awesome, you can see the work that has gone into it. And a lot harder than anything VMP has.

But mostly actually the good stuff in VMprotect is stolen from other protections. It's heap antidump comes from Winlicense and it's CPUID comes from securom. Also it's obfuscation is retarded. It's VM is pretty OK though, they do a good job confusing you at first. And the fact it's VM exits have the same signature as their main handler is nice.

It's not bad and with the info around perhaps harder than WL, but imho it's a lot worse.