Author Topic: Crack Me! (Read 12794 times)

GJ Rabbit. You win~

Basically, I was checking to make sure the data was still the data, which is why you see a hash a bit above the string in Rabbit's picture.

Code: [Select]

Private Const Data As String = "You can't crack me!"
Private SHA As New clsSHA

Private Sub Form_Load()
    Me.Show
    If UCase(SHA.SHA256(Data)) = "2406C920A8F66582F85F78F98E38B7A7C34036B20EC1BD3C70FA04100C719BC3" Then
        Print Data
    Else
        Print "Try harder."
    End If
    If Command = "-show" Then MsgBox "Legit, tool."
End Sub

I used Crack_Me.exe -show to make sure it was the one I wrote. =)

zorm · « **Reply #9 on:** January 16, 2006, 06:33:03 pm »

Uh, this isn't any sort of protection. You need a hex editor, hell rabit replaced the "Try hander." instead of the Data string.

Joe · « **Reply #10 on:** January 16, 2006, 06:51:31 pm »

Quote from: zorm on January 16, 2006, 06:33:03 pm

Uh, this isn't any sort of protection. You need a hex editor, hell rabit replaced the "Try hander." instead of the Data string.

Rofl, forgot that he could just do that..

Dirty cheater, rabbi..t. =p

iago · « **Reply #11 on:** January 16, 2006, 07:49:54 pm »

Easy!

Quote

iago@slayer:~/tmp$ ls -l Crack_Me.exe
-rw-r--r-- 1 iago users 28672 2006-01-16 18:48 Crack_Me.exe
iago@slayer:~/tmp$ chmod +x Crack_Me.exe
iago@slayer:~/tmp$ echo 'echo "Joe sucks."' > Crack_Me.exe
iago@slayer:~/tmp$ ./Crack_Me.exe
Joe sucks.

gg

Btw, you might want to think of more interesting ways to protect programs. Unfortunately, I can't find the source for ones I've written, but they involved encrypting the message, and using a key generated to decrypt it.

Blaze · « **Reply #12 on:** January 16, 2006, 09:10:05 pm »

Quote from: iago on January 16, 2006, 07:49:54 pm

Easy!

Quote
iago@slayer:~/tmp$ ls -l Crack_Me.exe
-rw-r--r-- 1 iago users 28672 2006-01-16 18:48 Crack_Me.exe
iago@slayer:~/tmp$ chmod +x Crack_Me.exe
iago@slayer:~/tmp$ echo 'echo "Joe sucks."' > Crack_Me.exe
iago@slayer:~/tmp$ ./Crack_Me.exe
Joe sucks.
gg

Newby · « **Reply #13 on:** January 16, 2006, 10:48:52 pm »

I hate to be a bitch, but according to your source code, there's absolutely no way it can say "Joe sucks".

Sidoh · « **Reply #14 on:** January 16, 2006, 10:57:37 pm »

Quote from: Newby on January 16, 2006, 10:48:52 pm

I hate to be a bitch, but according to your source code, there's absolutely no way it can say "Joe sucks".

Sure there is. You open a hex editor (vi!) and change "Try harder" to "Joe sucks."

Joe · « **Reply #15 on:** January 17, 2006, 07:41:57 am »

You were *supposed* to edit "You can't crack this" to say Joe sucks, by finding out how I made it say try harder when hex edited, and changing the SHA256 hash to match "Joe sucks", and the same with the string. But still, rabbit wins, for thinking outside the box like a good cracker should.

Sidoh · « **Reply #16 on:** January 17, 2006, 09:27:49 am »

Quote from: Joe on January 17, 2006, 07:41:57 am

You were *supposed* to edit "You can't crack this" to say Joe sucks, by finding out how I made it say try harder when hex edited, and changing the SHA256 hash to match "Joe sucks", and the same with the string. But still, rabbit wins, for thinking outside the box like a good cracker should.

That's not cracking. I would've done the same (I almost did -- had it open in vi), but it seemed like writing "JOE SUCKS" in paint was more fun, so that's what I did.

Warrior · « **Reply #17 on:** January 17, 2006, 11:24:56 am »

and I since you provided no rules. I also fail to see how Common sense is "thinking out of the box"

Joe · « **Reply #18 on:** January 17, 2006, 04:55:47 pm »

Quote from: Warrior[x86] on January 17, 2006, 11:24:56 am

and I since you provided no rules. I also fail to see how Common sense is "thinking out of the box"

Well, using photoshop is not 'cracking', thus that didn't work. Sorry.

