Mar 20, 2015 Use MakeDongle to create a USB dongle that allows protected Mac, Windows or Linux software to run.
Dec 6, 2013 - Software protection is not any different, and by adding hardware via a dongle. JZ 00618496; RUN APPLICATION IF DONGLE IS ATTACHED. Yes and No: it won't stop thieves who will break a window to get into the house. I have a software with an maxim ibutton usb dongle, can you tell me how can i emulate the dongle. The software come with a machine we are selling, and i need a copy of software to instruct to my costumer in use, and resolution of problems. Oct 11, 2017 - Try to run any kind of activation, wait until you get an error message (e.g. 'no activation dongle attacked'), find references to this string and start. USB keys used for software protection are often not that easy to bypass, and the.
Or Linux Software with a USB Dongle. USB dongle that grants a license to run protected software on the. A dongle without additional software can be. A software protection dongle is a tiny hardware device connected to a computer I/O. Software without a dongle will either not run completely or will operate in. Jul 31, 2020 An iLok® is one example of a dongle that can handle multiple licenses. It is a USB device that can hold up to 100 licenses for iLok®-protected software. ILok® copy protection is widely used by makers of digital audio and video software, including Mark of. May 07, 2010 First totally dumb thing: The software is specifically designed to work with the cnc router, so I cannot fathom why it needs to be protected by a dongle. So I run the software in a virtual box.
no, thats why there is software for the 3g and the 3gs. Read More
because it is used in windows based small application ao thats why it is called as utility software. Read More
thats millions of pounds of software no you cant buy it Read More
i dont know. thats what im asking you. lol Read More
Garageband really :/ thats the best i know Read More
it has no muscles thats how it can function Read More
nope no,thats the flow of nutrients throughout the body. Read More
BlaBla thats a silly question !!!!! the answer NO Read More
I'm not sure but, it can make your computer quite slow . If you have a software that protects your computer from viruses then thats good (y) Read More
There is no clear answer of your question, but as per my knowledge excel represent calculation thats why this software named MS excel. Read More
A browser is one type of software that is necessary to be able to access the World Wide Web. Internet Explorer is an example of a browser. Read More
Icons! I'm taking a graphic design class and thats what it said in my book Read More
None - thats what the (non) Prefix is referencing to it is without. Read More
I dont know. Thats what your supposed to tell me Read More
yes if you put on the thing thats on the longstrike Read More
I think No. Because buffer cache is a part of kernel and kernel is a software entity thats why buffer cache is also a software entity. However the buffer and the cache both are hardware entity separatly. Read More
Thats impossible to end in q without 'u' Read More
man cannot live without society..thats why it is a social animal Read More
Avocado seeds they only need water THATS ALL Read More
Get four balls than strikes.thats it! Read More
You start weak and become fit. Thats the whole point really.. Read More
Well, if you want to be a bit of a jerk, you can pirate it. But thats illegal, so don't. Read More
You don't eat it, thats how. If you are desperate to eat it, you need to chew. Read More
YES GO TO GOOGLE AND TYPE IN DINER DASH WITHOUT DOWNLOADING.IT WILL GIVE YOU ONE WITHOUT DOWNLOADING.I THINK THATS AWESOME!! Read More
Well it is hard to use and you have to do lots of work on it and to get the full software you have to pay $599 and thats just for one computer. If i was you i wouldn't choose it at all :) Read More
try going to putlocker.com thats where i watch everything Read More
thats easy first check his relationship status on facebook! Read More
Have you seen Star Wars or answerd a rubiks cube? Thats the answer. Read More
You can use a blow dryer by twisting your hair and blowdryer it thats all I know Read More
If u see the video she lips sings and it never came out thats a fake song Read More
No only through an event and thats long gone. Read More
If you don't want to change your fantage username just its just why you know how its a fantage username thats and thats what it is Read More
Limewire was a P2P software shutdown by the government. It was used to share files with each other and thats legal. However most peoples used it to share illegal files like movies and music. It was a very popular software so many of the files got infected by harmful software. It's not possible to download this program anymore. Read More
u can update the phone using the nokia software updater available internet.,.,.,. it wil reinstall and update ur nokia phone.,., thats it Read More
If you ask him a question and their pupils get bigger than they tend to think your attractive, thats the only for sure body language one i know. You could ask a friend but thats not definite. Read More
After rehab, Demi Lovato thought that leaving the show would be best for her, so Disney ended the show. Thats why they opened up so random ( Thats the show that was in Sonny with a chance in it) WITHOUT her. Its sad! Read More
She's addicted to drugs.Or kind of feel good when with drugs. Thats addiction. Read More
a week and two days. we are not sure if its the right answer, but oh well Hilary says thats the answer Read More
The software works under Windows XP to Windows 8th To activate an Internet connection is required. The trial version is fully functional. Serial number pdf to excel 3.3. The use of the trial version is time limited.
