|
|
| Page 67 of 111 |
|
|
 Posted: Sun, 31st Jan 2016 19:26 Post subject: |
|
 |
I bought the game via Windows 10 Store and it uses some sort of launcher that blocks framerate reading software: Frpas, MSI Afterburner, Radeon Pro.
Do you happen to know if there is any way to get a reading of the framerate?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Przepraszam
VIP Member
Posts: 14402
Location: Poland. New York.
|
| Posted: Sun, 31st Jan 2016 19:29 Post subject: |
|
|
| winkus wrote: | I bought the game via Windows 10 Store and it uses some sort of launcher that blocks framerate reading software: Frpas, MSI Afterburner, Radeon Pro.
Do you happen to know if there is any way to get a reading of the framerate? |
I'm sorry but why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 31st Jan 2016 19:31 Post subject: |
|
|
why he bought it there? cause its only 8,50 euros in the ukraine store without region restrictions
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
segobi
Posts: 1565
Location: FBI Cybercrime div.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 31st Jan 2016 19:57 Post subject: |
|
|
| Janz wrote: | | why he bought it there? cause its only 8,50 euros in the ukraine store without region restrictions |
Yep, that's correct. But I was not expecting that running games from windows store will not allow FPS monitoring. Such a strange behavior. If anyone knows a workaround let me know.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 31st Jan 2016 20:01 Post subject: |
|
|
dunno, maybe it has nothing to do with the windows store version but with the launcher the game itself uses? steamoverlay works fine though to display the fps
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Przepraszam
VIP Member
Posts: 14402
Location: Poland. New York.
|
| Posted: Sun, 31st Jan 2016 20:04 Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe try to disable Xbox Game DVR option?
I know it;s being enabled automatically on pretty much all games.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 31st Jan 2016 20:13 Post subject: |
|
|
I did that but did not solve the problem unfortunately. This sucks.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 31st Jan 2016 21:07 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
z0ne
Posts: 342
Location: Bulgaria/Germany
|
| Posted: Sun, 31st Jan 2016 22:25 Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I'm sorry, but I don't find this believable. You'll have to tell me which game this is, so I can verify it myself, and if you want, post the sample code that proves this.
I've looked at past versions of Denuvo. It uses a modified version of VMProtect 3 to virtualize many game functions, and a custom library that's different from VMProtect's for anti-debug, initial game decryptions as well as to implement some SDK features that lets the game check if it has been unpacked (known as "triggers" in older protections).
Before running game code, it will call a DRM library which is specific to the underlying platform, such as Steam or Origin and others.
I don't know why people call Denuvo not DRM, it's as much DRM as all the other protectors that came before it, and it has custom code written for Steam that is used in all Steam games, and the same for Origin games. It seems to me to be a PR stunt.
Besides VMProtect, some versions of Denuvo also have integrity checks, and random chunks of useless code and obfuscation inserted throughout the game code. Compared to the virtualization this is an insignificant problem, especially if you were to see what the obfuscations look like. Standard compiler techniques are sufficient for recovering most of the code, both obfuscation and virtualization.
If Denuvo isn't cracked it isn't because it's special, it's because there are no crackers left that seem to have the skills any more. VMProtect has existed since 2006 and the version used in Denuvo does still look the same as it always has looked. People have cracked and made VMProtect tools many times in the past, although not all the good ones are public.
From what I've seen, both now and in the past, it gets some encryption keys from Steam through a ticket, which serve to function as a temporary license for your PC, this license contains hardware id, expiration date, and possibly a code decryption key.
If it's really doing what you say it's doing, which I see no evidence of: there isn't enough space in the exe to store all those versions and I haven't seen code in any of the targets I've looked at (both recent and old) that do what you claim. There seems to be just enough space left in the executable for the virtualized functions and not much else.
Despite all the claims people are making about Denuvo not affecting performance, the VM does come with a few orders of magnitude of slowdown:
1) code is compiled from x86 to a virtual machine's instruction set, an x86 instruction will be translated into about between 2 to 50 VM instructions. A VM instruction is 1 to 4 bytes (depending on version of VMProtect, old was 1, new is 4) for fetching the next instruction opcode, and either 0, 1, 2 or 8 bytes for arguments. This will result in new instructions taking a lot more space, possibly between 2 bytes to 600 bytes per original x86 instruction, depending what the instruction is and the used version of the protector, newer ones being bigger.
2) the interpreter for this machine tends to take between 3 to 100 x86 instructions in its un-obfuscated form.