Warrior · « **Reply #19 on:** January 17, 2006, 05:54:10 pm »

You didn't say "Crack it" you said make it say "Joe sucks". Sorry.
Of course I wouldn't act like the cracking was the mother of all tasks either since it
really was childs play.

Joe · « **Reply #20 on:** January 17, 2006, 06:40:19 pm »

Yeah, because I forgot that 'Try harder' wasn't protected.

Sidoh · « **Reply #21 on:** January 17, 2006, 06:42:43 pm »

Quote from: Joe on January 17, 2006, 06:40:19 pm

Yeah, because I forgot that 'Try harder' wasn't protected.

Sounds to me like the fault of your program, not a triumph in Rabbit's cracking abilities.

iago · « **Reply #22 on:** January 17, 2006, 06:49:33 pm »

My way was still the best. It works on Linux!

Sidoh · « **Reply #23 on:** January 17, 2006, 06:59:04 pm »

While trying to show iago something similar was possible in Windows, I broke it! I figured you'd find this humerous, iago:

iago · « **Reply #24 on:** January 17, 2006, 08:01:06 pm »

Haha, I think the problem was that it shouldn't be .exe, just .bat

In any case, I think the conversation in the background looks more interesting anyways.

Quote

x: GET THE GIRLS
x: Cmon be me
y: LOL

I'm assuming y is Sidoh, but who's the x? Could it be.... Joe?

trust · « **Reply #25 on:** January 17, 2006, 08:03:36 pm »

Quote from: Sidoh on January 16, 2006, 10:57:37 pm

Quote from: Newby on January 16, 2006, 10:48:52 pm
I hate to be a bitch, but according to your source code, there's absolutely no way it can say "Joe sucks".

Sure there is. You open a hex editor (vi!) and change "Try harder" to "Joe sucks."

But that's not exactly cracking anything.

Sidoh · « **Reply #26 on:** January 17, 2006, 08:15:07 pm »

There's this flirty++ girl on WoW that now calls me "Chris" (my real name, obviously). I have no idea how she knows my real name, but she addressed me as Chris. :\

Quote

(16:50:37) Sidoh: (15:51:47) Emichu: hey Chris, my hard-drive has gone to boot on my normal computer. If you want, I think they're going to Zul'gurub in about an hour if you're interested. I'm sure Gaets will need healers, thought I'd throw it at you
(16:58:38) Sidoh: (16:58:17) Emichu: For me, my hero? :O <#
(16:58:19) Emichu: <3
(16:58:48) Warrior: WTF DUDE
(16:58:50) Warrior: GET THE GIRLS
(16:58:56) Warrior: Cmon be me
(16:59:02) Sidoh: LOL

Ergot · « **Reply #27 on:** January 17, 2006, 08:18:48 pm »

MSN? You only have your name as "Chris M."

Sidoh · « **Reply #28 on:** January 17, 2006, 08:21:46 pm »

Quote from: Ergot on January 17, 2006, 08:18:48 pm

MSN? You only have your name as "Chris M."

Oh yeah. Come to think of it, I think I did add her to MSN. I had forgotten about that!

iago · « **Reply #29 on:** January 17, 2006, 08:29:10 pm »

Quote from: OG Trust on January 17, 2006, 08:03:36 pm

Quote from: Sidoh on January 16, 2006, 10:57:37 pm
Quote from: Newby on January 16, 2006, 10:48:52 pm
I hate to be a bitch, but according to your source code, there's absolutely no way it can say "Joe sucks".

Sure there is. You open a hex editor (vi!) and change "Try harder" to "Joe sucks."

But that's not exactly cracking anything.

Well, he said to make it say "Joe sucks", he didn't really say how

zorm · « **Reply #30 on:** January 17, 2006, 09:34:56 pm »

Even then its stills not really cracking. I.E. Even if you protect both strings I can just overwrite parts of your program to make it execute code to print joe sucks, there is plenty room. However, this has no real world application as in most programs you want the code you are injection to actually interact with the real program.

iago · « **Reply #31 on:** January 17, 2006, 09:42:20 pm »

Quote from: zorm on January 17, 2006, 09:34:56 pm

Even then its stills not really cracking. I.E. Even if you protect both strings I can just overwrite parts of your program to make it execute code to print joe sucks, there is plenty room.

That's what I did. Well, I overwrote the whole program. Close enough

rabbit · « **Reply #32 on:** January 17, 2006, 10:32:13 pm »

You overwrote one oneth of the program. That's a part!

Joe · « **Reply #33 on:** January 18, 2006, 03:19:31 pm »

I think the correct term is one whole, but eh.

