13 Nov
2005
13 Nov
'05
10:13 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 11/12/2005 at 10:34 PM Frank McConnell wrote:
As I understand it, it was a bit more careful than that. Fortune
offered this as a service -- if you wanted this sort of copy protection
for your software, Fortune could do it for you. But if you didn't,
the binaries coming out of ld were unencrypted and could be copied to
other 32:16s where they would work OK.
The other side of more careful is that if you were running an
encrypted executable, when it got swapped out the swapper would
encrypt the code on the way to the swap disk and decrypt it on the way
back in. I guess they weren't too worried about winning the benchmark
game.
-Frank McConnell
They also had a reasonably effective
copy-protection scheme...
From the sound of it, it seems like a customer had to buy ALL of their
software from Fortune. That's pretty sneaky!