Windows Activation Crack

[Mark R]

I don't know.

However, what this guy is saying might have an element of truth in it. As I understand it, Windows Vista and presumably windows 7 will perform a Windows licence check every time you run an exe. This is because some windows versions (e.g. Vista Starter edition) only support running 3 non-system .exes simultaneously. If you try to load a 4th, then the application will fail to load due to a licensing error.

It wouldn't surprise me to see that the same licensing code is present in all versions of Windows - as it is a variant of the Systems Groups Policy code. After all, Vista has a 'reduced functionality mode' if there is a problem with the activation, that will let you run internet explorer, but nothing else. And if you try some trickery to try to get IE to launch an exe (e.g. by browsing to a local directory) then the application will fail to load.

If it is the case here that W7 has an extremely sophisticated licensing system, that is checked before starting an executable, then it is conceivable that by bypassing the checks, the performance of the OS can be improved.

 

[blackangst1]

I havent seen a WTF thread like this in awhile....

 

[Seeruk]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I havent seen a WTF thread like this in awhile....

LOL Yup definitely qualifies as WTF

 

[blackangst1]

I would like to add after a search on Google for slic2.1 I see it is associated with bypassing activation, therefore part of an activation crack. Therefore, against Anandtech's forum policies.

 

[Modelworks]

slic 2.1 is not about activation cracks. It is a valid part of the bios. While changing it can be used to circumvent activation, it isn't its purpose. It would be like banning the word CDR because people can use them to store pirated music.

 

[coolVariable]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I would like to add after a search on Google for slic2.1 I see it is associated with bypassing activation, therefore part of an activation crack. Therefore, against Anandtech's forum policies.

Thank you for the contribution, post-Nazi.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
slic 2.1 is not about activation cracks. It is a valid part of the bios. While changing it can be used to circumvent activation, it isn't its purpose. It would be like banning the word CDR because people can use them to store pirated music.

Yup.

 

[MerlinRML]

I'm jumping in front of a moving train here, I know, but there is some interesting discussion.

First of all, I don't know anything about Microsoft's activation scheme, but I have extensive experience implementing what was called a "comparable" software licensing product.

What I read in the OP makes sense. If Microsoft is aggressively doing a software license check, it could most assuredly slow down system response time.

While this is not going to be anything exact, I'd imagine the process flow would be something like this:

-OS attempts to run executable and triggers activation check
-Call to activation API
-Licensing service receives function call and triggers license check
-License service reads multiple licensing elements
-Element 1 read from registry
-Element 2 read from disk storage
-Element 3 read from hidden/reserved portion of disk
-Element ...
-Processing elements into whatever constitutes a passing or failing license result and spitting out the license status
-License service returns license status to licensing funciton and then back to API

Depending on what this "hack" does or where it fits into the process flow, it could cut out a lot of stuff. I don't know how aggressively Microsoft is really doing the activation check, though, so it could also do absolutely nothing.

With that said, I'm not going near this thing in a million years. Hacks and activation cracks are interesting, but lead to too many problems with untrusted code and potentially breaking in the future.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: coolVariable

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I would like to add after a search on Google for slic2.1 I see it is associated with bypassing activation, therefore part of an activation crack. Therefore, against Anandtech's forum policies.

Thank you for the contribution, post-Nazi.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
slic 2.1 is not about activation cracks. It is a valid part of the bios. While changing it can be used to circumvent activation, it isn't its purpose. It would be like banning the word CDR because people can use them to store pirated music.

Yup.

edit: Youre welcome

 

[KeypoX]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
Long before Win7 is released, there're many cracking methods that's surfacing the web.
All, I guess, does their job. And, there's this one that is different.

It's the one that actually makes your programs run faster because it shortens authentication processes that Windows checks upon running programs.

You see, when Windows runs a program, it checks to see whether Windows is a vaild one and that it should process the program or something else. It shortens such process so that applications run faster.

Now, I plan to buy Windows 7. I plan to buy it but this crack....is hard to pass. I guess I'll buy the Windows 7 and use this crack. I would've been far better if I could use Windows 7 as I bought it but it just won't be the case this time.

He is not saying that this is faster/better than other cracking techniques. He is saying that this crack makes any windows run faster legal or not.

It is wrong, I assume, but do not have any evidence to prove otherwise.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: MerlinRML
I'm jumping in front of a moving train here, I know, but there is some interesting discussion.

First of all, I don't know anything about Microsoft's activation scheme, but I have extensive experience implementing what was called a "comparable" software licensing product.

