About my devices

djmicron · Post by **djmicron** » Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:31 pm

no mate,
what i'm talking for, is not an hack, but it's more a sort of bug.
But there is a way of avoiding it, so you are wrong when you think that every device can be opened and checked and who knows about the bug know how to protect the device from it.

Scope sdk is a good developing platform, but it's very old, it does not have a manual, it does not offer a support service and it's not updated by some years.

Developing circuits with scope sdk is not just a matter of experience in modular circuits, but there is more to research in the direction of parameters and dsp functionality and everything you solve is like a goal.

I'm using some other developing platform and there is always a public bug report service.

I have reported a bug that is not related to devices functionality, but it's related to device protection and some of the planet z users told me that it's not a good idea and that it's a damage for scope platform and i don't see any damaging, because the bug i'm reporting is avoidable.

So scope sdk is the only one platform where reporting bugs is considered a way of damaging than a way of improving the software and to help all the sdk users....

Warp69 · Post by **Warp69** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 11:04 am

Hi All,

Im unaware of any bugs/hacks that could reopen protected devices in the SDK - and I would appreciate if someone could test my devices.

I do believe there's a reason why Quantec and others never released a device for the platform - afaik even TC had boards to evaluation.

Kind regards
Martin

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 12:06 pm

djmicron wrote:I have reported a bug that is not related to devices functionality, but it's related to device protection and some of the planet z users told me that it's not a good idea and that it's a damage for scope platform and i don't see any damaging, because the bug i'm reporting is avoidable.

So scope sdk is the only one platform where reporting bugs is considered a way of damaging than a way of improving the software and to help all the sdk users....

It's not even a bug, but a hidden feature imo, whch is why it's unfortunate that many posts on this thread blow the issue way out of proportion.

About the bug reporting, well as free sdk users (& according to the nda we signed) we're not supposed to discuss such things at all never mind in public. Cw & all sdk users could have been notified of this issue privately in my opinion. That would certainly have been my preference Sal, but I appreciate that you meant well.

Warp, the STW P100 seems fine, so I'd assume that your other devices will be ok too if you've used the same packing & protecting procedures.

Warp69 · Post by **Warp69** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 12:34 pm

Thank you for testing.

Cheers
Martin

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 4:04 pm

djmicron wrote:Scope sdk is a good developing platform, but it's very old, it does not have a manual,

It does have a manual. In fact the sdk 4.0 manual is pretty damn good imo. Do you not have the sdk 4.0 manual Sal?

djmicron · Post by **djmicron** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 4:33 pm

no,
i have just 2 pages of overall description.

I have never seen a detailed manual.

voidar · Post by **voidar** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 6:48 am

Shroomz: So this all boils down to RTFM ?

johnbowen · Post by **johnbowen** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:56 am

hi,

I wanted to add...over all the years I've been developing for this platform, no one at Creamware ever told me that if you didn't use the option to delete GOs, your protected device could be 'opened' by another person with the SDK. The reason I have used the option, however, is because Rembert, who was checking one of my synths for the CW Shop, commented on how big my device file was, and said I should delete the GOs to make it smaller. But I never knew about this in regards to this 'bug' situation, and I certainly would have mentioned it to other developers if I did.

respectfully,
john bowen

p.s. also, I use Scope DP, which has less features than the recent SDK handed out last year.

digitalaudiosoft · Post by **digitalaudiosoft** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 10:17 am

johnbowen wrote:hi,

I wanted to add...over all the years I've been developing for this platform, no one at Creamware ever told me that if you didn't use the option to delete GOs, your protected device could be 'opened' by another person with the SDK. The reason I have used the option, however, is because Rembert, who was checking one of my synths for the CW Shop, commented on how big my device file was, and said I should delete the GOs to make it smaller. But I never knew about this in regards to this 'bug' situation, and I certainly would have mentioned it to other developers if I did.

respectfully,
john bowen

p.s. also, I use Scope DP, which has less features than the recent SDK handed out last year.

http://www.planetz.com/phpBB2/viewtopic ... 6&start=40

i just explain how to protect all devices.to avoid astroman,shroomz,mcyrano,hubird and friends to remove protection module of devices...

eric

Warp69 · Post by **Warp69** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:24 pm

Hi,

I dont believe any developer or Creamware knew about this bug - I didn't. But I think the manual of the Scope DP states that you should delete the GOs, but didn't mentioned why - I'll have to check that.

Cheers

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:32 pm

i just explain how to protect all devices.to avoid astroman,shroomz,mcyrano,hubird and friends to remove protection module of devices...

