Talk:SecuROM
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
i need info on the topic of hacking or bypassing securom 7 dvd's
"The newest versions (v4 and up) prevent 1:1 CD-R copies from being made. Certain programs can circumvent its protection, but can't duplicate it.[1]"
This is completely false! I saw duplicated CD/DVD's of games with securom 7, and CD/DVD backup images completely playable. Someone please correct this.
"This is completely false! I saw duplicated CD/DVD's of games with securom 7, and CD/DVD backup images completely playable. Someone please correct this." This is actually true. to play a duplicated DVD you need to enable emulation, and burn a special fingerprint to the dvd. The result is a playable copy, but not a 1:1 copy.
In reply to the previous comment, it is in fact possible to create images that work, but they are not true "1:1" copies as mentioned by the original comment. There are quite a few details involved, and I'll try to outline them in this comment. First, there are 3 general ways copy protection is circumvented: One way is to modify the protected content to remove protection, often delivered in packages called "cracks." However, cracks are supplementary to the original content and are cumbersome to distribute (partialy due to their questionable legality). Also, cracks may conflict with future vendor patches. Thus, although applicable in some cases, cracks are not a all-around solution.
Another way that copy protection is circumvented is through some form of emulation. The majority of the original content is copied traditionally, while the parts which are checked by the protection is storied in a separate manner that varies between implementation. Then, helper software of some sort will use the separate data to make it appear to the copy protection that it is not a copy. In the case of securrom 4.7 and above, the data density is measured for the entire disc and then emulated. Common applications such as Alcohol and BlindWrite are capable of reading and storing this information. Also, the density information can often be downloaded per-content. Then, many virtual drives emulate the information. However, the cevat is that an additional helper application is necessary. Cracks have the weakness of being per-content while this methodology is per-protection. Additional helper application are sometimes as cumbersome as cracks however.
Actually 1:1 copies ARE possible of all securom games, but burning them back to a disc in original format is where the problems come in, you can create the image of the software perfectly on your HD, but burners cannot replicate the way its burned, so burning the image file to a disc will still keep it 1:1 but burning the information onto the disc (as it comes on the original) will not be a 1:1 However im not bothering updating wiki these days as its rapidly becoming a pile of shit, too many admins who like to use their power to insert POV all over the place or simply keep information off wiki that makes something they like, look bad. Now, you are probably wondering what those 2 paragraphs were for. Well, they are necessary for an accurate description of what "1:1" means and what the 3rd method is. 1:1 means to create a copy that is exactly the same as the original. It can also be known as a "generational loss." Traditionally, "1:1" refers to copies that can be used in the same manner as the original (ie, no crack/helper application is necessary). This is confusing for people who mix up "indistinguishable by the copy protection" and "the same as the original." For example, a common way to bypass safedisc 2 is called "amplifing weak sectors" which also results in functionally the same thing, is not exactly the original. In the case of securerom 4.7 and above, there have been tools for quite some time to alter a normal image such acts like the original copy (insert bogus sectors to alter the apparent density).
Thus, it's possible to create an image that "just works." However, these are never "1:1" copies. I hope this clarifies some things. Oh also, there aren't any generic cd burning tools such as Alcohol, clonecd, etc. that does this for you. If you are doing these kinds of modifications, you know you are doing them (referring to securerom types). 68.48.32.184 20:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rootkit
Why no mentions of SecuROM using rootkits? Especially with BioShock. 69.182.52.67 08:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- added 194.71.244.75 14:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The language in the part about the rootkit looks like it was written by the company that makes securom itself in the way it repeats the same point and lacks the possibility of securom being rootkit-like, I am editing it to be more neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.7.174 (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
securerom by definition isn't a rootkit, people should read up on what a rootkit actually is. Markthemac (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It is a rootkit by definition.You seem to be repeating SecuROMs line which has been refuted by many security professionals. Lets look at the definition in connection with the facts.
"Rootkit: (N), A type of Trojan that keeps itself, other files, registry keys and network connections hidden from detection." The null registry keys, hidden network traffic, and malformed files that can not be removed by windows all fit this part of its description.
"It enables an attacker to have "root" access to the computer, which means it runs at the lowest level of the machine." Securom runs at ring0 and effectively has kernel level access rights to the OS. This is how it blocks hardware or software. Although it is true that it also has ring3 processes the root of the application is on ring0.
Lets not forget that SONY, who is responsible for SecuROM also lied about their previous DRM by saying it was not a rootkit and were found incorrect in court. Their statements and those of secuROM should be considered highly suspect. --Cuberhobo (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuberhobo (talk
[edit] Legality
It is also worth discussing the legality of this. Sony was in trouble due to their XCP software[1]. They are apparently in direct violation of that ruling with their implementation of Securom. The ruling stated the following:
“Installations of secret software that create security risks are intrusive and unlawful. Consumers’ computers belong to them, and companies must adequately disclose unexpected limitations on the customary use of their products so consumers can make informed decisions regarding whether to purchase and install that content.”[2]
--87.237.219.43 (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
