Hacking Why add anti-piracy measures to Devolution ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter air2004
  • Start date Start date
  • Views Views 285,254
  • Replies Replies 1,670
  • Likes Likes 29
The ripping process is separate from the key creating process. Cleanrip is used for copying the disk (tueidj even helped fix some bugs with it), and then devolution compares the disc image to the disk just enough to create the key.

That makes more sense, but then what is stopping a pirate from burning a CD-R from a downloaded ISO and using that for the comparison?
 
I would be really surprised if Devolution ever found it's way integrated into a USB Loader. It would have to use it's own loader.

Devolution already integrates very well with USB loaders. I've never even used Devolution's own loader with it, just CFG USB Loader.
 
That is of course a really good point, but open source doesn't just mean additions. It also means working with other programs. DIOS MIOS works with USB Loader GX and with virtual memory cards. If his program was closed source it would likely be too difficult to properly integrate into other loaders. I would be really surprised if Devolution ever found it's way integrated into a USB Loader. It would have to use it's own loader. He could create his own support for other programs that are open source, but not the other way around.
You can already use Devolution with a USB loader. Devolution's binary blob is like a plugin.

Edit: Ninja'd.
 
That makes more sense, but then what is stopping a pirate from burning a CD-R from a downloaded ISO and using that for the comparison?
It checks to see if the disk in the drive is a DVD-R disk or not as part of it's checks. The original IOS's and the original MIOS still perform the same check, too, so the drive is perfectly capable of distinguishing between the two (that's part of what they patched out when they started making cIOS's). There are a FEW cases where a modchip can work to trick it but it seems to check for a modchip, too, and fewer and fewer modchips were making it past the verification process as newer versions came out so I can only guess he's adding more brands to that check.
 
There are a FEW cases where a modchip can work to trick it but it seems to check for a modchip, too, and fewer and fewer modchips were making it past the verification process as newer versions came out so I can only guess he's adding more brands to that check.
I don't think so. That would mean he buys every modchip. I rather think it's more a trial and error thing.
 
Really? hmm. Then why does it say here that it's on the list of future improvement? Or did he exclude it entirely until it's working with everything? If he did manage to get it to work on even older consoles that in and of itself deserves quite a bit more praise.

There really isn't much to know about recent developments since tueidj hasn't posted anything here since last year besides updating randomly the devo/src links and not providing a change log.
 
It checks to see if the disk in the drive is a DVD-R disk or not as part of it's checks. The original IOS's and the original MIOS still perform the same check, too, so the drive is perfectly capable of distinguishing between the two (that's part of what they patched out when they started making cIOS's). There are a FEW cases where a modchip can work to trick it but it seems to check for a modchip, too, and fewer and fewer modchips were making it past the verification process as newer versions came out so I can only guess he's adding more brands to that check.

Completely unrelated to devolution, but I thought modchips poked the drive so they thought it was a wii optical disc, rather than a dvd-r, if it can tell it's a dvd-r, then does the chip just poke it to say boot anyway?
 
Completely unrelated to devolution, but I thought modchips poked the drive so they thought it was a wii optical disc, rather than a dvd-r, if it can tell it's a dvd-r, then does the chip just poke it to say boot anyway?
Usually the drive itself can tell but Wii modchips are usually onto the middle of the drive's data cable and so they just intercept the request and response when the drive is being asked if it's a burned disk or not and change the answer to say it's a retail disk so the motherboard only ever gets that answer and can't tell the difference.
 
He still is the only one who codes on DM. At least I'm not aware of any DM mods.
I don't know if there are other coders, but that conclusion is faulty.
Forks (or mods) are the last resort in open source participation.
They are simply to much work to keep in sync.
Before resorting to that most people will try the normal way (submit patches).
 
I don't know if there are other coders, but that conclusion is faulty.
Forks (or mods) are the last resort in open source participation.
They are simply to much work to keep in sync.
Before resorting to that most people will try the normal way (submit patches).
Except that crediar is the only one who submits "patches"..
 
Except that crediar is the only one who submits "patches"..
That might very well be but we have no way of knowing (patches are usually send by email).
But given the sad state of DMs build system I doubt there are any.
(It both keeps new ones away and would imho be the first thing fixed)
 
  • Like
Reactions: tmv_josue
Except that crediar is the only one who submits "patches"..
He may be the only one committing them to the SVN, but that could be because he's (one of) the only person(/people) with SVN commit access. It's possible other people are sending code to him (e.g. via email, as PsyBlade mentioned) and he's just merging it with his existing code and committing it to the SVN. No idea if this is the case or not, but it's certainly possible (although I would hope crediar would credit those responsible for the code).
 
He may be the only one committing them to the SVN, but that could be because he's (one of) the only person(/people) with SVN commit access. It's possible other people are sending code to him (e.g. via email, as PsyBlade mentioned) and he's just merging it with his existing code and committing it to the SVN. No idea if this is the case or not, but it's certainly possible (although I would hope crediar would credit those responsible for the code).
If that was the case, he would have credited people in the commit logs. I don't recall him doing so. The other person who has commit access is a friend of his (I forgot his username, but he is registered here, too). This person has committed code, too, but I recall him claiming that it was crediar's code.
 
An interesting bit of code from Devolution's loader.bin:

.text1:8001177C # =============== S U B R O U T I N E =======================================
.text1:8001177C
.text1:8001177C
.text1:8001177C sub_8001177C: # CODE XREF: .text1:80011E38p
.text1:8001177C lis r9, ((aLibogcRelease1+0x10000)@h) # "libOGC Release 1.8.10"
.text1:80011780 addi r0, r9, -0x7028 # aLibogcRelease1
.text1:80011784 lis r9, ((aAug22012+0x10000)@h) # "Aug 2 2012"
.text1:80011788 stw r0, 0x168(r13)
.text1:8001178C addi r0, r9, -0x7012 # aAug22012
.text1:80011790 stw r0, 0x178(r13)
.text1:80011794 blr
.text1:80011794 # End of function sub_8001177C
 
Lol, he got himself banned quickly (izzydeank).

Now to go back a little: If i remember correctly, tueidj was at first never planning on releasing DEVOLUTION but because crediar brought out DiosMios, and did so in a way that rubbed many people's hair the wrong way, he eventually did release it. Me still thinks it was a revenge move on his part.
Although he did say he would do bugfixes and improvements, he foremost did it for himself.
I still cannot imagine why he put such a heavy AP on the homebrew, but i think it is due to the fact that he originally didn't want to release it and thought this was the only way to make it possible because he strongly is against piracy (so i heard).

That said, piracy can be explained in soo many ways that it will always be a major point of discussion.
 

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum