Page 3 of 3
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 6:23 pm
by dawman
So It Shall Be Written, So It Shall Be Done.
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:02 am
by digitalaudiosoft
i have try to wait before posting about this ,but,now,i can thanks salvatore aka djmicron to have informed us and other dev about this way to hack plugins !
one of his mail :
Hello,
i don't know the true name, but the planetz user that has informed me
is shroomz.
I know he is a graphic designer and he has done the gui of my cat modules.
He is involved with mccyrano in developing some new device, so i think
that mccyrano is 99% the informer and mccyrano is the only one sdk
developer that was frightened by my planetz post about the bug and he
have never asked me how the bug works, because he know how and all its
devices are 100% protected.....
Regards
Salvatore
bye,
eric
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:23 am
by Mr Arkadin
Well that was conclusive
.
Maybe you should try posting it in all the forums just to annoy everybody. Oh you already did...
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:13 am
by erminardi
Hey Eric, I don't find correct to expose private letters of Salvatore without his permission, above all if they contain references that can give him some unpleasantness...
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:22 am
by digitalaudiosoft
@ eminardi
maybe you will prefere this one ...what i have written to salvatore to thanks him !:
> keep all your message about this problem,because,the law,now will
> certainly need them.if there is a complaint ,you will have to "testify"
> justify"
> creamware knows that i have authorized you to use our plugins, so,don't
> be afraid.
> as develloper we have to be one against those bad people.
hey eminardi ,
do you use our plugins without protection module,without official licenses,wiithout paying for that... like astroman and friends ?
bye,
eric
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:35 am
by Mr Arkadin
digitalaudiosoft wrote:
hey eminardi ,
do you use our plugins without protection module,without official licenses,wiithout paying for that... like astroman and friends ?
bye,
eric
You are really pushing the boat out now, you seriously need some medication sunshine cos you are paranoid. Or just accuse me of using cracks while you're at it if it makes you feel better. Really, these slanderous statements are getting ridiculous and just make you look foolish.
i wouldn't even use one of your free devices, so i don't think i'd bother trying to hack your stuff, not that i even know how to.
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:36 am
by erminardi
digitalaudiosoft wrote:@ eminardi
maybe you will prefere this one ...what i have written to salvatore to thanks him !:
> keep all your message about this problem,because,the law,now will
> certainly need them.if there is a complaint ,you will have to "testify"
> justify"
> creamware knows that i have authorized you to use our plugins, so,don't
> be afraid.
> as develloper we have to be one against those bad people.
hey eminardi ,
do you use our plugins without protection module,without official licenses,wiithout paying for that... like astroman and friends ?
bye,
eric
Hey, hey, calm down guys!
Maybe I am the only one that doesn't know the trick to modify the SDK...
From DAS use only your XTC insert free dev. (thanks, very useful : ) )
I really don't need the rest from you because I work with UAD's NEVE EQs & Comp.
However I wanted only to avoid other problems but you have attached me to you to the throat.
Ok, now I remove from me from this shit-tread...
If U call me as a thief, fuck you!
Let PlanetZ clean please!!!
I want music not this fucking war!
Bye!
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:39 am
by astroman
digitalaudiosoft wrote:
do you use our plugins without protection module,without official licenses,wiithout paying for that... like astroman and friends ?
bye,
eric
DUDE, don't overstress my patience !
if you do not remove my nick from the sentence and the suggestion that I might be using your sh*t, I'll promise you severe trouble
granted, Tom
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:41 am
by Mr Arkadin
erminardi wrote:However I wanted only to avoid other problems but you have attached me to you to the throat.
That sadly is Eric's pattern and the sign of a paranoiac.
We could see our first libel case here at the 'z' - there's a lot of unsubstantiated shit flying round here at the moment.
