Jump to content

Talk:SecuROM/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

possible to create images that work

In reply to the previous comment, it is in fact possible to create images that work, but they are not true "1:1" copies as mentioned by the original comment. There are quite a few details involved, and I'll try to outline them in this comment. First, there are 3 general ways copy protection is circumvented: One way is to modify the protected content to remove protection, often delivered in packages called "cracks." However, cracks are supplementary to the original content and are cumbersome to distribute (partialy due to their questionable legality). Also, cracks may conflict with future vendor patches. Thus, although applicable in some cases, cracks are not a all-around solution.

Another way that copy protection is circumvented is through some form of emulation. The majority of the original content is copied traditionally, while the parts which are checked by the protection is storied in a separate manner that varies between implementation. Then, helper software of some sort will use the separate data to make it appear to the copy protection that it is not a copy. In the case of securrom 4.7 and above, the data density is measured for the entire disc and then emulated. Common applications such as Alcohol and BlindWrite are capable of reading and storing this information. Also, the density information can often be downloaded per-content. Then, many virtual drives emulate the information. However, the cevat is that an additional helper application is necessary. Cracks have the weakness of being per-content while this methodology is per-protection. Additional helper application are sometimes as cumbersome as cracks however.

Actually 1:1 copies ARE possible of all securom games, but burning them back to a disc in original format is where the problems come in, you can create the image of the software perfectly on your HD, but burners cannot replicate the way its burned, so burning the image file to a disc will still keep it 1:1 but burning the information onto the disc (as it comes on the original) will not be a 1:1

However im not bothering updating wiki these days as its rapidly becoming a pile of shit, too many admins who like to use their power to insert POV all over the place or simply keep information off wiki that makes something they like, look bad. Now, you are probably wondering what those 2 paragraphs were for. Well, they are necessary for an accurate description of what "1:1" means and what the 3rd method is. 1:1 means to create a copy that is exactly the same as the original. It can also be known as a "generational loss." Traditionally, "1:1" refers to copies that can be used in the same manner as the original (ie, no crack/helper application is necessary). This is confusing for people who mix up "indistinguishable by the copy protection" and "the same as the original." For example, a common way to bypass safedisc 2 is called "amplifing weak sectors" which also results in functionally the same thing, is not exactly the original. In the case of securerom 4.7 and above, there have been tools for quite some time to alter a normal image such acts like the original copy (insert bogus sectors to alter the apparent density).

Thus, it's possible to create an image that "just works." However, these are never "1:1" copies. I hope this clarifies some things. Oh also, there aren't any generic cd burning tools such as Alcohol, clonecd, etc. that does this for you. If you are doing these kinds of modifications, you know you are doing them (referring to securerom types). 68.48.32.184 20:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
A copy is not an image is not a copy. They are separate things. Most copy protection is vulnerable to 1:1 image creation, but are unable to be fully duplicated. 66.118.149.200 (talk) 07:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Rootkit

Why no mentions of SecuROM using rootkits? Especially with BioShock. 69.182.52.67 08:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The language in the part about the rootkit looks like it was written by the company that makes securom itself in the way it repeats the same point and lacks the possibility of securom being rootkit-like, I am editing it to be more neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.7.174 (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

securerom by definition isn't a rootkit, people should read up on what a rootkit actually is. Markthemac (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


It is a rootkit by definition.You seem to be repeating SecuROMs line which has been refuted by many security professionals. Lets look at the definition in connection with the facts.

"Rootkit: (N), A type of Trojan that keeps itself, other files, registry keys and network connections hidden from detection." The null registry keys, hidden network traffic, and malformed files that can not be removed by windows all fit this part of its description.

"It enables an attacker to have "root" access to the computer, which means it runs at the lowest level of the machine." Securom runs at ring0 and effectively has kernel level access rights to the OS. This is how it blocks hardware or software. Although it is true that it also has ring3 processes the root of the application is on ring0.

