USB Support

[nige-b]

Wish list for Phoenix.

I would like to see Phoenix support USB controllers.

I understand copy protection of the software is required but surely as long as the interface unit is plugged in a second USB port could be used?

Adding this feature would not put anybody off purchasing Phoenix but it may entice some starters currently using 'basic' simulators or those thinking of purchasing their second simulator.

[bilboa]

Sounds reasonable to me. I've certainly seen a number of posts asking if the ESky USB controllers would work with Phoenix, so it seems like a lot of people would like it.

How good are those ESky USB controllers though? I bought Phoenix from Skyline in the UK, as a combo with a cheap controller; it was just some cheapo 6 channel transmitter without a crystal. The transmitter was such poor quality though that I ended up just modding my Blade CX transmitter to add a trainer port to it, and used that instead. The problem with it was the potentiometers were really low quality and so would generate a really rough signal unless the batteries were brand new. For example if you taxied a plane near you and moved the ailerons you could see them fluttering instead of just moving smoothly. This made learning helis especially quite difficult. I've heard that other really cheap transmitters are bad in this way as well.

[Ade]

the trouble is that letting something other than the dongle control the sim opens amassive hole in the armour.

the more doors there are on your house the more the chances the robber has of getting in.

phoenix are working on a dummy tx. dont worry it wont be 335euros :-)

Ade

[bilboa]

the trouble is that letting something other than the dongle control the sim opens amassive hole in the armour.


? Most high end PC software uses some sort of dongle that must be attached to the computer in order for the software to run. I've written software myself that used a dongle, the software just needs to check periodically that the dongle is still attached to the computer. But I've never heard of anyone requiring that any input devices used to control the software also need to go through the dongle. For instance I wouldn't expect a CAD program to require that the keyboard and mouse be hooked up through the dongle, so I don't know what you mean by the above.

In any case if Phoenix starts offering its own inexpensive controller then I guess that will solve the problem as well.

[Magenta]

the trouble is that letting something other than the dongle control the sim opens amassive hole in the armour.
Ade

No, that's wrong. The purpose of the dongle is to ensure that the software is running on an authorized machine, not to control the inputs

I've used many software products that require a dongle; none have required the keyboard or mouse to be routed through the dongle

[LiPoSuckShawn]

I agree. As a programmer myself, I see no reason why allowing the sim to work with USB joystick-type devices (including the Transmitter-like controllers from Esky and even other sim makers) would make it less secure. You plug the dongle into one port and the game constantly checks to see if it's there to verify that you have a legal copy. Then you plug a USB controller into another port and use that to play the game. I don't see the problem with that. Allowing another controller does not reduce the integrity of the game's copy-protection scheme any more than plugging in an additional USB keyboard would.

Many of Phoenix's major competitors allow USB controllers (including Aerofly Pro Deluxe, Clearview, and yes, even FMS).

[Grale]

Many of Phoenix's major competitors allow USB controllers (including Aerofly Pro Deluxe, Clearview, and yes, even FMS).


Yes they do, and if i was that way inclined i could be flying Aeroflydeluxe and G3 for free right now, just to name two...

As Ade say's it opens a massive opportunity for hackers to simply modify the exe, or write a small program to emulate the dongle to skip past the dongle check as if it was attached, and then you can use any generic type joystick to fly the sim on the second control option.

So i don't think it's a good idea for security reasons, and i personally wouldn't go that route with my product.

Examples of dongle protection working are: Reflex XTR, Phoenix, these sims haven't and won't be cracked any time soon, because they don't allow use of a generic controller..

Sooo, allowing use of a USB controller, DOES greatly reduce the software protection.
just my 2p ;)

[bilboa]

This is getting way off topic. :) But Grale, do you have any pointers to info on what type of hacks you have in mind? Do you know how dongles typically work, and the types of technology used to make it difficult to emulate a dongle, and why allowing an input device to not be routed through a dongle would make it easier to emulate the dongle? I'm actually curious, because I've never seen any other high end software that made this requirement. In addition I implemented the support for one myself in a software project I did, and the dongle I used had no such requirement. Nor can I think of any reason why this would make things more secure, since Phoenix could always route the transmitter signal via software through the attached dongle anyway.

[Grale]

Hi ajenkins :) i don't see how this is getting way off topic as nige was talking about usb controller and how it would affect the protection.

I think you have missread nige's post, he doesn't mention anything about the second controller being routed through the dongle, that would be great if there was a usb interface within the dongle, we could all use a secondry controller of our choice, and the dongle protection would not be comprimised.

Ok, i have no idea how dongle's work, or what is required to bypass the protection, but i do know that afpd has a dongle and that there is a cracked .exe out there that allowes you to load the sim without the dongle attached, and use your own joystick.

As for the G3 crack, it doesn't use a cracked .exe but rather uses a small program running in the background to emulate the dongle, thus again enabling you to use a generic joystick without dongle attached.

[Malc C]

Examples of dongle protection working are: Reflex XTR, Phoenix, these sims haven't and won't be cracked any time soon, because they don't allow use of a generic controller..

I bet it won't be long before Phoenix gets cracked, but XTR was hacked ages ago. However it involded a hardware hack rather than software, and Reflex are very agressive on pursuing not only the person behind the development of such a "compatable" dongle, but also those who purchased it from the 3rd party.