What I read in the OP makes sense. If Microsoft is aggressively doing a software license check, it could most assuredly slow down system response time.

While this is not going to be anything exact, I'd imagine the process flow would be something like this:

-OS attempts to run executable and triggers activation check
-Call to activation API
-Licensing service receives function call and triggers license check
-License service reads multiple licensing elements
-Element 1 read from registry
-Element 2 read from disk storage
-Element 3 read from hidden/reserved portion of disk
-Element ...
-Processing elements into whatever constitutes a passing or failing license result and spitting out the license status
-License service returns license status to licensing funciton and then back to API

Depending on what this "hack" does or where it fits into the process flow, it could cut out a lot of stuff. I don't know how aggressively Microsoft is really doing the activation check, though, so it could also do absolutely nothing.

With that said, I'm not going near this thing in a million years. Hacks and activation cracks are interesting, but lead to too many problems with untrusted code and potentially breaking in the future.

First off, I don't know where you imagine this "hidden" portion of your hard disk is. If you partition a hard drive, you partition it, the partitioner doesn't magically reserve a portion.

Second off, while the process does seem logical that you laid out, that does not happen every time an executable script is run in windows. That doesn't even happen every time you install (As in run an installer) software on Windows.

-Kevin

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
[
First off, I don't know where you imagine this "hidden" portion of your hard disk is. If you partition a hard drive, you partition it, the partitioner doesn't magically reserve a portion.

There is a hidden area on hard disk, called the HPA, but that windows does nothing with it in regards to activation.

---------------------------------------------------------------
About this topic:

I know from running debuggers that windows only makes a check for licensing 3 times that I have seen.

1. on startup of the OS
2. When installing updates or some MS branded software.
3. on shutdown.

There are no other calls inside the kernel done at any other time by the OS once activation has been completed.

If you have not activated windows then the changes are: .
1. check on startup, compare date of installation with days remaining in activation ( this is what early cracks targeted , resetting this timer), If the date matches a preset trigger the user is notified, If the date exceeds the limit then trigger event.

Provided you are not past the activation limit in days then that service goes idle. It takes 0 cpu time and programs do not pass information through it. That service remains idle unless triggered again by steps 1-3 above or by the clock event.

It doesn't check every program you install or monitor everything you do.

I know some will say what about the number of programs running check for starter versions of the OS, there is no longer a limitation in that version.

Why other cracks were slower was because they emulated the slic tables in software vs legit versions that ran it in hardware. Someone managed to write something that runs as fast as the slic tables found in the hardware. They did not make windows itself any faster than a legal purchased copy.

 

[Gamingphreek]

There is a hidden area on hard disk, called the HPA, but that windows does nothing with it in regards to activation.

The HPA isn't within the partition, though, from my understanding.

Additionally, while it is possible to grow and shrink it with certain utilities (and store data in there), there is nothing that has anything to do with an OS copied there by default.

Normally it is just disk parameters which are typically accessed with the IDE controllers registers, not the GPR's on the CPU.

Granted, my knowledge on it is limited.
-----------------

Additionally, it isn't like activation data is stored on disc in a particular area. When an activation request is received, from my understanding, a Hardware Profile ID is generated, the OS Key is queried, and something else escapes me. From this a key is formed and is sent to the activation server for validation.
------------------

Modelworks, I completely understand what you are saying and it makes perfect sense; however, in the OP, it is stated that he intends on buying a legit copy of Windows, and just not activating it. He clearly seems to think that there is, for whatever reason, an advantage to an unlicensed copy of Windows.

-Kevin

Edit: Upon further inspection, my HPA is actually disabled right now... wonder why.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
slic 2.1 is not about activation cracks. It is a valid part of the bios. While changing it can be used to circumvent activation, it isn't its purpose. It would be like banning the word CDR because people can use them to store pirated music.

Just so we're clear, this isn't an issue right now. You may not discuss how to get pirated software or how to pirate software. But you are more than welcome to discuss the technical details of a DRM system, which is what's occurring right now.

 

[ChaiBabbaChai]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: ViRGE
This sounds extremely suspect. The only significant per-executable check that Windows does is verifying digital signatures on signed executables, and you don't want to disable that for obvious reasons. Do you have any documentation that you can link to without violating the forum rules?

Sorry but I don't have links that wouldn't violate forum rules.
About the author: He's the guy that I'd trust and I'm a type of a person who doesn't trust people easily. He's been around quite a time and has made other tools beside this one. He's member of a small community forum where experts come and so far, he's never caused any problems. I know there's always a possibility but given his past history and reputation, I don't think his work is one of those things that does things behind your back.