Lets not forget that SONY, who is responsible for SecuROM also lied about their previous DRM by saying it was not a rootkit and were found incorrect in court. Their statements and those of secuROM should be considered highly suspect. --Cuberhobo (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuberhobo (talk

Also, I remember a period of time where AVG actually considered secuROM a virus infection. I about lost a Bioshock installation over that. ...not to mention it tried to zap F.E.A.R. and the Crysis Beta. Xe7al (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Legality

It is also worth discussing the legality of this. Sony was in trouble due to their XCP software[1]. They are apparently in direct violation of that ruling with their implementation of Securom. The ruling stated the following:

“Installations of secret software that create security risks are intrusive and unlawful. Consumers’ computers belong to them, and companies must adequately disclose unexpected limitations on the customary use of their products so consumers can make informed decisions regarding whether to purchase and install that content.”[2]

--87.237.219.43 (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Why hasn't Sony been taken to court over this? Also, the software publishers seem awfully complacent in this matter. I think some heads need to roll here... 24.16.133.49 (talk) 03:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know if SecuROM or the companies that employ it reimburse damages incurred by its use? Seems like a major factor that should definitely be in the article. Does SecuROM even present you with a Terms of Service document? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you don't want to have rootkits , try disabling autoplay, rip the game DVD with CloneDVD which breaks SecureROM protection. They support Blue Ray now too, so its not a big deal. Don't try to make a big lawsuit over this, companies like Sony don't care about the law, but do very much about the profit. I guess, this is a very controversial opinion. -Aroll605

Anti SecuRom Users Community

Guess that community should be aware of such site presence. In addition it contains a lot of SecuRom information. 3bigs (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There are multiple forums for the dissemination of this kind of information. Wikipedia is only to report on the most important and valid ones, such as those covered in third-party publications. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Cite up!

The controversy section needs a good facting. Is there actually a concrete problem that exists outside of the heads of the swathe of misinformed, reactionary lusers? 86.160.198.27 (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a cite for this, tried to find one. But I was having a problem with Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit where every time I right clicked an EXE file or icon on the desktop (LNK file) Windows Explorer would crash and restart. This made it impossible for me to go to the properties page of icons in order to set options. I am not sure what program I installed that caused this behavior. However, I got a free utility called ShellExView which shows you all the shell extensions, and that's when I found "CmdLineContextMenu Class" with description "SecuROM Context Menu for Explorer" and version "1,1,224,0" with company "Sony DADC Austria AG". I disabled this shell extension and suddenly was able to right click my desktop icons again without crashing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.85.117 (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like the file in question got corrupted somehow. Reinstalling the game that adds that file will fix the problem. -XJDHDR (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Spore

Changed "Amazon" to "Amazon.com", just to clear things up. Amazon.co.uk, .fr and .de don't look like they're being hit by the same thing. 82.29.235.234 (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Amazon.co.uk deleted the reviews. --RadioElectric (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see some actual evidence that the situation at Amazon.com is an organized campaign. My own research has suggested that while it's snowballed since being publicized, there has been no organizing force other than publicity of the initial reaction. Chrysoula (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


Forgive me if I'm missing something, but why are people making such a big deal out of Spore having SecuRom? It hasn't had any effect on my game, and unless I had read this article I probably wouldn't have even known it was there.
71.59.174.198 (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Phucket
That's because the argument against SecuROM is entirely speculative, with "some have claimed this" and "I once read that this happened to a guy... although I haven't experienced problems myself." There is no conclusive evidence that SecuROM impedes (legitimate) users, nor that it has installed spyware/rootkits. Therefore the controversy section should be removed, as it is meaningless and only serves to list games that include SecuROM and add "some have claimed that..." arguments without citations.

169.234.89.240 (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's speculative, but SPORE is the most-pirated game of 2008, and there have been people admitting that they pirated because they didn't want SecuROM on their computer... so yeah, there's no "proof", but there are arguable trends. Also, I'm pretty sure it isn't 'organized'. There are just a bunch of people who state that they couldn't play the game because the game has told them they've already installed it three times when they haven't. They may or may not be made up stories, but I'm sure there's probably at least some truth, either way. 68.201.124.107 (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, since this is wikipedia, shouldn't there be a mentioning of how to remove SecuROM (or are those posts simply being removed?)... 68.201.124.107 (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Poorly Worded

In the section Spore controversy the below sentence is a little vague

  • A vast majority of these comments cite SecuROM as the main reason for the low rating.

