New concept in software protection

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View
Most of the available protection schemes use a so called 'mounted
scheme' (the protection program adds code to your program that makes
it encrypted, compressed and debugger protected). When your program is
started this code unpacks, decrypts and adjusts your application back
to its original state.

In such a case a cracker's actions are obvious: he suppresses the
anti-debugging tricks and dumps the unpacked and decrypted application
code. Then after having disassembled and analyzed the code, he simply
needs a little patching and he gets a fully functional unprotected

What are the weak points of such protection?

Protection code added to an applications is usually more or less
standard and soon or later it becomes the subject of detailed analysis.
Once the security code is analyzed, reverse engineering of the
protected application becomes a snap. In addition there are many
automatic deprotectors that crackers can use for most popular
protection solutions.
Protected code of your application is encrypted. But before it can
be executed the protector has to decrypt it and pass the control to it.
This moment can be intercepted by an intruder so he can get the access
to the original code for analyzing/modification.

EXECryptor uses a conceptually new approach to protect software
applications. The core of the protection technology is a brand new
concept of the code transformation called "Code Morphing". This
technology protects the code on the CPU-command level. It is known the
x86 processors command system is redundant and allows the execution of
the same 'code' using various different system commands. It breaks
up the protected code into several processor commands or small command
snippets and replace them by others, while maintaining the same end
result. Thus the protector obfuscates the code not on the source level
but on the level of the CPU commands.

The Code Morphing is multilevel technology containing hundreds of
unique code transformation patterns. In addition this technology
includes the special layer that transforms some commands into Virtual
Machine commands (like P-Code). Code Morphing turns binary code into an
undecipherable mess that is not similar to normal compiled code, and
completely hides execution logic of the protected code.

Unlike other code protectors, there is no concept of code decryption
with this system  Protected code blocks are always in the executable
state, and they are executed as a transformed code. The original code
is completely lost and code restoration is an NP-hard problem.

In addition you do not have to worry about the size or speed of your
program because you don't need to transform its entire code. You have
to protect only critical parts of your code, responsible for serial
number verification, trial expiration date, and other evaluation
restrictions. The rest of application code remains intact and software
execution speed remains the same.

Below is a code sample generated by Delphi and a partial (the full
listing contains over 500 instructions) listing of the transformed

Source code :

writeln('Test OK');

After compilation

mov eax, [$ 004092ec]
mov edx, $00408db4
call  @WriteOLString
call  @WriteLn
call  @_IOTest

After the code transformation (partial):

db 3
add al, $30
call +$000025b2
jmp +$00000eec
call +$00000941
or al, $4a
call -$304ffbe9
rol eax, $14
mov edi, [ebx]
jmp +$00001738
mov ebx, eax
shr ebx, $03
push ebx
jmp +$0001b5e
call -$000001eb
jmp +$00003203
jmp +$00005df8
call +$00000910
adc dh, ah
fmul st(7)
adc [eax], al
les eax, [ecx+$0118bfc0]

Re: New concept in software protection

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I'm casting doubt on the latter. And a greeting from SoftICE to you ;-)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

What are the advantages of such "protection"?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

With all disadvantages self modifying code has. But first: please proof,
that the problem is NP hard - I cannot see that yet. Beside that code
restauration maybe is not possible at all (is the relation bijective?),
usually, it's not needed anyway.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

This is wrong. If you're "protecting" only this parts, then ignoring them
by slightly modifying the rest is very easy (as usual).

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The classical obfuscation.

If class libraries are compared to animals, MFC is the slime-warts toad.

Re: New concept in software protection

[snip spam]

Too bad your crackme got cracked, hmm?

Michael Brown
Add michael@ to ---+--- My inbox is always open

Site Timeline