Crack Me!

[zorm]

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]

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]

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

[Joe]

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]

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]

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? :P

[rabbit]

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]

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]

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]

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. :P

[MyndFyre]

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. :P

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

[Joe]

I didn't mean to, Myndfyre.

[Sidoh]

I didn't mean to, Myndfyre.

Well DUH.  The point is you did . :P

[iago]

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]

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. :P

[ box ]   :D|-<   <--- You