What constitutes "vast majority"? 80%? 51%? Paskari (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I was there not long ago, and yeah, I don't know what you consider "a vast majority", but to my personal perception, it seemed to be a large, notable portion, not all, but a lot. 68.201.124.107 (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Crack dates

Would it be appropriate to add crack dates for all these games listen in the controversy section? It really fits in the article, in my opinion, but I'd like to hear what you all think.

Bioshock, 3 days: [1]
The Sims 2, can't find a really reliable source.
Mass Effect, 1 day: [2]
Spore, day -1 [3], various other sources. 69.182.67.93 (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope.--SkyWalker (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Maybe not the specific dates but possibly a short section talking about the fact that the reaction is such that people resort to immediately cracking the DRM. In the Spore article it talks about how it's on its way to having the highest number of illegal downloads of any program ever. Action > reaction. People would be less inclined to resorting to this if they didn't see the the company acting in what they see as an unethical way. Illegal coping may exist regardless of SecuROM but it ultimately has the exact opposite effect of its intention, in the long run. 64.132.80.134 (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, as I said earlier, there's no "proof" but there does seem to be a trend of a lot of people choosing to break the law rather than allow a software they can't control into their computer. I mean, the idea of a program you can't control 'spying' on you is pretty scary, even if you don't *really* have anything to worry about. You have to admit though, it is kind of akin to the idea of a sci-fi conspiracy plot like 'I, Robot' where the robots all have their own secret agenda from a central computer.68.201.124.107 (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Except that there's no proof whatsoever that SecuROM is "spying" on anyone, because in all likelihood it is not doing any such thing. Whether you're afraid of some fancy science-fiction scenario doesn't mean that it's actually occurring. Steam for example also verifies purchased games against a central server, yet people don't seem to be afraid of Steam spying on them. Unsubstantiated Hysteria is not the same as fact.

Also your crack dates are completely incorrect. For example the BioShock crack date you reference is not for a working crack, it even says in the notes at the top of that page that the release has been nuked for bad non-working crack. It actually took 10 days for a working BioShock crack to be released [4]. Similarly the Mass Effect crack you link to isn't 1 day after release, it specifically says in the article you link to: "Finally, after 5 or so days into the release of the game, someone released a fix which removes the galaxy map problem as well as the save glitch."

The above corrections are a good example of how this article has been filled with blatant inaccuracies from people who don't know what they're talking about, and more importantly, can't even read the material they're referencing themselves.59.167.58.147 (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comparison with steam is entirely unfair. Users install Steam and are able to completely uninstall Steam at will. Users NEVER agree to install Securom, and once installed, it is not removable. (Newer versions may have a remover, but it does not remove everything, and older versions are still installed.) Securom fits EVERY criteria to be labeled a root-kit. Denying it is towing the line for the big copyright industry. 24.21.30.144 (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sacred 2 more citations needed?

The final citation for the claim that it is seen as "Customer friendly" by the press, media, and on Amazon is not fully supported. It only provides a reference regarding Amazon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.136.46 (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Mass Effect lawsuit posted vs Securom

Source

http://reclaimyourgame.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=17&Itemid=57 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReconPathFinder (talk • contribs) 17:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


Disc check vs. online activation

I've noticed that people are reverting edits which refer to instances of securom which only check for the presence of the software's disc. I don't see why this information should be censored. Would it not be better if the article made it clear that securom allows content producers to dictate the policies associated with their products? This may or may not include activation or disc checks.

N.B. *All* forms of securom (and similar DRM systems) are based on modifying the operating system kernel. If this is poorly done it could provoke *system-wide* instability. Furthermore, a kernel level extension could subvert fundamental parts of the system to hide certain activities. Regardless of the nature of these hidden activities, this is what is known as a rootkit.