Deadtrees types like one of those Nigerian email scam dudes. Where's my check for $1.5 million over the KB of my 1981 Ford Mustang LX, fool!? lol

 

[Deadtrees]

Simply put, it optimizes THE Windows token file. For those of you who know what that means, you probably wouldn't have a problem understanding what I've been talking about.
How well does it work? It work damn well and I am impressed. I'm buying Windows7 and I'm using this crack.

Following the rules, I can't give you any links nor information regarding this crack. If you want to me to provide pictures or even videos of how things work, I can do that.

Originally posted by: ChaiBabbaChai

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: ViRGE
This sounds extremely suspect. The only significant per-executable check that Windows does is verifying digital signatures on signed executables, and you don't want to disable that for obvious reasons. Do you have any documentation that you can link to without violating the forum rules?

Sorry but I don't have links that wouldn't violate forum rules.
About the author: He's the guy that I'd trust and I'm a type of a person who doesn't trust people easily. He's been around quite a time and has made other tools beside this one. He's member of a small community forum where experts come and so far, he's never caused any problems. I know there's always a possibility but given his past history and reputation, I don't think his work is one of those things that does things behind your back.

Deadtrees types like one of those Nigerian email scam dudes. Where's my check for $1.5 million over the KB of my 1981 Ford Mustang LX, fool!? lol

You're right on my poor writing skill. After writing an hours and days of intensive essay, I just let myself go. As English isn't my first language, when I let go of it, it goes pretty far and you know it.
One thing I'd like to mention: For personal attacks, you can use PM.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
Simply put, it optimizes THE Windows token file. For those of you who know what that means, you probably wouldn't have a problem understanding what I've been talking about.
How well does it work? It work damn well and I am impressed. I'm buying Windows7 and I'm using this crack.

Following the rules, I can't give you any links nor information regarding this crack. If you want to me to provide pictures or even videos of how things work, I can do that.

Originally posted by: ChaiBabbaChai

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: ViRGE
This sounds extremely suspect. The only significant per-executable check that Windows does is verifying digital signatures on signed executables, and you don't want to disable that for obvious reasons. Do you have any documentation that you can link to without violating the forum rules?

Sorry but I don't have links that wouldn't violate forum rules.
About the author: He's the guy that I'd trust and I'm a type of a person who doesn't trust people easily. He's been around quite a time and has made other tools beside this one. He's member of a small community forum where experts come and so far, he's never caused any problems. I know there's always a possibility but given his past history and reputation, I don't think his work is one of those things that does things behind your back.

Deadtrees types like one of those Nigerian email scam dudes. Where's my check for $1.5 million over the KB of my 1981 Ford Mustang LX, fool!? lol

You're right on my poor writing skill. After writing an hours and days of intensive essay, I just let myself go. As English isn't my first language, when I let go of it, it goes pretty far and you know it.
One thing I'd like to mention: For personal attacks, you can use PM.

YOU have no idea what you are talking about. I don't know that I have read a piece of factual information from a post in this thread from you yet!

-Kevin

 

[Raduque]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
But of course everything YOU say is correct.

Take it to P&N. We need intelligent people here in the technical forums.

No, I'm just saying that anything that smells like bullshit, usually is bullshit.

I'm also saying that you shouldn't believe everything you read on the Internet.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Raduque

Originally posted by: shortylickens
But of course everything YOU say is correct.

Take it to P&N. We need intelligent people here in the technical forums.

No, I'm just saying that anything that smells like bullshit, usually is bullshit.

I'm also saying that you shouldn't believe everything you read on the Internet.

And in this case you are correct...

 

[Absolution75]

This was a fairly entertaining thread - but really the OP has no idea what he's talking about. The screenshot he posted looks completely fake.


Post a portion of the source code if you speak the truth. . . .

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
YOU have no idea what you are talking about. I don't know that I have read a piece of factual information from a post in this thread from you yet!

-Kevin

What a wonderful contribution to this thread :disgust:

You would do well to learn that:
1) professors and textbooks are not always correct
2) learning about something in college does not make you an expert
3) if you are not an expert in the subject matter, please refrain from making equally outlandish, polar opposite statements with no supporting evidence

I would never bother with an activation crack and I could care less about any supposed performance gain, but neither you nor the OP have proven your case.

MarkR's post is a good example of what a post should be because it is non-confrontational and evaluates the OP in a calm and rational manner, ultimately adding to the discussion of Win7 DRM:

Originally posted by: MarkR

I don't know.

