Daz's loader is great. It has "stolen" millions of customers away from Microsoft. It does the exploit thing before Windows start so it's harder for Microsoft to prevent. What do you guy think Microsoft will do to make Daz's loader ineffective against Windows Activation Technologies? Imagine yourself as a programmer working for Microsoft. What would you do?
So now we are supposed to discuss how to ruin months of development? You got to be kidding... *shakes head*
I seriously doubt anyone will discuss publicly how to defeat any form of activation. It may be theoretically possible but extremely difficult for ms to implement and could cause problems for actual customers who bought a license.
It already passes WAT and I already have another working method which also passes WAT. Why show MS all my cards at once when they can't eliminate the loader as it is? You have to understand the loader runs outside of Windows so to Windows it's just a file on the HDD and nothing more. It looks like a system that was sold with SLIC activation.
Dump the bios either by copying some specific regions of the MBA or using raw I/O on the CMOS itself. Finally I would put the dumper in a driver which has a polymorphic encryption, anti-debug methods & uses rootkit technology e.g like ShadowWalker to hide the code pages, in addition open an SSL tunnel to validation server & forward all network traffic directly to NDIS layer which would bypass all TCP/IP filters. This would slow reverse engineering tremendously down & would be really difficult to defeat.
Dump the bios to scan for a SLIC? All the bioses are compressed and there is no unique way to program ACPITables...
Compare the dumped BIOS with the original one & check if the OS is activated as OEM. If the BIOS does not support SLIC 2.1 according to the vendor, flag the PC as non-genuine.
You would need a database and a extra server to host all original bioses or an hash of it....impossible. Also there are official SLICed bioses (remember marker tools?) It would be sufficient to read the bios string only and to check against a database......this idea we have had already......with extra effort (database of M$) it would be possible to detect all modifications...ODIN as well... .. but not SLIC'ed bioses by marker tools..
Theres a ton of compressed BIOS's too, this being the core reason why MS can't take aim correctly. A lot of BIOS manufacturers are sloppy and theres no way MS could depend on them so that they could develop a tool which supports each system since SLIC activation come into play. I hate discussing this subject anyway and I will say no more on it. I know MS looks at this forum and I'm not giving them any free ideas.
This discussion is dumb to begin with. I dont want MS to know how to defeat loader. Daz did excellent work with his loader and I dont want to ruin my copy of win 7. If MS wants then let them do the work to find solution in their favor, which I wish they never find. Person who started this thread seems to be MS looser employee or some dumb joker.
I agree it would cost M$ and OEM companies more to setup database than i would in the cost of lost sales.
Well truly the only efficient way to defeat Daz's loaders and others of this sort, is for Redmond to give the OS away for free. This would defeat it fast and easily.
MS hasn't found a Daz loader since 1.7.6 for me and that was quite a few months ago so I'm not worried and with Daz having a back up plan I'm even less worried or not at all ...lol
Nope, not a Microsoft spy... But sometimes I wish I were I just wanted to see the programmers (MDL has lots of good ones) to point out any potential weaknesses in Daz's loader which MS might possibly be used to make it ineffective against WAT. And I thought it would help giving Daz extra ideas to make the loader into perfection. I have a lot of respect for Daz's loader, and this is what I previously wrote:
He's got a pretty cool name for an MS spy but notice he didn't ask how loader worked only how it could be beat so I think he just had some curiousity that manifested as a slightly uncomfortable query into how what we have that works could potentially not work ...lol