Lambda kid (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


splitting the controversies up

Someone should consider splitting the controversies up and adding a lawsuits filed, as there are rumors of a third one being filed. Wolvenmoon (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

--It seems there's even a fourth one being filed now ( http://reclaimyourgame.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=17&Itemid=57 ) It's rather excessive, and if there's been four within a month, there's more to come at other companies using it. Does anyone else agree with me about this? I'm not quite sure I'm up to the job of formatting it properly, and I'd hate to spend the time learning how just to end up bugging a buncha people. Wolvenmoon (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry about missing the talk page guidelines! I hadn't read them in quite awhile. Moved to where this shoulda been!) Wolvenmoon (talk) 07:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Fallout 3 Section

I added a [citation needed] to the kernel-mode claim, which SecuROM explicitly denies (http://www.securom.com/support_faq.asp#_Toc211244852). Granted SecuROM is not exactly a non-biased source for that information, but explicitly lying about it seems unlikely to me. This paragraph has gone through a lot of changes; I don't know if it used to be clearer. Note that the citation for the following sentence does not apply to this claim, only to whether or not the Steam version includes it. Holme215 (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sony has been caught outright lying before. See the Sony BMG CD copy protection scandal article for details on that. The credibility of the information published via the SecuROM website is thus questioned. 66.118.149.200 (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

StarForce

I'm confused by the controversies section, I was actually driven here by someone who is part of the Anti-SecuROM sect that is currently vandalizing Amazon.com with negative reviews on games that use it.

I have to say I'm baffled by the extremely bias direction of the article, I have the games in question, I have no issues, no qualms, yet it seems blown out of proportion. Now on to the headline, StarForce, conversely, has forced Operating Systems to cease functioning, shut down the functionality of purchased emulation software, and I can personally state it did both to me, when I was unaware of it's existence, and I was forced to reformat.

Yet I've had no issues with SecuROM, but when I compare the Controversy section, there is a truly stunning imbalance present versus the true Controversy of each protection protocol, I can't help but think the very sect behind the specifically Anti-SecuROM vandalism on Amazon and other sites is driving the direction of this article. Revrant (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right. People who don't know about Wikipedia's policies and such are contributing to the article, however they want, with no real expert as to determine how well-sourced the claims are, or how biased the language is. I've been removing stuff as I see fit, but that's not really making the article significantly better, just keeping it from getting worse.
Whereas, on other articles, you can clearly see a lot better quality control in demanding better cites and language that adheres to the actual claim sourced (such as Spore).
But you are very biased on your point of view, that you've had no problems at all, and think that the controversy is overblown. I too have not experienced the same problems as others have, but I think they exist and they should be covered. The only question is, how much of it should be covered? hbdragon88 (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
What bothers me is not simply that it's there though, it is the fact that almost none of it is sourced, it's all original research that I think the Anti-SecuROM sect are falsely putting in to the article. The controversy section is as large or larger than the entire article separated from the aforementioned section. That is simply wrong, when I can go back and find a bevy of sources in regard to the extremely damaging activities of StarForce in regard to these very popular games, and yet I can find nothing but forum posts and weakly worded articles in regard to SecuROM, I am highly suspicious as to where those editing the article are even getting their information, provided it is not propaganda. Revrant (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I've went ahead and burned most of it, removing 10K of text, and providing better sourcing for Spore. I'll check around to find better sources for the other sections. Weee!! It's fun to burn stuff! hbdragon88 (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
That reads and cites far better than before, this is definitely an improvement. Revrant (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Guys, what about The Sims 2? Reclaim Your Game (your so called Anti-SecuROM sect for The Sims) has an article with EXTERNAL references outlining how SecuROM damages people's computers. Take a look. I think it's important to include in the article. --Funnykidrian (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Deactivation

Didn't EA make a deactivator for Spore because of SecuRom? --70.91.216.25 (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

These aren't called 'deactivators', they're activation revoke tools, designed to ensure that people can revoke an activation when they uninstall a game. Far Cry 2 for example automatically revokes an activation of the game when it's uninstalled, as long as the user is online. If they are offline, or reformat the hard drive for example, then they will need to use a manual revoke tool to regain an activation from an uninstalled copy. In any case these tools are not in response to the Spore controversy, there's been official discussion of them dating back to BioShock's implementation of SecuROM in August 2007.59.167.62.143 (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The deactivation tool doesn't work. I tried it. Theusernameiwantedisalreadyinuse (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Future in the past!

Just read some part of the article and noticed at the end that "Spore is becoming one of the most pirated game of 2008". I don't know anything about it except that 2008 is gone, could someone verify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TiCPU (talk • contribs) 17:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have verified, 2008 is indeed in the past.[5] -Verdatum (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sims 3

Get ready, ya'll! The Sims 3 is failing to start for a large number of users who bought legit discs... and SecuROM is probably the culprit. Sweetfreek (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I bought TS3 on release day for my Vista computer and it works fine with no sign of SecuROM. TS2:BV has caused problems with XP though for me. Funky on Flames (user;talk;edits) 14:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

List of games protected by SecuROM?