However, what this guy is saying might have an element of truth in it. As I understand it, Windows Vista and presumably windows 7 will perform a Windows licence check every time you run an exe. This is because some windows versions (e.g. Vista Starter edition) only support running 3 non-system .exes simultaneously. If you try to load a 4th, then the application will fail to load due to a licensing error.

It wouldn't surprise me to see that the same licensing code is present in all versions of Windows - as it is a variant of the Systems Groups Policy code. After all, Vista has a 'reduced functionality mode' if there is a problem with the activation, that will let you run internet explorer, but nothing else. And if you try some trickery to try to get IE to launch an exe (e.g. by browsing to a local directory) then the application will fail to load.

If it is the case here that W7 has an extremely sophisticated licensing system, that is checked before starting an executable, then it is conceivable that by bypassing the checks, the performance of the OS can be improved.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
YOU have no idea what you are talking about. I don't know that I have read a piece of factual information from a post in this thread from you yet!

-Kevin

What a wonderful contribution to this thread :disgust:

You would do well to learn that:
1) professors and textbooks are not always correct
2) learning about something in college does not make you an expert
3) if you are not an expert in the subject matter, please refrain from making equally outlandish, polar opposite statements with no supporting evidence

I would never bother with an activation crack and I could care less about any supposed performance gain, but neither you nor the OP have proven your case.

MarkR's post is a good example of what a post should be because it is non-confrontational and evaluates the OP in a calm and rational manner, ultimately adding to the discussion of Win7 DRM:

Originally posted by: MarkR

I don't know.

However, what this guy is saying might have an element of truth in it. As I understand it, Windows Vista and presumably windows 7 will perform a Windows licence check every time you run an exe. This is because some windows versions (e.g. Vista Starter edition) only support running 3 non-system .exes simultaneously. If you try to load a 4th, then the application will fail to load due to a licensing error.

It wouldn't surprise me to see that the same licensing code is present in all versions of Windows - as it is a variant of the Systems Groups Policy code. After all, Vista has a 'reduced functionality mode' if there is a problem with the activation, that will let you run internet explorer, but nothing else. And if you try some trickery to try to get IE to launch an exe (e.g. by browsing to a local directory) then the application will fail to load.

If it is the case here that W7 has an extremely sophisticated licensing system, that is checked before starting an executable, then it is conceivable that by bypassing the checks, the performance of the OS can be improved.

Well instead of posting blindly in this thread, if you read the rest of my posts, you would see that I supported my statement. But by all means cherry pick the one post out of all my responses and ignore the rest :roll:

First off, you would do well to learn not to put words in another person's mouth. Not once did I claim I was an expert on the subject and not once did I claim that I got this information from a professor or a textbook.

As for the 3rd point, are you out of your mind? I'll post where I feel I can contribute to a discussion within my knowledge on this board. This thread is certainly falls within that!

Next off, I have written plenty of programs and have time and again stated that it would be near impossible and impractical to run an activation check every time an executable is run. Where do you imagine that this exchange is going on? What about systems that are not connected to the internet? Where is the script that magically runs this check?

Not only that, assuming that we live in this fantasy world where an activation check is run, why in the WORLD would that slow down the program by how much the OP is claiming. You are talking about a basic Send/Receive sequence and then the program would run as normal. So MAYBE a 2 second delay for sending a packet of data.

Finally, maybe you should take a little look see back at my previous posts and read all the "supporting evidence" that I posted.

As for MarkR's reply - I am fairly certain it has even been mentioned in this thread that the 3 process limit has been lifted in the only version of Windows 7 that has it (Starter edition).

-Kevin

 

[tcsenter]

How does a topic about illegal cracks not get locked?

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
How does a topic about illegal cracks not get locked?

As I've said before, as long as you don't talk about how to do it, where to get it, or flagrantly admit to being a pirate, it's not going to be locked. Otherwise we're more than happy to allow discourse about such technical matters.

This thread will be locked if you guys can't behave, however.

 

[Qianglong]

I think the best way to activate Win 7 is through the BIOS hack method to make a home built PC look like an OEM PC to Win 7. This is a permanent way of activating Win 7

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Qianglong
I think the best way to activate Win 7 is through the BIOS hack method to make a home built PC look like an OEM PC to Win 7. This is a permanent way of activating Win 7

THAT is an example of something you probably shouldn't be discussing as it has left the realm of the inner workings of hacking/activation and start to suggest methods of hacking.