3) the interpreter is obfuscated, usually resulting in a 4-10 times increase in code size, and the code isn't localized in the same space (jumps throughout a 100MB executable will hurt cache) and access to the interpreter's "registers" and memory is done indirectly, again resulting in more sluggish performance.
Given these estimations, even if not perfectly accurate without doing actual statistics, you can expect between 24-50000 times slower code execution for protected instructions, possibly with an average 10000 times slow down. It would be insanity to do this on anything but initialization functions if you don't want your games to be very slow. If that wasn't enough to be bad, there are also threads running in parallel that performs anti-debugging features and they run virtualized code.
I haven't seen any gaps as you mention in protected game code once it's decrypted in memory, there are hundreds of virtualized functions per game, there are a lot of integrity checks in certain functions which are bound to be very slow, but if the developers were clever, they placed them in initialization code only. Some performance loss is unavoidable as certain code seems to be inserted indiscriminately throughout most functions, such as hiding integer constants using rather simple obfuscations, import protection by decrypting import addresses at runtime, and the integrity checks. Some games don't use most of these features, including the game 3DM was complaining about.
If the virtualized code is encrypted with a key, the key should be fixed and contained in the ticket. The size of this key for VMProtect was 64bits. It could be different here, in VMProtect they didn't even encrypt the code, rather the location of the code was encrypted.
While CPU-specific code is possible, in general, x86/x64 is a standard and it just works the same everywhere. CPUID might work differently and there are some far more evil recent features in Intel CPUs, but they aren't used by Denuvo. Exploiting CPU bugs might be possible, but the solution would be to just get all the versions: they can't all fit in the exe, and I haven't even seen any space there for all these versions you're talking about. Nor have I seen online code that does anything but get the time-locked license from Steam. "Encrypted" virtualized functions may exist, but this key should be game-specific and not user-specific.
Even if your idea was somehow feasible, it could be defeated by requesting older or more generic versions, or getting recent versions, and removing their architecture specific tricks as they are bound to be glaringly obvious, as most of Denuvo's code is, once you view it in a disassembler and study it a bit.
Your timing checks idea is feasible and has been done on some platforms like ARM that are more predictable than x86. While feasible in principle, it's incredibly hard to do it reliably and have stable code. It is also not undefeatable at all, it can be dealt with standard compilation and temporary emulations techniques to generate the original code from the modified code. I am doubtful of this technique being used on x86 as all implementations of it are very unreliable and buggy and it's very hard to implement it on x86 without bugs creeping up on you. I would consider your post speculation, unless you provide evidence or proof of your claims.
If you haven't realized it by now, the only real way of defeating Denuvo is with a specialized tool, this tool once written will defeat all current versions, removing it completely. Why doesn't this tool exist? I don't know, maybe sceners retired or lost interest? Maybe no skilled people outside of it? Lack of interest? You want to see it done? Set aside a few months, reverse engineer the protection and write a tool. It's not as hard as you may think, but you might want to cut your teeth on simpler ones first. Having such a tool would grant you better executables that run faster and are more stable.
You don't want to do that? You could take the the approach web groups like 3DM or even scene groups like CPY have and replace the keys in memory while patching the integrity checks in a few hundred places after making some scripts to detect them. This may be more difficult than you think because you will have to take a partial black box approach at studying memory and tracing differences between activated/non-activated versions. It won't be pleasant and it won't give you a better game or the satisfaction of having a better product than the original, it will also make you want to tear your hair out as you trace through the same VM interpreter code each time, duplicated dozens of times.
There is nothing special or new in Denuvo that hasn't been seen in Starforce 3 or 4, Securom 7 or 8, Solidshield and other big name game protections or cheaper commercial application protectors, and it's as much a protection and a DRM as those were, especially as they reuse the DRM code for each game. All you're seeing here is a PR stunt from a re-branded protection company and a not very active cracking scene, compounded by the fact that x64 reverse engineering tools are still young, although they are usable and enough to crack this: people have worked with far less usable tools in the past and have succeeded.
This is a throwaway account, I don't want to be given "gilded" or thanked. Please do your own research people, stop believing in things without sufficient evidence, especially when that evidence can be obtained merely by examining a file that is public. The game code is out there and you can read it as well as everyone else can, learn to reverse engineer and stop reading so many made up stories (SSD killer, processor "unique" code, constantly re-encrypting memory and other myths). The only reason I posted this is that it gets very tiring to read all these unfounded speculations about this protector on the internet, especially since it's a very standard protection in its design.
|
Wow  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 31st Jan 2016 22:27 Post subject: |
|
|
| z0ne wrote: |  Spoiler: | | Quote: |
I'm sorry, but I don't find this believable. You'll have to tell me which game this is, so I can verify it myself, and if you want, post the sample code that proves this.
