Timeline for Can I use SHA1 as license key?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 27, 2013 at 17:45 | history | edited | e-sushi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Converted title into question.
|
| Sep 20, 2013 at 13:24 | vote | accept | MindStormer | ||
| Sep 20, 2013 at 12:58 | comment | added | Hendrik Brummermann | On Security.SE, I expect most answers to deal with the ease at which the program can be patched to jump over the check. | |
| Sep 20, 2013 at 12:30 | answer | added | hunter | timeline score: 6 | |
| Sep 20, 2013 at 12:11 | review | Close votes | |||
| Sep 25, 2013 at 18:00 | |||||
| Sep 20, 2013 at 11:55 | comment | added | rath | This is a better fit for Sec.SE | |
| Sep 20, 2013 at 11:31 | comment | added | Thomas | (note this is why most hardcore modern DRM is done through user accounts and remote validation and, for ultimate control, remote content distribution) | |
| Sep 20, 2013 at 11:31 | review | First posts | |||
| Sep 20, 2013 at 11:55 | |||||
| Sep 20, 2013 at 11:28 | comment | added | Thomas | It's usually even simpler: most "stand-alone software" validation can be defeated by simply hooking into whatever code does the key validation, and replacing it by "this key is valid" (regardless of the key, of course). Unless said key is going to be used at some subsequent point in the program (e.g. as some authentication token for interaction with some remote server), that's it - you've "cracked" the software product, without even caring what validation mechanism was involved. I think you need to detail your specific requirements a bit more. | |
| Sep 20, 2013 at 11:12 | history | asked | MindStormer | CC BY-SA 3.0 |