I have read all the existing discussions on piracy and hardware support, so this is not the same old question. I have a new twist on this old discussion. You can now purchase dongles for USB that allow you to put some of your important code into the dongle. If you have a complex algorithm and you put it into the dongle, someone would have to reverse engineer the contents of the dongle. If they tried to spoof the dongle, as was possible in the past, this would not work. All they can see is that data goes into a 'black box' and result data comes out. It is no longer a matter of finding a jump true/false to bypass a license check in the source code.
Dec 6, 2013 - Software protection is not any different, and by adding hardware via a dongle. JZ 00618496; RUN APPLICATION IF DONGLE IS ATTACHED. Yes and No: it won't stop thieves who will break a window to get into the house. Avoid Dongle Disasters. Without requiring an Internet connection. Dongle-protected software will only run on the machine that has the dongle.
Perhaps a mathematician with a lot of idle time on his hands could eventually reverse it, but that is an extreme level of interest! The other option is that the hardware dongle itself would need to be hacked. There are many protections against this built in, but this is probably the most effective approach.
So I want to take a scenario and see if I've missed something. I put the important part of my algorithm into the dongle to protect it. 6 doubles and 1 int go into the dongle, 1 double and 1 int are returned. This happens for thousands of data points. This is one of several functions of similar complexity. A hacker can see the rest of my assembly code (which I do as much as possible to obfuscate), but lets assume it is easily hacked. My question is, how hard is it to break into the dongle to access my assembly code in this proprietary hardware? Let's take as an example this companies product: http://www.senselock.com
I am not interested in lectures on how I'm inconveniencing customers and should open source my product, please. I am looking for a technical discussion on how a software/hardware engineer might approach extracting my assembly object from such a device. And I am not asking in order to hack one, but to know how much hassle I have as my discouragement against tampering. I know if there is a will, there is always a way. But at first glance it looks like it would take several thousand dollars worth of effort to bypass this scheme?
Given the response so far, I am adding some more specifics. The dongle has the following property, 'Access to the chip is protected by PIN, and the maximum re-tries is pre-set by software developers. For instance, under a dictionary attack, once the number of re-tries exceed the pre-set value, the chip will trigger a self-locking mechanism'. So to access the chip and thus the code inside it, you have to know the PIN, otherwise after let's say 10 tries you will be locked out. I personally can't see any way anyone could compromise this system. It doesn't matter what goes in or out, what matters is what runs inside the dongle ARM processor. Physical forced access would destroy the chip. Electrical access would require the PIN, or the chip locks up. How else could it be compromised?
I pretty much agree with your point of view that all dongles could be hacked, it just the matter of time and cost. If your encryption scheme is well-designed the EAL 5+ chip should be secure enough to prevent your software form malicious attacks.
And I think if you can READ the dongle it's probably means you already hacked the dongle, or it proofs there is a fatal vulnerability in the encryption scheme.
BTW, the link you give above is not work. Are you referring to this dongle? http://www.senselock.com/en/productinfor.php?nid=180&id=142&pid=
Various software companies distribute their software with hardware security, usually a dongle which must be mounted in order for the software to operate.
I don't have experience with them, but I wonder, do they really work?
What is it that the dongle actually does? I think that the only way to enforce security using this method, and prevent emulation of the hardware, the hardware has to perform some important function of the software, perhaps implement some algorithm, etc.