I've looked at past versions of Denuvo. It uses a modified version of VMProtect 3 to virtualize many game functions, and a custom library that's different from VMProtect's for anti-debug, initial game decryptions as well as to implement some SDK features that lets the game check if it has been unpacked (known as "triggers" in older protections).
Before running game code, it will call a DRM library which is specific to the underlying platform, such as Steam or Origin and others.
I don't know why people call Denuvo not DRM, it's as much DRM as all the other protectors that came before it, and it has custom code written for Steam that is used in all Steam games, and the same for Origin games. It seems to me to be a PR stunt.
Besides VMProtect, some versions of Denuvo also have integrity checks, and random chunks of useless code and obfuscation inserted throughout the game code. Compared to the virtualization this is an insignificant problem, especially if you were to see what the obfuscations look like. Standard compiler techniques are sufficient for recovering most of the code, both obfuscation and virtualization.
If Denuvo isn't cracked it isn't because it's special, it's because there are no crackers left that seem to have the skills any more. VMProtect has existed since 2006 and the version used in Denuvo does still look the same as it always has looked. People have cracked and made VMProtect tools many times in the past, although not all the good ones are public.
From what I've seen, both now and in the past, it gets some encryption keys from Steam through a ticket, which serve to function as a temporary license for your PC, this license contains hardware id, expiration date, and possibly a code decryption key.
If it's really doing what you say it's doing, which I see no evidence of: there isn't enough space in the exe to store all those versions and I haven't seen code in any of the targets I've looked at (both recent and old) that do what you claim. There seems to be just enough space left in the executable for the virtualized functions and not much else.
Despite all the claims people are making about Denuvo not affecting performance, the VM does come with a few orders of magnitude of slowdown:
1) code is compiled from x86 to a virtual machine's instruction set, an x86 instruction will be translated into about between 2 to 50 VM instructions. A VM instruction is 1 to 4 bytes (depending on version of VMProtect, old was 1, new is 4) for fetching the next instruction opcode, and either 0, 1, 2 or 8 bytes for arguments. This will result in new instructions taking a lot more space, possibly between 2 bytes to 600 bytes per original x86 instruction, depending what the instruction is and the used version of the protector, newer ones being bigger.
2) the interpreter for this machine tends to take between 3 to 100 x86 instructions in its un-obfuscated form.
3) the interpreter is obfuscated, usually resulting in a 4-10 times increase in code size, and the code isn't localized in the same space (jumps throughout a 100MB executable will hurt cache) and access to the interpreter's "registers" and memory is done indirectly, again resulting in more sluggish performance.
Given these estimations, even if not perfectly accurate without doing actual statistics, you can expect between 24-50000 times slower code execution for protected instructions, possibly with an average 10000 times slow down. It would be insanity to do this on anything but initialization functions if you don't want your games to be very slow. If that wasn't enough to be bad, there are also threads running in parallel that performs anti-debugging features and they run virtualized code.
I haven't seen any gaps as you mention in protected game code once it's decrypted in memory, there are hundreds of virtualized functions per game, there are a lot of integrity checks in certain functions which are bound to be very slow, but if the developers were clever, they placed them in initialization code only. Some performance loss is unavoidable as certain code seems to be inserted indiscriminately throughout most functions, such as hiding integer constants using rather simple obfuscations, import protection by decrypting import addresses at runtime, and the integrity checks. Some games don't use most of these features, including the game 3DM was complaining about.
If the virtualized code is encrypted with a key, the key should be fixed and contained in the ticket. The size of this key for VMProtect was 64bits. It could be different here, in VMProtect they didn't even encrypt the code, rather the location of the code was encrypted.
While CPU-specific code is possible, in general, x86/x64 is a standard and it just works the same everywhere. CPUID might work differently and there are some far more evil recent features in Intel CPUs, but they aren't used by Denuvo. Exploiting CPU bugs might be possible, but the solution would be to just get all the versions: they can't all fit in the exe, and I haven't even seen any space there for all these versions you're talking about. Nor have I seen online code that does anything but get the time-locked license from Steam. "Encrypted" virtualized functions may exist, but this key should be game-specific and not user-specific.
Even if your idea was somehow feasible, it could be defeated by requesting older or more generic versions, or getting recent versions, and removing their architecture specific tricks as they are bound to be glaringly obvious, as most of Denuvo's code is, once you view it in a disassembler and study it a bit.
