ChV. Things are coming to an end (as always:)
ZXNet echo conference «zx.spectrum»
From Yuri Lekarkin → To All 26 December 1997
Hello !
AL> If the track length protection method is used, then software
AL> copying to speckies is impossible.
VM> I’m not talking about ami, I’m not talking about software copying.
VM> I just want to say that protection by the “track length method”, in the form
VM> as it is implemented in the Format, can still be copied, although for
VM> this needs to be expanded brains :)
Vyacheslav, why did you decide that ZX-Format is protected by the “track length method”?
In terms of disk layout, everything is much simpler there (trust me!) and all of this is
elementarily copied. The trouble is that the protection in issues 4.5, 5, 6
costs the same, it’s already getting boring...
With such a frequency of publication of the magazine, it would be nice to change something in
the principle of protection...
With respect, Yuri
From Max Romanoff → To All 31 December 1997
Yuri is that you?
...why did you tell Vyacheslav Mednonogov about Re: ChV. The matter is nearing the end
(as always:) ?
YL> Vyacheslav, why did you decide that the ZX-Format is protected by the “track length
YL> method”? In terms of disk layout, everything is much simpler there (trust me!) and this was the last protection that they managed to steal from my ancient toy. Because having started, they were left with nothing to eat, and could not
further advance the defense into a sophisticated plan, with a jumping length...
YL> all this is simply copied. The whole problem is that the protection in numbers
YL> 4.5, 5, 6 is the same, it’s already getting boring...
from the 4th number, in my opinion, it’s worth checking the length of one track.
p.s. If anyone wants, I can tell you how to make hard-to-copy
protection based on different lengths. Or rather, about hardware.
Good Luck...
... MicroSoft tech support: "Remove all useful utilities from your system."
From Vyacheslav Mednonogov → To All 2 January 1998
Get Msg, Yuri!
26 Dec 97 23:13, Yuri Lekarkin reported to Vyacheslav Mednonogov about {Re: ChV. The case
is nearing the end (as always:)}:
YL> Vyacheslav, why did you decide that the ZX-Format is protected by the “track length
YL> method”?
They said ... various hackers :)
YL> In terms of disk layout, everything is much simpler there (trust me!) and
I willingly believe... But, for example, MR claimed that the third number was protected...
YL> all this is simply copied. The trouble is that the protection in rooms
YL> 4.5, 5, 6 is the same, it’s already getting boring...
It just didn’t occur to me that they abandoned the “path length” protection. And, naturally, I didn’t climb inside...
YL> With such a frequency of publication of the magazine, it would be nice to change something in
YL> the principle of protection...
This is for sure, however, note that ZXF for some reason began to gain momentum again - the 8th
number is just around the corner :)
With warm greetings, Glory!
From Vyacheslav Mednonogov → To All 2 January 1998
Get Msg, Max!
31 Dec 97 02:00, Max Romanoff reported to Yuri Lekarkin about {Re: ChV. Things are nearing
to the end (as always:)}:
MR> p.s. If anyone wants, I can tell you how to make hard-to-copy
MR> protection based on different lengths. Or rather, about the hardware.
I just remembered that in Spectrum Expert the authors promise (starting from
the second issue) a new type of non-copyable disk protection (on PC/Amiga)
Warm greetings, Slava!
From Max Romanoff → To All 2 January 1998
Vyacheslav is that you?
...why did you tell me about ChV. The case is nearing the end (as always:) ?
VM> I just remembered that in Spectrum Expert the authors promise (starting
VM> from the second issue) a new type of non-copyable disk protection (on PC/Amiga)
yeah, at a jumping length... we know... and copy! :)
Good Luck...
... What has four legs and an arm? A happy pit bull.
From Max Romanoff → To All 2 January 1998
Vyacheslav is that you?
...why did you tell Yuri Lekarkin about ChV. The case is nearing the end (as
always:) ?
VM> I readily believe... But, for example, MR claimed that the third number was
VM> protected...
no, on the 3rd there was still a simple one (a modification from the first)... And from the 4th
it seemed to have a long one. I didn’t get into it.
VM> It just didn’t occur to me that they abandoned the “length
VM> track protection.” And, naturally, I didn’t climb inside...
no, hardly... there’s nothing else! :)
Good Luck...
... C:\DOS C:\DOS\RUN RUN\DOS\RUN