Dear Fravia+,

> 

> I have read with interest your proposal and the seven responses 

> you have posted to your site to date.  

> 

> Prophecy is right in saying that there is no reason losers should

> be visiting your page to find a crack... they can post a request

> to one of the cracking newsgroups, or search astalavista.  Indeed

> even the process of learning to crack, purely for the sake of

> avoiding paying for shareware, is uneconomical... you would have

> to crack far more applications than you ever could use, before

> the hours you spent learning the art paid for themselves: time is

> money, even if you are not being paid, because everybody's time

> is worth something to them.  And anyway, as +ORC said, you will

> never learn to truly crack well if you are commercially minded.

> However, I find it interesting that you did not mention a very

> valid reason for moving away from software deprotections: 

> bringing some "respectability" to reverse engineering.  This may

> or may not be important to you, but you know, I think it is a 

> noble art, and it's a shame that it's not widely recognised as 

> such.  And perhaps, your page as it stands now contributes to

> the bad image.  

> 

> On the other hand, what would have brought me to your page (way

> back before it had its own domain, when it contained but a few

> +ORC essays) other than a desire to learn more about how these 

> cracks I'd come across were possible?  There has to be an entry

> point; a place from which to recruit people... and the broadest

> possible community for that purpose is people who use cracks.  

> If nobody but computer science majors get into reversing, the

> reversing world will be much the poorer for it.  Imagination

> plays almost an equal part to knowledge in this business.  

> However, as long as cracking-related pages continue to link to

> yours (and I think they will, even after you go through with 

> this), this probably won't be an issue.

> 

> One of the things which has happened to your site as its size has

> grown is that structure has been lost.  The quantity of essays

> has outgrown the beginner->intermediate->advanced categorization

> system; there is simply too much in the category into which a

> reader falls that they already know, so that they are left not

> even trying to find a needle in a haystack, but a needle in 

> amongst a thousand other needles.  There needs to be a

> stronger linearity.  And perhaps by moving to a more pure 

> reversing emphasis, we can clear away the mess.  I would really

> like to see your page build up as more of a collaborative effort:

> instead of everyone with their own little essay randomly adding

> to the pile, to make sure that people are reading what others are

> saying; treating every essay as a work in progress that may be

> made more clear with some rewriting by others; deciding where

> their own essay fits in with the others in order.  To gain

> linearity; continuity; clarity.  To reduce redundancy.  To offer

> a holistic approach from the ground up, which maintains interest

> for the reader and does not waste time and effort for anybody.

> To gain generality and lose specificity as much as possible

> (without becoming vague of course).  

> 

> A strong approach to reversing should provide crackers with the

> knowledge to approach *any* protection scheme -- it is far more

> efficient to learn how a car works than to learn how to fix the 

> rattle which comes from under the dashboard of a 1968 Volkswagen,

> then learn how to install a stereo in a '92 Mitsubishi without

> ignition noise interfering with the radio, et cetera, et cetera.

> So I don't think the pure crackers have anything to be concerned

> about with a change in emphasis; indeed they have much to gain.  

> 

> I know that you've never heard of me before...  This is because 

> I've never yet reached the stage where I felt I had anything new 

> to add to the knowledge base; nor have I released any of my

> cracks... I hope however that you'll take my words as having some

> value.  Finally I want to thank you, and to thank +ORC on the 

> slim chance that you publish this and he reads it, for all that

> you've done to bring knowledge to those who would only look for

> it.  I don't know how I could possibly communicate the joy I felt

> the day I applied my still-blunt reversing scalpel to shell32.dll

> and removed the patronising "The file blah.exe is a program, are 

> you sure you want to delete it?" dialog box from windoze forever.  

> 

> The Lighthouse Keeper

> ---------------------

> 

> A postscript, in case you should publish this:

> 

> Those in America who are interested in hardware cracking 

> should check out DIVX, a new and hideously greedy commercial 

> technology which is just crying out for a mod chip.  Such a 

> chip needs to save the decryption key sent down the phone line

> during the "free trial period" and remove the necessity to be

> connected to the phone line while playing back subequently.  

> (A shame you can't deal with electronics using softice; this'd

> be a pushover...)