Sport Bikes banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

* * WARNING TO FILE SHARING Peeps * *

3K views 71 replies 32 participants last post by  Fred 
#1 · (Edited)
The music program napster or what ever it's name is is using DRM in it's files and some of these files are also being spread with file sharing programs. That's windows Digital Rights Management licenseing scheme. When the alloted time runs out on the media you got from your pay for mp3 music system thing the DRM will delete the file off your drive!

It happene'd to the webmaster of a windows tech site! Here's a link to the story. In his case it wiped his entire music folder out! --> http://www.bit-tech.net/column/14/
 
#28 · (Edited)
thats fine. But the actual encrypted code you need to defeat is in the FILE not the player. It won't work.


Apparently you have never dealt with DRM and any Windows Media File. Try encrypting your mp3's with the Licensing management BS that is in windows media player. Then send a buddie one of your mp3's. It ain't gunna play and no matter how good a hacker he/she may be it aint gunna play......

Thats why banks and other institutions use 128bit encryption. It aint been broken yet. Its mathematically impossible or dam near to do.... and every one is generated string of random characters and numbers written to the file and only made for YOUR comp and YOUR comp only.

You could spend a lifetime trying to find it and IF you did it would only work on that one file and on your comp only!

Reformat your HD with the mp3's safely on a different drive, then reinstall winbloz. Try said mp3's, they will not play because the unique identifier was on the formatted disk.
I lost over 4000 mp3's to this. I know what I'm spewing here.
How many movies/mp3's ya got? LOL I have over 3000 mp3's lets do the math...... fuck it I aint got the patience to attempt and figure out it will take me 3000 lifetimes to listen to my music...... say no to digital licenses and DRM. :p
 
#29 ·
ZeuSeason said:
What gives anyone the right to control 'my' computer.....and I really don't give a shit if some rich big-wig cat is loosing money because people obtain media other than purchasing it.
you control your computer, but not the software. Go back and re-read your license agreement (the "I Agree" box you clicked when you installed almost anything, including windows) and it will say they grant you the right to use the software, but it is still thiers. That license can be revoked as well...
 
#31 ·
Gixxer_Six2003 said:
Kazaa sucks ass. Nothing but spyware and viruses to be had there.

Boy ya got that soo right. The only kazaa to use is the lite one but even then your connecting to the wild west... home of rampant viri and mis-labled files.... I used to preach up and down kazaa this k that. Then I found DC++ it has a very steep learning curve compared to kaz... but once you figgure it out it's like going to file heaven! :eek: Espeially if you get a copy of Rev Connect DC++. Rev Conect totally rips anything Ive tried a new pie hole....

It's a re-written DC++ client fixing DC++'s worst problem, it's a single source downloading tool. That means only one source per file. Luckily there are loads of people with T-1 and T-3 lines in the big hubs that you can get some smokin speed from. Still if you consider connecting to 3-6 sources for the file off as many T connects and if you got the soed you can get a full length movie with near DVD quality in about the time it takes to watch it....

Odd thing about DC++ net hubs the videos are all just exceptional quality. I have Never gotten a mislabled file or a bug infested file in over 2 years of using it. Almost always a you can find the latest new movies or games a day after there released. I had The Day After Tomorrow the day it was released. Some other movies I'll get a screener, way before the theaters have it. Can't tell what you might find. But I will say this it has always been what it says it is. You get caught with a bs file and bang your out the door so fast you need to look at the log to see WTF.... :D <end salez pitch DC++> :D
 
#35 ·
Baldman said:
This will not 'fly', as it is a violation of the Constitution AND destruction of personal property.
Actually...it might. You know those licenses you agree to but never read? yeah, they all include hold-harmless and indemnification clauses...meaning you can't do jack about it.

They state you don't actually own the software, just a right to use it. So if it gets deleted from your computer, well...its not your software anyways.

Follow so far?

Will someone crack ANY kind of DRM/trusted computing/anything else? Sure thing, its only a matter of time. That's why i'm proud to straddle the fence...i've been on both sides of computer security, and still am. Always will be too...just won't let the boss find out :cool:

As far as 128-bit encryption not being crackable, it is. It's actually been de-regulated for export. It just takes a while. MILSPEC encryption is now between 512 and 1024-bit.
 
#36 · (Edited)
Krazy Hawaiian said:
They ain't no work around to that, that is exactly what MS made the thing for. it's a code encrypted directly into the media file. After a set time period the license runs out and the file will not play. Some versions apparently delete themselves when the expiration is past.

Thats not true. One thing about computer code is; if it can be coded it can be reverse engineered. always. same as anything else, if you can build it, it can be taken apart. It's just a matter of time before someone is determined enough to sit down and create a crack/work around for it. and don't ever believe that any kind of computer security is 100% secure.

ChloroFiend is indeed correct about EULAs, but I think it's shakey ground having an EULA issued for a digital music file, It's not exactly software that performs a function, it's code that has a function performed on it.
 
#38 ·
Hello friends
I i used to get some shareware programs and when the time limit was getting close, say 2 weeks i would move my clock date back a week or so so i could use the program more.
I am sure that they have taken that into count tho.
Later
Michael Hansen
 
#39 ·
You guys just dont understand it. LMAO cracks are already becoming the death of computing. Some software is a timebomb. you attempt to crack it it goes poof and yer comp is dedmeat. and you think the giant MS dont know how to stick it up yer ass...... open yer eyes and see the light. otherwise your heading for a terrible suprise. I'm only the messenger not the evil one.