Sorry, might be the language barrier, but are you accusing these people of hacking? i think you should seriously back-track on this or back-up your claim before flinging shit like that around. Scope is a small market at best and pissing off your potential market on the main Scope board on the net beggars belief, but we've come to expect that from you along with you charming arrogance ("We don't need your custom" etc.)

dawman · Post by **dawman** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:39 pm

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:45 pm

digitalaudiosoft wrote:...
i just explain how to protect all devices.to avoid astroman,shroomz,mcyrano,hubird and friends to remove protection module of devices...
eric

astroman is a proud customer of Solaris, RedDwarf, RD Modules, RedDrum and Python Pro
he doesn't need your fake vintage eq because he bought ISON
he has no need for your (admittedly not too bad) reverb because he already has Paul Tanti's 2016, the STW X100 series, MasterVerb and the ArtsAcoustic native thing that perfectly replaces yours (and does a bit more)
as you can count (hopefully) that's over 1k Euro in devices, so please call me a pirate, to**er

cheers, Tom

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:48 pm

digitalaudiosoft wrote: i just explain how to protect all devices.to avoid astroman,shroomz,mcyrano,hubird and friends to remove protection module of devices...

eric

Ummm dude, seriously get a grip and stop smoking so much crack.

To be professional means to have a little bit of dignity, intelligence and being able to think before you talk shit.

You're doing a great job of proving otherwise to the entire potential userbase of your plugins.

Accusing random people of theft of intellectual property with zero proof is pretty stupid.

moxi · Post by **moxi** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:51 pm

i just explain how to protect all devices.to avoid astroman,shroomz,mcyrano,hubird and friends to remove protection module of devices...

eric

all of this guy spend a lot of time working on great device, sure you can borred to see that other can do the same than you not charging people for their knowledge...and maybe your devices are protected to avoid people to see which copied parts of code could be found inside?

I'm not sure you will protect your bizness saying such things...people here have ears and even if your gear look great, from my side they don't pass the test "yes this device is unque-I need it"..
On the other hand , with some device like those from Shroomz, I take a lot of fun...
In fact, I don't really care where the knowledge come from, my thanks 'and bucks) go first to those who don't consider the knowledge as a money account....
just make the SDK available for all developer and go winning your bucks with some new true innovations...that would be simpler..

best regards

spacef · Post by **spacef** » Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:34 am

2 simple and unique steps to protect a device.
- go to the project explorer and select the device
- right click and select "optimize for xtc" : it removes internal graphical lrepresentation of module, which allows to make lighter devices (see the difference in file size), which load much faster. Internal graphics may also call SFP for some ressources (in case sfp also has to draw the internal, useless, graphics)
- right click on the device again and choose "protect".
now it is protected as it should be.

nobody is "protected" from doing a mistake and uploading an open device by mistake. so in fact you can add an extra step which is to save in your SFP folder and make final tests with that particular copy of the device, by loading it in scope/sfp and checking that all is fine during a few days (and uploading that device, not another that you "think" is rightfully protected).
It even happens easily when the release is about several devices: it is more easy to forget one, so double checking is a clever strategy before releasing (a typical cause of that kind of mistake could just be the enthousiasm to release a device and make it available to the public asap).

There is no "trick" known to me to open a protected or closed device: you can only open devices which are already open. And this is not even a bug ! just the way things always worked in scope since the begining, as far as i know...

Regards

Mehdi

valis · Post by **valis** » Sat Mar 03, 2007 4:46 pm

Thank you Mehdi for a clear & lucid post.

dawman · Post by **dawman** » Sat Mar 03, 2007 6:23 pm

So It Shall Be Written, So It Shall Be Done.

digitalaudiosoft · Post by **digitalaudiosoft** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:02 am

i have try to wait before posting about this ,but,now,i can thanks salvatore aka djmicron to have informed us and other dev about this way to hack plugins !

one of his mail :

Hello,
i don't know the true name, but the planetz user that has informed me
is shroomz.
I know he is a graphic designer and he has done the gui of my cat modules.
He is involved with mccyrano in developing some new device, so i think
that mccyrano is 99% the informer and mccyrano is the only one sdk
developer that was frightened by my planetz post about the bug and he
have never asked me how the bug works, because he know how and all its
devices are 100% protected.....
Regards

Salvatore

bye,

eric

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:23 am

Well that was conclusive

.

Maybe you should try posting it in all the forums just to annoy everybody. Oh you already did...