I believe that this page deserves a list of games protected by SecuROM and should state the version with its "features". Ex. Spore is protected by SecuROM 7 with 10 day reactivation and as much as possible it should be represented like a graph.

Games that are

Game Internet Activation x Day Revalidation Install Limits CD Required Revoke GTA IV (Retail) No No No Yes N/A Spore Yes before, 10 Days 3 Machines No Yes Red Alert 3 Yes none 5 Machines No Yes

Please add one. It would be useful for everyone Triadwarfare (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs a list. 65.2.204.248 (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Information that should be here

I just can't figure out how/where to put this, but we should definitely mention (citing this could be very hard) that since the 2008 SecuROM scandal, all the big players (EA, 2K, Ubisoft) have dropped SecuROM and gone back to disc checks. It'll probably have to be something like "Analysts have pointed out that..." -- Love, Smurfy 16:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Just did a Google News search. There were no results that I would consider to be hard news (like the currently cited stuff). Nobody yet seems to have written about how SecuROM use has dropped, although I do know it personally: The Sims 3 apparently has an even weaker disc check than the original The Sims 2 game. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

How does it work?

Why is there no information about how Securom works? That's what I came here for.. 24.9.120.43 (talk) 08:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Go to http://www.cdmediaworld.com/hardware/cdrom/cd_protections_securom.shtml and scroll down, near the bottom is a short paragraph on how it works. --.Tom. (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
That explains a little bit, but I agree this article is very sparse on what SecuROM actually does. The page you linked says that SecuROM just does disc checks, but the article seems to imply that it also involves activation limits and checks if CD drive emulation and debugging software is installed. It seems like SecuROM takes a lot of different approaches, but the article doesn't explicitly enumerate what these are. 71.63.171.246 (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

crashes and problems

The section on "known issues" is a lot too friendly. There are lots of postings on the forums for Securom and Securom protected games about system instability (especially on XP) and other problems caused by Securom. Since these problems are one of the main reasons that people dislike it, shouldn't that be at least mentioned? If forum postings, even in vast quantities, don't count as "reliable sources" then one could at least say "it is said that..." or "many public comments speak about..." or whatever other soft talk is required. --.Tom. (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Outdated template: How did the class action suit end?

Just would be good to have that here. Thanks 12:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply: There is some info here: http://www.simprograms.com/12843/ea-to-settle-the-securom-class-action-lawsuit/ which appears to indicate that EA settled in 2010. It memtions that the settlement allows customers to claim for breach of licence agreement, tresspass to chattels or property etc. However the article link to the official settlement text is now defunct. Perhaps someone could find the official settlement text and add the relevant info and citation to the main article as you suggst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.131.162 (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Mass Effect budget release

The article says that budget re-releases of Mass Effect omit SecuROM. In a local store, I found Mass Effect branded under the EA Value Games range, and the cover claimed that an internet connection was required to play. Can anyone confirm?85.82.228.249 (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Windows 10?

Is there any proof of SecuROM versions in the wild that are incompatible with Windows 10? The only thing I can find changed is the lack of secdrv.sys, but that is the driver for Rovi/Macrovision's Safedisc. All my SecuROM games run fine in Windows 10, and my understanding is that most versions of SecuROM do not use kernel drivers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BFeely (talk • contribs) 22:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

ReclaimYourGame sources

Sources 33 and 36 point to ReclaimYourGame (dot) com, which is now defunct and redirects to a malware site.

33 has no archive link listed, and I’m in the process of tracking one down to replace it. 36 has an archive link but still lists the original, malicious URL.

Should this be removed, so that wiki is not leading its readers to malicious sites? Scoott2016 (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Answered my own question. I added an archive link for 33 and marked both 33 and 36 unfit (now 34 and 37 due to my previous updates) Scoott2016 (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Sony_BMG_CD_copy_protection_scandal
  2. ^ http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/01/sony.shtm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SecuROM/Archive_1&oldid=1250472518"