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:49 am
by digitalaudiosoft
astroman wrote:
DUDE, don't overstress my patience !
if you do not remove my nick from the sentence and the suggestion that I might be using your sh*t, I'll promise you severe trouble
granted, Tom
hey,astroman, you make me afraid
...
who is writing in this forum how to remove protection module in creamware devices ? YOU and only YOU !!! are you stronger than law ?
how can you call your tips about removing protection module in a device ?
THAT'S CALL HACKING !!!!
i will not remove what i say ! you have even pm us about that ! do you really think we believe a member who is able to write a tips like that ?
you have removed our protection module and that's all !!! and the only one who have the right to use them is djmicron !
creamware knows das choice too !
i 'm eric from digitalaudiosoft and you astroman ,who are you ? anonyma is nice isn't it to fuck and steal everybody here !
eric
@ eminardi...it was just a question..
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:00 pm
by digitalaudiosoft
olive has enough talk about you,mr astroman ..just in this topic...it was about a nice news from us without problems...,but you have spamed it with all your virtual friends ...
http://www.planetz.com/phpBB2/viewtopic ... 7&start=40
eric
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:03 pm
by dawman
Meanwhile Back @ The Ranch.......................................................................................
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:15 pm
by astroman
you will simply revoke that I use any of your devices or any other device that is not licensed.period.
to remove the module by a regular SFP operation was only to verify that there was an actual threat for you - I'm not interested in that stuff at all
I have better reverbs than yours and don't need your other stuff anyway
you overestimate the quality of your devices
do you really think if I wanted to take advantage of the 'feature' that I'd make any public noise about it
I sent Olive a friendly new years note (at least I would call it friendly after all your mudslinging) and acted according to what I wrote for 3 months.
So why do you question my honesty ?
You called people hackers (in a negative way) who are far from deserving that attribute. Only then I have published that it needs no hacking.
Still you fall back on that term again and again
you can repeat it a thousand times... and it still will never be considered 'hacking'
(I did the latter 20 years ago, so you can rely on my estimation)
I'm dead serious about that, Tom
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:00 am
by garyb
here's the truth of the matter. let's learn from our mistakes.
i love you guys!
spacef wrote:2 simple and unique steps to protect a device.
- go to the project explorer and select the device
- right click and select "optimize for xtc" : it removes internal graphical lrepresentation of module, which allows to make lighter devices (see the difference in file size), which load much faster. Internal graphics may also call SFP for some ressources (in case sfp also has to draw the internal, useless, graphics)
- right click on the device again and choose "protect".
now it is protected as it should be.
nobody is "protected" from doing a mistake and uploading an open device by mistake. so in fact you can add an extra step which is to save in your SFP folder and make final tests with that particular copy of the device, by loading it in scope/sfp and checking that all is fine during a few days (and uploading that device, not another that you "think" is rightfully protected).
It even happens easily when the release is about several devices: it is more easy to forget one, so double checking is a clever strategy before releasing (a typical cause of that kind of mistake could just be the enthousiasm to release a device and make it available to the public asap).
There is no "trick" known to me to open a protected or closed device: you can only open devices which are already open. And this is not even a bug ! just the way things always worked in scope since the begining, as far as i know...
Regards
Mehdi
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:00 pm
by valis
l of this Das nonsense aside (and it's really redundant nonsense by now) I'm wondering if djmicron might be interested in releasing his devices now that he's armed with the above info (and hopefully a manual). I've built what I need in modular before and can do it again, but sometimes having a packed scope devices is easier.
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:06 pm
by garyb
my thoughts exactly.
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:01 pm
by dawman
I prefer packed Scope devices also. I am not confident with modular 's live performance yet. It only seems to crash while programming, but that's a chance I prefer not to take @ my gigs.
BTW, DJM was kind enough to fix a little bug in the B2003 for me, and sent me back a new version w/ my name on it.
Therefore, I believe he is a straight shooter, who was trying to do the right thing for all of us.
Please Come Home Sal,
Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 2:30 am
by astroman
didn't he mention a couple of other things on schedule, like a new website and so on ?
sometimes it's like rubber
cheers, Tom