Your timing checks idea is feasible and has been done on some platforms like ARM that are more predictable than x86. While feasible in principle, it's incredibly hard to do it reliably and have stable code. It is also not undefeatable at all, it can be dealt with standard compilation and temporary emulations techniques to generate the original code from the modified code. I am doubtful of this technique being used on x86 as all implementations of it are very unreliable and buggy and it's very hard to implement it on x86 without bugs creeping up on you. I would consider your post speculation, unless you provide evidence or proof of your claims.
If you haven't realized it by now, the only real way of defeating Denuvo is with a specialized tool, this tool once written will defeat all current versions, removing it completely. Why doesn't this tool exist? I don't know, maybe sceners retired or lost interest? Maybe no skilled people outside of it? Lack of interest? You want to see it done? Set aside a few months, reverse engineer the protection and write a tool. It's not as hard as you may think, but you might want to cut your teeth on simpler ones first. Having such a tool would grant you better executables that run faster and are more stable.
You don't want to do that? You could take the the approach web groups like 3DM or even scene groups like CPY have and replace the keys in memory while patching the integrity checks in a few hundred places after making some scripts to detect them. This may be more difficult than you think because you will have to take a partial black box approach at studying memory and tracing differences between activated/non-activated versions. It won't be pleasant and it won't give you a better game or the satisfaction of having a better product than the original, it will also make you want to tear your hair out as you trace through the same VM interpreter code each time, duplicated dozens of times.
There is nothing special or new in Denuvo that hasn't been seen in Starforce 3 or 4, Securom 7 or 8, Solidshield and other big name game protections or cheaper commercial application protectors, and it's as much a protection and a DRM as those were, especially as they reuse the DRM code for each game. All you're seeing here is a PR stunt from a re-branded protection company and a not very active cracking scene, compounded by the fact that x64 reverse engineering tools are still young, although they are usable and enough to crack this: people have worked with far less usable tools in the past and have succeeded.
This is a throwaway account, I don't want to be given "gilded" or thanked. Please do your own research people, stop believing in things without sufficient evidence, especially when that evidence can be obtained merely by examining a file that is public. The game code is out there and you can read it as well as everyone else can, learn to reverse engineer and stop reading so many made up stories (SSD killer, processor "unique" code, constantly re-encrypting memory and other myths). The only reason I posted this is that it gets very tiring to read all these unfounded speculations about this protector on the internet, especially since it's a very standard protection in its design.
|
|
Wow |
Cliffs??
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 31st Jan 2016 22:31 Post subject: |
|
|
Has anyone tried the DLC Unlocker with the Windows Store version? Personally, I can't even access the game's folder. I get access denied, and the normal ways to gain access don't seem to stick.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 31st Jan 2016 22:34 Post subject: |
|
|
Can someone link the original post about Denuvo?
-=the wandering pillow stuffer=-
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 31st Jan 2016 22:45 Post subject: |
|
|
| 7thunders wrote: | http://steamcommunity.com/app/391220/discussions/0/451852225145266463/
 |
Desperation? 
Ryzen 7 9800X3D PBO ~-26/+200 | Freezer III 360 A-RGB | Strix X670E-F WiFi | Zotac RTX 4090 AMP Extreme AIRO | Fury Beast 64GB (2x 32GB) DDR5 5600MHz C40 @ 6000MHz C28 | 970 EVO Plus 2 TB | 38GN950-B | S.M.S.L RAW-MDA1 & HiFiMAN Arya Organic | Lancool III Snow White + 4x be quiet! Silent Wings Pro 4 140mm | RM1000x (2021) Gold | G Pro X SUPERLIGHT 2 & POWERPLAY | Win 11 Pro | Logitech MX MECHANICAL
Sometimes I publish YouTube videos: https://www.youtube.com/@RandomTechChannel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 31st Jan 2016 22:47 Post subject: |
|
|
I tried doing it that way. The steps work, but once I'm done it reverts itself back to how it was before.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 31st Jan 2016 22:49 Post subject: |
|
|
There is a DLC unlocker?
Gigabyte Z590 UD AC Motherboard - Intel i5-11600k 3.90 GHZ - 32 GB DDR 4 Corsair Vengeance LPX 3600MHz- GIGABYTE RTX 4070 Windforce OC 12GB (Driver 566.03) Corsair GOLD 80 Plus RM750x PSU Gigabyte QS32Q 32" flat screen Gaming Monitor
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 31st Jan 2016 22:51 Post subject: |
|
|
| zellar wrote: | | There is a DLC unlocker? |
on rin
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
z0ne
Posts: 342
Location: Bulgaria/Germany
|
| Posted: Sun, 31st Jan 2016 23:02 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 31st Jan 2016 23:04 Post subject: |
|
|
In the past (80's - 90's and since) and up until now there hasn't been a proper tool to stop PC piracy. YET, STILL, just take a LOOK at what the videogames industry has become! It's a giant! It's evolving with each year and it has reached some fantastic levels no one has ever expected! And all this DESPITE the so called "PC piracy that's ruining the industry"...