Clearly Peter has addressed the main points of proper implementation. Given that I have - without publishing the results - 'cracked' two different dongle systems in the past, I'd like to share my insights as well. user276 already hints, in part, at what the problem is.
Many software vendors think that they purchase some kind of security for their licensing model when licensing a dongle system. They couldn't be further from the truth. All they do is to get the tools that allow them to implement a relatively secure system (within the boundaries pointed out in Peters answer).
What is the problem with copy protection in general? If a software uses mathematically sound encryption for its licensing scheme this has no bearing on the security of the copy protection as such. Why? Well, you end up in a catch 22 situation. You don't trust the user (because the user could copy the software), so you encrypt stuff or use encryption somehow in your copy protection scheme. Alas, you need to have your private key in the product to use the encryption, which completely contradicts the notion of mistrusting the user. Dongles try to put the private key (and/or algorithm and/or other ingredients) into hardware such that the user has no access in the first place.
However, since many vendors are under the impression that they purchase security out of the box, they don't put effort into the correct implementation. Which brings me to the first example. It's a CAD program my mother was using. Out of the knowledge that dongles connecting to LPT tend to fail more often than their more recent USB counterparts, I set out to 'work around' this one. That was around 2005.
It didn't take me too long. In fact I used a simple DLL placement attack (the name under which the scenario later became known) to inject my code. And that code wasn't all too elaborate. Only one particular function returned the value the dongle would usually read out (serial number), and that was it. The rest of the functions I would pass through to the original DLL which the dongle vendor requires to be installed along with the driver.
The other dongle was a little before that. The problem here was that I was working for a subcontractor and we had limited access only to the software for which we were supposed to develop. It truly was a matter of bureaucracy between the company that licensed the software and the software vendor, but it caused major troubles for us. In this case it was a little more challenging to work around the dongle. First of all a driver had to be written to sniff the IRPs from and to the device. Then the algorithm used for encryption had to be found out. Luckily not all was done in hardware which provided the loop hole for us. In the end we had a little driver that would pose as the dongle. Its functionality was extended so far as to read out a real dongle, save the data (actually pass it to a user mode program saving it) and then load it back to pose as this dongle.
Conclusion: dongles, no matter which kind, if they implement core functionality of the program to which they belong will be hard to crack. For everything else it mostly depends on the determination and willingness to put in time of the person(s) that set out to work around the dongle.As such I would say that dongles pose a considerable hindrance - if implemented correctly - but in cases of negligence on part of the software vendor seeking to protect his creation also mere snake oil.
Take heed from the very last paragraph in Peters answer. But I would like to add one more thought. Software that is truly worth the effort of being protected, because it is unique in a sense, shouldn't be protected on the basis of customer harassment ( most copy protection schemes). Instead consider the example of IDA Pro, which can certainly be considered pretty unique software. They watermark the software to be able to track down the person that leaked a particular bundle. Of course, as we saw with the ESET leak, this doesn't help always, but it creates deterrence. It'll be less likely that a cracker group gets their hands on a copy, for example.
Let's make a couple of assumptions. Software is divided into functional components. Licenses are for functional components within that software package. Licenses can be based on time, on version or on a number of uses, i.e you may use the functionality until a set point in time, you may the functionality of the version you purchased or some minor derivative of it or you may use it a number of times. There are two main scenarios you have to solve, where an attacker doesn't have access to a license and where he does.
Attacker with no license
The first scenario is where your attacker does not have access to a valid license to your product. This problem is easy to solve. Simply assign a separate encryption key to each of the functional licenseable parts of your software. Encrypt each functional part with the encryption key designed for that part. Now you can distribute your software without worry of someone being able to decrypt functions they have not licensed since you never send them the key.
Attacker with access to license
The second scenario, which is much harder to solve, is when your attacker has a valid license to your software but he either wants to redistribute the functions he has licensed or to extend his license time wise.
Now you need a reliable time source, this can be solved by:
If your license is based on versions you actually have an attacked who does not have access to a license because your key derivation function for the functional unit takes both the identifier of the functional unit and the version of it as input.
