In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:33:06 +0000
<3440165.S5VJatOf4U@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> SecuTech releases a Cross-Platform Software Copy Protection Solution for
> REALbasic
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | With the pride of a of cutting-edged driverless software protection solution,
> | SecuTech Solution Inc. and its technical partner Monkeybread Software
> | (Christian Schmitz Software GmbH) announce a UniKey-based cross-platform
> | software copy protection solution for REALbasic. UniKeyMBS class enables
> | REALbasic developers to use a driverless UniKey dongle to protect their
> | software. The UniKey plug-in supports Windows, MacOS X and Linux in a
> | universal format.
> `----
>
> http://www.pr-inside.com/secutech-releases-a-cross-platform-software-r759916.htm
>
> This is progress? Disablement of software?
>
It is and it isn't. The entire notion of being able to
remotely control another device (real *or* virtual [*])
though a standardized interface is probably in a state of
flux right now.
One hopes the end user gets a vote in all this.
It is interesting to contemplate the reemergence of
dongles, this time on USB. Why these would be any more
successful than their parallel-port-based brethren of two
decades ago is far from clear.
Apparently, however, Newtek is still supporting the
parallel-port variant, at least as of 2003, describing
it as a "white box" of a certain size attached to said
parallel port. (Why that color, I've no idea.)
http://www.newtek.com/support/tech/faqs/lw/paralleldongle.htm
Not that the actual technology matters. The ideal
dongle would consume very little power [+], present an
incorruptible private key (the best one I can think of
is a private key encrypted by the company's public key,
but I'd have to dig through some stuff to see how well
that'll work, and there are issues if the company's private
key is somehow compromised in that particular case), and
be checkable using a suitable public key from a server.
More sophisticated variants may include clocks -- the
technology isn't all that different from certain forms of
smart cards, conceptually -- which incorporate a pseudo-random
aspect into the private key.
[rest snipped for brevity]
[*] controlling of a virtual device is merely control of
the real device enfolding it in a fashion such
that it appears to be the real (other) device being
virtualized/emulated. At the end of the day, one
has to trust that the control panel is doing an
accurate job.
[+] it is impossible for it to consume no energy, as the
matrix within the dongle has to be probed somehow
during key inquiry. For a key of 128 bits one
might contemplate an absolute minimum of 128
electrons (maybe; quantum mechanics is a very funny
discipline!) fed through the matrix, and that's
probably unrealistic, but it does give us a lower
bound for energy consumption and power requirements,
namely 128-256 electron-volts, or 1-2 * 10^-17 joule.
If one requires the result in a microsecond that
translates into 10-20 picowatts.
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
- allegedly said by Bill Gates, 1981, but somebody had to make this up!
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
|
|