And "you" are telling me... now... that DENUVO is needed?! Needed for... what?
No, seriously, needed for what?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuckyStrike
Posts: 1753
Location: Somewhere in the Portuguese Colonial Empire
|
| Posted: Sun, 31st Jan 2016 23:13 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mchart wrote: | | Enjoying this game quite a bit but it's definitely not as good as the first one. Both have pretty much the same exact gameplay but the first ones 'lost world' island setting was more interesting IMO. The first one had a lot more memorable fairly horrific moments, and they've toned it down for this game. I still remember the bullshit SJW complaints of the almost rape scene in the first game, and that's likely why they toned this game down. So stupid. A woman that attractive in the middle of siberia fighting mercs.. In real life you gonna get raped A LOT. |
Fixed.
| Epsilon wrote: | | Meanwhile the people of that generation will call those guys relics, and not move with the times when everything is auto fucking. |
| EyePatchLives wrote: | | Press X to tame beasts. YOU ARE DA BEASTMASTER!!! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 31st Jan 2016 23:15 Post subject: |
|
|
I think that PC gaming is at its stake right now because the PS4/XBONE were disappointing consoles power-wise compared to PS360 and even previous consoles like PS2.
Also I guess AMD/NVIDIA try to push PC developers to add special effects to make them sell new GPUs every now and then, which wasn't really the case before (before it was more about the GPUs being powerful enough to run a PS2 port ).
I remember for example how complicated it was to be able to run Tomb Raider Legend with "next gen on" on PC at launch... While the xbox 360 had it running flawlessly.
Although Nixxes had screwed it up and made a few patches that made it run a lot better with the time....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 31st Jan 2016 23:18 Post subject: |
|
|
The videogaming industry is gigantic now because of consoles and mobile platforms, not the PC.
Our numbers, sadly, are a fart in the wind compared to console game sales.
Remember GTA 5 - 50+ million copies sold on consoles, at best 3 million on PC ?
And while I'm sure that the delay of the PC will have played its part, remember Starwars Battlefront ?
Denuvo is working pretty well so far and the only people that don't like it are us pirates.
If our sales are only a fraction of console sales and yet we have the much higher percentage of piracy i think something like Denuvo might be in our favor.
If that will be the deciding factor for some company releasing a game on PC instead of not doing so then Denuvo is a winner in my eyes.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 31st Jan 2016 23:30 Post subject: |
|
|
The only "favor" Denuvo is doing is for the publishers / developers. If you think otherwise, you are not seeing things clear.
I agree, however, with a certain "favor" that it might provide. And that's the redirection of the PC gamers / players' attention towards the indie developers. They need support, interest and our money.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 31st Jan 2016 23:32 Post subject: |
|
|
| blackeyedboy wrote: |
No, seriously, needed for what? |
well, obviously, not all pirated copies are lost sales, but some seem to be.
even on rin, in the tomb raider thread, you can see people talking about where is the cheapest place to buy because they are impatient with the lack of a crack.
so obviously, enough pirated copies are sales, that they care.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 31st Jan 2016 23:35 Post subject: |
|
|
Absolutely. It's working as intended. But, the question is... how many of those people that can't pirate will buy it? We can't know for sure. Most certainly not all! And MOST certainly a LOT of them can't afford the game.
EDIT
I think - doh, actually it's obvious - Denuvo is still in it's experimental phase. There are mutiple aspects to this. There's the technical one and there's also the social and psychological aspect. How will people react and accept this?! Publishers will measure it's value in time. 2016 will be an interesting year to follow this Denuvo story.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 31st Jan 2016 23:41 Post subject: |
|
|
| Amadeus wrote: |
Remember GTA 5 - 50+ million copies sold on consoles, at best 3 million on PC ?
|
4 millions on Steam plus copies from Rockstar ( which are more popular than steam version, atleast here in Poland)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 31st Jan 2016 23:44 Post subject: |
|
|
Denuvo team is lucky there are no mujahidins among PC gamers otherwise this denuvo nonsense would end pretty quickly. Inshallah!
1) Lenovo Legion 7 (AMD Ryzen 7 5800H, RTX 3080 16Gb, 32Gb DDR4, SSD 1TB +2TB
2) SFFPC (streaming via Moonlight+ Sunshine)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 67 of 111 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