Were heading toward a "new" millenium and it don't look none too rosy either. You can take yer crack and smoke it. Pretty soon you won't be able to fart without being forced to pay a fine for deterioating the ozone layer........ :D
 
#40 ·
deputy963 said:
How about a DC++ tutorial so w don't have a steap learning curve??

What a great idea!



How trying to *read*.... it's soooo simple *open* DC and click *help* and *read*... might be of some assistance. I can point you in the direction. It's you that needs to get there.... :D remember with most software, the *keyword* is *help* oh and reading. :banned
 
#41 ·
Krazy Hawaiian said:
How trying to *read*.... it's soooo simple *open* DC and click *help* and *read*... might be of some assistance. I can point you in the direction. It's you that needs to get there.... :D remember with most software, the *keyword* is *help* oh and reading. :banned
Thanks for the informative pointers to ease the steep learning curve :ar
 
#42 · (Edited)
Krazy Hawaiian said:
Some software is a timebomb. you attempt to crack it it goes poof and yer comp is dedmeat.
I've seen you state completely unsubstantiated remarks on several occassions. Just this once, point us to a piece of software that elicits this behavior you describe. Cite your source(s). I'm interested in seeing what software supposedly "poofs yer comp" when cracked. Save me the trouble of Snopes'ing it before hand so I don't have to. I'm entertained to read your posts everytime you say, "spoofing proggy". I'm not sure if you're eluding to IP spoofing or merely HTTP proxy environments, but it's technologically comical to watch you talk of it, none the less.

Microsoft has touted trusted computing for much longer than Longhorn has been on the wire.

I can assure you they will or already have a tiny little cookie implanted on your os telling them everything they want to know about you and your comp... Did you know that the government spooks have the trchnology to watch you from your monitor on a connected comp? It isn't any hi res shit but I wouldn't reccomend doing any illegal activity in front of a connected comp.......
Your technology conspiracy theories are mildly amusing. I hate to burst your bubble, but your little rumor is most certainly just that. Video monitors do not possess the abilities you describe. To believe otherwise is an excercise in complete idiocy. Do you look over your shoulder and the mysterious black helicopters you claim are watching you, too?

I ain't paranoid. I am just stating the facts...
No. You're doing what you always do in spewing forth unsubstanciated garbage, continually. I'll bet you even forward chain letters. You're not stating facts, you're stating these little theories of yours; that you've conjured out of your own dilusions, heard someone talk about who heard from someone that someone said something...or otherwise are the main follower of Internet rumors.

Thats why banks and other institutions use 128bit encryption.
No we don't. 128 doesn't meet regulatory requirements. Not that you'd know that or have any experience or knowledge about that. But, that is simply the norm for you; talking about things you've absolutely no clue about.

It aint been broken yet.
Yes it has. Long ago.

Its mathematically impossible or dam near to do....
No it isn't. But, damn funny watching you talk about it as if it were. It's called, "Clue", you need one.

and every one is generated string of random characters and numbers written to the file and only made for YOUR comp and YOUR comp only.
I find it amusing you think encryption algorithms are based in randomness. Very cute. You'll excuse me if I don't seem interested in listening to your uneducated ramblings on encryption hashing; one-way or otherwise.

I'm only the messenger not the evil one.
The only problem is that your message is full of inaccuracies and based largly in your own ignorance in the face of attempting to appear knowledgable of which you speak. I find your ramblings technically amusing.

Thank you.
 
#45 ·
Look at this wonderful thread... and me without my popcorn smiley!! How embarassing! I feel so naked without it!!!!

Insert popcorn smiley Here X ................... Here X................... and Here X.......................... Heck why not here too X....
 
#47 · (Edited)
TheWraith said:
I've seen you state completely unsubstantiated remarks on several occassions. Just this once, point us to a piece of software that elicits this behavior you describe. Cite your source(s). I'm interested in seeing what software supposedly "poofs yer comp" when cracked. Save me the trouble of Snopes'ing it before hand so I don't have to. I'm entertained to read your posts everytime you say, "spoofing proggy". I'm not sure if you're eluding to IP spoofing or merely HTTP proxy environments, but it's technologically comical to watch you talk of it, none the less.

Microsoft has touted trusted computing for much longer than Longhorn has been on the wire.



Your technology conspiracy theories are mildly amusing. I hate to burst your bubble, but your little rumor is most certainly just that. Video monitors do not possess the abilities you describe. To believe otherwise is an excercise in complete idiocy. Do you look over your shoulder and the mysterious black helicopters you claim are watching you, too?



No. You're doing what you always do in spewing forth unsubstanciated garbage, continually. I'll bet you even forward chain letters. You're not stating facts, you're stating these little theories of yours; that you've conjured out of your own dilusions, heard someone talk about who heard from someone that someone said something...or otherwise are the main follower of Internet rumors.



No we don't. 128 doesn't meet regulatory requirements. Not that you'd know that or have any experience or knowledge about that. But, that is simply the norm for you; talking about things you've absolutely no clue about.



Yes it has. Long ago.



No it isn't. But, damn funny watching you talk about it as if it were. It's called, "Clue", you need one.



I find it amusing you think encryption algorithms are based in randomness. Very cute. You'll excuse me if I don't seem interested in listening to your uneducated ramblings on encryption hashing; one-way or otherwise.



The only problem is that your message is full of inaccuracies and based largly in your own ignorance in the face of attempting to appear knowledgable of which you speak. I find your ramblings technically amusing.

Thank you.

Let's take a small timeout. Here's a small vacation to clear your head and learn to play nice:
 

Attachments

Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top