Re: OT request: Shareware anti-cracking - need info
Re: OT request: Shareware anti-cracking - need info
- Subject: Re: OT request: Shareware anti-cracking - need info
- From: "D.Walsh" <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 01:04:38 -0500
- Mta-interface: amavisd-new-2.2.1 (2004-12-22) at daleenterprise.com
In my defense......
Some of the things discussed in this message are my opinions and do not
reflect the opinions of those involved in this discussion or mailing
list.
On Jan 03, 2005, at 19:07, Tim Hewett wrote:
Folks,
In my defence I can tell you that Dale misrepresents the situation in
saying that the name of the app has not been provided. Off list
At no time to me have you disclosed the name of the app in question.
conversations have taken place and Dale was included. The situation
has been misrepresented here.
I must have been excluded from that conversation because I have
responded to all messages sent to me and none you sent to me state the
app you are looking for so your claim of my misrepresentation is
invalid.
This is not a matter to be discussed publicly on-list as it is OT.
A simple "please reply offlist" in your initial statement would have
solved this issue and I would not have responded.
That is why I asked for off list replies. Don't want to reply off list?
Your initial request was for public help, no mention of private
responses.
Of course then don't reply, that is your right. Want to help an honest
shareware developer beat people who mistakenly seem to think
that the hard work of others should be available to all for free?
Reply off list.
Please at least attempt to resist replying to this post on list. It was
sent in my defence to correct these public statements. Anything further
should be sent privately, at least then ignoring it becomes a more
viable option for me.
Since you now wish to move offlist, that is your choice and I see
nothing wrong with that but please don't expect every participant to
follow you offlist, I offered public help, if you don't accept it then
ignore my message and the matter stops there.
I've already located some distribution sources of dv backup, and your
claim that only the old version and number works is also invalid.
It seems other codes are being freely distributed and for purely
educational purposes I did look into the difficulty of bypassing your
lockout code, It wasn't difficult at all, here's some info on it:
[EDITED]
version 1.32 - 1.4 are probably not any more difficult and I see no
need to go any further since it was only an educational study of your
security measures.
The above information can result in your software being used without
any code key requirements and defeats your opportunity for income
deriving from it's use and posting any current bypass information
wouldn't be fair to you.
I have deleted all copies of this software and I have no intentions of
using it illegally.
I do recommend you change your validation scheme to be more secure and
I also suggest you make multiple tests throughout your program or look
into another solution like a USB dongle (like eMagic's Logic ~ now
Apple's) so it becomes much more difficult for people to crack and
distribute your software and taking it off the shareware list and
making it a commercial application would help your fight to prosecute
and stop illegal distribution.
PayPal and KAGI as a method of payment and waiting 24-96 hours (and you
cannot deny that in a couple of cases it has taken longer) to receive
the code are probably a contributing factor to people looking for an
alternate solution to using your software, on your purchase page you
provide no other options to purchase other than directing queries to
email@hidden, I personally make it a point to never send
payment to a third party for something I'm interested in purchasing and
if I purchase a code I expect it upon conclusion of payment but that's
just my preferences.
My consulting fee on this matter, free, reason, you're being hammered
enough with the loss of income based on the illegal distribution of
your single shareware software that I don't want to be a contributing
factor for placing you on skid row.
My point in keeping it public is to make others aware of this growing
problem and perhaps collectively come up with a more viable prevention
solution which should be discussed in the presence of those who are
writing software for the purpose of generating some kind of income from
it or perhaps you're happy with the existing scheme of things and only
want to prevent your own software distribution in which case a public
cry for assistance should have not been your avenue of choice, try law
enforcement and attorneys, they do have avenues of prosecution.
Care to push this topic/conversation further or shall we just agree to
disagree on several issues and drop it publicly and privately?
Regards,
Tim.
On 3 Jan 2005, at 23:10, email@hidden wrote:
Because you have failed to provide the name of the app in question I'm
unable to provide you with the source of it's distribution.
Like many people on mailing lists, you seem to lack the ability to
provide a short conclusive response and find it necessary to provide
information that doesn't help trace the source of your problem.
Your cloak and dagger of this conversation isn't helping you, I'm
confident that I can provide the source of distribution if I know the
name of the app in question and I am willing to discuss the matter
publicly on this list.
If you're looking for public help on this, I'm more than wiling to
assist for free, if you want private help, I'm certain there are many
private investigators who would be willing to assist you and the
yellow
pages would be a place to locate one otherwise, write to the list and
I
will respond to the list as soon as I obtain the distribution
information you are requesting.
-- Dale
-- Dale
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden