Amplitube 2 Jimi Hendrix RELEASED this month!!!

[A3ntar]

If the audio clip on the intro page is made with Amplitube2 ( www.amplitube.com ) then I don't think it will be that good. Definitvly not worth 500$ MSRP.

[Beardedone]

That's for sure.

[A3ntar]

Also supposedly NI is going to annouce GuitarRig 2 on AES this weekend. We need somebody to keep us updated

[Pollux]

Does IK Multimedia really think I'm gonna fork out 199€ for something with an annoying USB protection?

I'm sorry, but my laptop only has 3 USB ports, and I'm definitely not going to carry a USB hub and an extra dongle with me just for an amp sim! What do you think this type of protection really brings? If people are going to crack AT2, it's exactly as easy to get a crack for a USB dongle as for a challenge/response (i.e. it should be nothing more than a program patch). If people are legitimate users, it's just a PITA to have to carry around a hardware dongle.

[A3ntar]

it's exactly as easy to get a crack for a USB dongle as for a challenge/response

I have to disagree on this one Pollux. The hardware protection approach is a lot more scure then software only ( not impossible, just harder ). I think syncro actually encrypts the code and never decrypt it even for execution! Instead it uses lookup instructions table and the encrypted code becomes essentially much more slower. This is my main concern in my case for commercial protection.

Somebody said that Cubase protection drops it's speed by 50%?!! If this is true, then this is one heck of a disadvnatage right there. What companies do is they bump minimum hardware requirements to compensate for any "execution latency" introcuded by the wrapper in the code. Of course, I think most wrappers allow "fucntion specific" encryption instead of global protecting approach. That can make matters a bit faster if the crtitical functions dont get encrypted.

It would be curious to know if Squids did any benchmarks of program execution speed ( startup, running, loading file, etc...) of the protected version vs. the unprotected one ( on Philharmonic or AT2 )

[Beardedone]

Where does it say there will be a dongle? I sure hope that is isn't going to be. If true IK MM keep this up there are going to lose me as a customer.

[A3ntar]

It didn't say it for sure, but Squid's reply was that it will be probably using a dongle protection.

It will not use Ilok but it may use syncrosoft protection. Something this powerful has to be securely protected.

[Pollux]

I have to disagree on this one Pollux. The hardware protection approach is a lot more scure then software only ( not impossible, just harder ).

It's *never* harder for the average warez user: download crack, execute, voilà.

It might be hard for the cracking team though, but someone said earlier in this thread that Syncrosoft has already been cracked. Plus, I think that cracking teams are excited by the "challenge" to crack a sophisticated protection -- and since no software protection is unbreakable (remember that from the point of view of Amplitube, a hardware dongle is just a peripheral that can be ignored by properly patching the software), they'll always manage to break it.

I think syncro actually encrypts the code and never decrypt it even for execution! Instead it uses lookup instructions table and the encrypted code becomes essentially much more slower. This is my main concern in my case for commercial protection.

Of course it must decrypt it! How do you think your processor can execute it? The only way it could be executed without your being able to access the code would be:
- with part of the code executed inside the dongle -- I don't think a "generic" dongle like Syncrosoft's that can be used by several products could do that
- with motherboard and processor support for encrypted datapaths -- that's what some gaming consoles do, but it's not possible on current PC hardware

So it WILL be perfectly crackable, it WILL be cracked, and the crack users WILL be better off than legit users. Where's the sense in that?


As a side note although I'd be very bothered about having a USB dongle, I don't think that the protection would have a huge impact on CPU usage: applying the protection simply to non time-critical parts of the code should provide just as much protection as protecting ALL the code, and have virtually no performance impact, so if they're smart it's not gonna be a big problem on this side. But it still sucks



Beardedone> Squids said that it made sense to reuse Syncrosoft stuff because that's what Miroslav uses -- and Miroslav uses a hardware dongle...

[A3ntar]

Pollux, man, I think you misuderstood me. When I said that the code deosn't get decrypted, it means it doesn't get decrypted in blocks. I think it is done ( like an interpreted language ) an instruction at a time.

If you look at Syncro website this is what they say:

MCFACT, the Multi-Channel Finite Automata Code Transformation, creates a "cryptographically protected environment" within "public", insecure computer components. Program code is kept secret, but not moved into a secure executer for execution. Instead, during compilation of the protected application, the program code is cryptographically transformed and moved into a protected environment inside the application. Additionally, the transformed program code is enhanced to operate properly only in conjunction with the eLicenser's crypto-services. At runtime, the transformed program code does not reveal its semantics....The transformed program code is represented as tables in the computers memory. An adversary can not reverse-engineer or debug the tables, because a reverse transformation from the tables to original program code is not feasible.

Now, if they don't encrypt the speed critical code, then I guess it doesn't matter much speed wise. But I hope they don't take the lazy approach and encrypt the whole thing! :-/

[sghoughton]

You know though, the protection cant make it so slow it will be unusable - if thats the case, no one will buy it. Plugins are very easy to detect how much cpu their using - if its too much people will complain and word would get out so it wouldnt take long for sales to slow based on that alone. Surely they've accounted for that. If the cubase claim is true, then thats a tougher one to determine what its impact really is because its easier to disguise.

steve

[AndrewSimon]

Wow you guys are really negative here.
I have a feeling Amplitube2 will be great.
I do agree about the dongle thought.
I hope there won't be one, otherwise it's like a big fly right on top of my new cake.

[A3ntar]

sghoughton, you have a point, maybe I am worriying over nothing. What scares you guys then about Hardware copy protection in that case? Dongle inconvenience? System stability? etc...

[seamoss]

will it have that one setting that all amp sims seem to be missing.....



a true tube sound?

[A3ntar]

Who knows...We want feedback from people going to the AES. Analyse the heck out of it and bring us some reviews. Please do the same for NI new offering ( Guitar Rig 2? ).

Thanks!

[Pollux]

A3ntar>

Mostly dongle inconvenience, as far as I am concerned.


And wow, Syncrosoft's description looks a bit like snake oil... To me, "moved into a protected environment inside the application [on the computer itself]" looks contradictory: if the automaton is readable by the application, then it's not a "protected environment" any more. It's completely public for any cracker. Plus I don't see any scientific papers or more detailed description to back their approach -- security through obscurity is not very wise in this case, as anyway it wouldn't take long for a cracker to figure out how their protection scheme works: if their scheme really had solid theoretical bases, they'd be better off with peer-reviewed, provably secure algorithms.

(and LOL at one of their stated goals: "The protection method has to be transparent for the customer, and/or add value to the product." I feel dongles are SO transparent and add SO much value to the product!)