Or what you could have done is just calculated the SHA256 hash of "Joe sucks", and replaced the other one in there. That's what I would have done.

Sidoh · « **Reply #34 on:** January 18, 2006, 05:39:17 pm »

Quote from: Joe on January 18, 2006, 03:19:31 pm

I think the correct term is one whole, but eh.

Or what you could have done is just calculated the SHA256 hash of "Joe sucks", and replaced the other one in there. That's what I would have done.

Because you like to make things harder than they are? Doing what rabbit did is by no means an unacceptable shortcut. It was, in fact, much more acceptable than doing what you're suggesting.

wires · « **Reply #35 on:** January 18, 2006, 05:59:41 pm »

Quote from: Joe on January 18, 2006, 03:19:31 pm

I think the correct term is one whole, but eh.

Or what you could have done is just calculated the SHA256 hash of "Joe sucks", and replaced the other one in there. That's what I would have done.

Why the hell would you go through all of that work?

rabbit · « **Reply #36 on:** January 18, 2006, 08:12:10 pm »

The point of cracking a program is to make it work. Why would I do something to the program the author told me to if I could get the same results with 50 times less work?

Sidoh · « **Reply #37 on:** January 18, 2006, 08:24:01 pm »

Quote from: rabbit on January 18, 2006, 08:12:10 pm

The point of cracking a program is to make it work. Why would I do something to the program the author told me to if I could get the same results with 50 times less work?

Exactly! ^_^

zorm · « **Reply #38 on:** January 18, 2006, 09:54:38 pm »

Quote from: rabbit on January 18, 2006, 08:12:10 pm

The point of cracking a program is to make it work. Why would I do something to the program the author told me to if I could get the same results with 50 times less work?

Because most crack me's and such are designed to show off a specific method only. Of course real application author's are going to use a combination of methods and be much more concerned about a totally secure program.

Sidoh · « **Reply #39 on:** January 18, 2006, 09:58:23 pm »

Quote from: zorm on January 18, 2006, 09:54:38 pm

Because most crack me's and such are designed to show off a specific method only. Of course real application author's are going to use a combination of methods and be much more concerned about a totally secure program.

He didn't say anything about a specific method, he just said get it done. That's what rabbit did.

MyndFyre · « **Reply #40 on:** January 18, 2006, 10:07:41 pm »

Quote from: Sidoh on January 18, 2006, 09:58:23 pm

Quote from: zorm on January 18, 2006, 09:54:38 pm
Because most crack me's and such are designed to show off a specific method only. Of course real application author's are going to use a combination of methods and be much more concerned about a totally secure program.

He didn't say anything about a specific method, he just said get it done. That's what rabbit did.

Yeah, but usually the author doesn't leave other methods exposed.

Joe · « **Reply #41 on:** January 18, 2006, 10:13:46 pm »

I didn't mean to, Myndfyre.

Sidoh · « **Reply #42 on:** January 18, 2006, 10:24:57 pm »

Quote from: Joe on January 18, 2006, 10:13:46 pm

I didn't mean to, Myndfyre.

Well DUH. The point is you did .

iago · « **Reply #43 on:** January 18, 2006, 10:32:33 pm »

The way it was solved was the proper way to do it. The idea of being a hacker is to think outside the box, and to use unexpected solutions. I can give many examples, but I don't feel like it. I don't think anybody here is arguing that the proposed solution was wrong, Joe only said it's not what he intended. So it's all good.

Sidoh · « **Reply #44 on:** January 18, 2006, 10:41:01 pm »

Quote from: iago on January 18, 2006, 10:32:33 pm

The way it was solved was the proper way to do it. The idea of being a hacker is to think outside the box, and to use unexpected solutions. I can give many examples, but I don't feel like it. I don't think anybody here is arguing that the proposed solution was wrong, Joe only said it's not what he intended. So it's all good.

I'm pretty sure that's what zorm was saying.

Quote from: Warrior

[ box ] |-< <--- You

rabbit · « **Reply #45 on:** January 19, 2006, 08:42:04 pm »

Quote from: iago on January 18, 2006, 10:32:33 pm

The way it was solved was the proper way to do it. The idea of being a hacker is to think outside the box, and to use unexpected solutions. I can give many examples, but I don't feel like it. I don't think anybody here is arguing that the proposed solution was wrong, Joe only said it's not what he intended. So it's all good.

Yes! Exactly! I'm sure authors protect their programs for a reason. Why would they say "if you're gonna crack my program, do it this way..."? I accomplished the task. The end.

News:

Author Topic: Crack Me! (Read 12794 times)

trust