So once you have separate keys for each functional unit your licenses basically becomes a matter of distributing symmetric keys so that they can be sent to the dongle. This is usually done by embedding a secret symmetric key in the dongle, encrypting the license decryption keys with the shared secret key and then signing the encrypted key update files. The signed update files are then passed to the dongle which validates the signature on the update, decrypts the new keys with the shared symmetric key and stores them for later use.
All dongles must have access to secure storage in order to store license decryption keys, expiration timestamps and so on. In general this is not implemented on external flash memory or EEPROM. If it is it must be encrypted with a key internal to the ASIC or FPGA and signed such that it can not be changed.
Plain text hole
Hayley kiyoko this side of paradise zip. Once the user has a license to your functional component, even if he can't extract your secret key, he can use your dongle to decrypt that functional component. This leads to the issue that he may extract all your plain text and replace the decryption call with a direct call to the extracted plain text. Some dongles cover this issue by embedding a processor into the dongle. The functional component is then sent encrypted over to the dongle which decrypts the component and executes it internally. This means that the dongle essentially becomes a black box and the functional components sent to the dongle needs to be probed individually to discover their properties.
A lot of dongles are encryption and decryption oracles which leads to potential issues with Chosen-ciphertext attacks, e.g the recent padding oracle attacks.
Side channel attacks
Besides the oracle issues you also have a lot of concerns with all of the so far well known side channel attacks. You also need to be concerned with any potential but undiscovered side channel.
Be aware that there are a number of companies in the world who specialize in picking apart and auditing secure chips. Some of the most well known companies are probably Chris Tarnovsky of flylogic, now part of IOActive and chipworks. This sort of attack is expensive but may be a real threat depending on the value of your target. It would surprise me if but a few, possibly none of, dongles today are able to withstand this sort of high budget attacker.
Do they work
Given a dongle which is based on strong encryption, isn't time based since you can not expire encryption keys based on time nor is time an absolute, free of any side channel attacks and executes the code on the chip, yes it will make discovering the underlying code equivalent to probing a black box. Most of the breaks that happen with these dongles are based on implementation weaknesses by the licensees of the hardware licensing system due to the implementer being unfamiliar with reverse engineering and computer security in general.
Also, do realize that even software where a majority of the logic is implemented on an internet facing server has been broken simply by probing the black box and inferring server side code based on client code expectations. Always prepare for your application to be broken and develop a plan for how to deal with it when it happens.
As Peter has indicated, looking at how the dongle is used for security is the starting point to identify the attack vectors. In most cases, the software developers implementing the dongle security is the weakest point.
Control Products. When you choose LESCO herbicides, fungicides and insecticides, you’re buying trust. Simply use them in accordance with the directions, and you can expect superior results, every single time. Oct 01, 2004 Here is my new toy. Lesco Green Monster leaf blower. Man this thing is just raw power. Heavy but rolls great.1,050 bucks.Cant wait to blow some leaves. Did some at the house just to see how it works. Search for Lesco Parts We have a large selection of high quality Lesco aftermarket replacement parts. Enter your part number above to find the replacement part you need! Lesco walk behind blower. We have Lesco leaf blower parts manual DjVu, doc, txt, ePub, PDF forms. We will be pleased if you get back to us again. 4.5 stars based on 250 reviews Lesco blower - YouTube - Nov 01, 2008 this is a gas blower that was abused.fell off the back of a landscapers truck.enough said.
In the past when I have tested software with dongles, I have used free tools like ProcessMonitor and RegShot to identify simple vulnerabilities to defeat bad implementations of dongle security.
I have seen software that on startup checks for the presence of dongle and then proceeds with its operation without using the dongle until its restarted. In these cases, patching the application with OllyDbg is not that difficult to tell the app to run with full functionality as long as the dongle is NOT plugged in to the system.
I have also seen software that allows a user to click on a button in the software so that the user doesn't have to have the dongle inserted. The software claimed that is an extra functionality like 'Remember Me' option. RegShot and ProcessMonitor showed me that a file is written with some information and as long as the file is present in the expected folder, I can run the software on multiple systems without a dongle.
Just because someone uses AES or Hardware Dongles or any XYZ doesn't mean they are secure. All that maters is whether they are implementing those security measure in the right manner assuming that there are now known (or 0-day vulnerabilities) in the security measure.
Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?