The problem is that to keep cost down you'll find that nearly all of the dongles used for sim interfaces use either the 16C745, or newer 18F2550 PIC Microchip, which is fairly cheap to purchase and don't need expensive hardware to program them. It is quite feasable to use software to monitor the USB ports and capture the data stream and if you have the time and intelegence, work out the algolrythems used. The other way, as mentioned already is to patch the exe or dll files so that the software no longer polls the USB ports for the dongle, or a "virtual" dongle is used to fool the software.

The only way the software developers can really protect their software would be to either use some dedicated USB hardware rather than use firmware in a PIC chip, work out some form of encryption that changes each time the dongle is powered up or provide better means of checking for genuine hardware, so as not to be fooled so easily. However most of these methods means that the cost of the product would be so high that it could limit the marketablility of the end product.

[IPFlyer]

Check out Microsoft's 2007 suite copy protection.

[skirtz]

Solid USB hardware protection dongle is $20 in quantities - check for example here (http://www.keylok.com/pricing/). Any simulator can be protected with this type dongle and then use any usb (or any other) interface to support many radio tx or gamepads. The reason building the protection in the interface is to make it cheaper and avoid adding $20 to the price of the hardware provided with the program.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[IPFlyer]

Keylok is NOT solid by any stretch of the imagination.

[skirtz]

well... at this price point....

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[IPFlyer]

Very true. :) It would stop 99.9% plus as it stands; there's currently no emulation for Keylok.

[skirtz]

I am thinking to make CD version of ClerView with this dongle. If you know better/cheaper, let me know.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[IPFlyer]

Whatever you choose, be sure you ask the sellers about their anti-SoftICE protection.

[bilboa]

Hi ajenkins :) i don't see how this is getting way off topic as nige was talking about usb controller and how it would affect the protection.

I think you have missread nige's post, he doesn't mention anything about the second controller being routed through the dongle, that would be great if there was a usb interface within the dongle, we could all use a secondry controller of our choice, and the dongle protection would not be comprimised.


I haven't misread anything. I don't think either Nige or I know how Phoenix's dongle in particular works. I know how some dongles work though, and I was just addressing the claim that in principle a dongle is less secure if the input devices for the program don't go through the dongle. My point was that if the program was somehow depending on the dongle to process the signal from the controller in some way as part of its protection scheme, it could still do that with the dongle attached to a separate USB port from the controller, by feeding the signal through the dongle. So I really don't see what the technical problem is with using a separate dongle and allowing generic input devices for the program. Neither apparently do most other high end software makers who use dongles, since this is the first I've heard of this requirement.

I think Skirtz probably hit the nail on the head in saying that it's just cheaper to do it the way Phoenix does it. This makes sense, since at this price point, and extra $20 would be quite noticable. Most software that's protected by dongles is much more expensive than an RC simulator, so $20 more or less doesn't matter.

[LiPoSuckShawn]

As Ade say's it opens a massive opportunity for hackers to simply modify the exe, or write a small program to emulate the dongle to skip past the dongle check as if it was attached, and then you can use any generic type joystick to fly the sim on the second control option.
a generic controller.

.
.
.

Sooo, allowing use of a USB controller, DOES greatly reduce the software protection.
just my 2p ;)

No. Hacking the software is what reduced the protection. Dongles are usually made by another company that sells them to developers. These companies specialize in developing secure, copy protection mechanisms so that other developers can concentrate on writing their software instead of protecting it. Anyone smart enough to defeat the dongle protection is probably smart enough to write code to emulate its control options.

In any event, even though I bought a copy Phoenix, I don't play it much; got sick and tired of having to charge my Tx and hook it up to the dang PC. I much prefer AFPD because it works with my Esky USB controller (which I also use with Clearview and FMS) and also because there are a lot more planes available for it. Also, I find that when I play multiple RC flight sims in one session, Phoenix tends to destabilize my PC more often than any of the other sims (though the latest versions of Clearview haven't been as kind to me).

[skirtz]

LiPoSuckShawn,

I am very interested what problems you had with the new ClearView version so I can fix them.

Stefan

[LiPoSuckShawn]

Dunno. I was generally okay up to version 4.65.

4.7 does nothing but crash on my system, so I gave up on it and reinstalled 4.65. No biggie.

[skirtz]

Hmm... What is your video card? Can you please send me this file: c:\Program Files\SVKSystems\clearview\log.txt at 123support@rcflightsim.com (remove 123)

Thanks,
Stefan

[bilboa]

No. Hacking the software is what reduced the protection.

Exactly. You can buy the best dongle for your software that's impossible to emulate, but you still need to put some code in your software that communicates with the dongle, and if you don't do that in the correct way, it's easy for a hacker to just edit the binary to not actually communicate with the dongle. If you do it right then you can make it very hard for someone to hack your binary.

[Malc C]

This has become an interesting thread, and although its mainily discussing a topic that is in breach of the rules, I hope the moderators don't lock it as it is more of a general discussion on how to protect the software rather where to get the items to circumvent the protection.

I think AJ hit the nail on the head in post #23 - in that no matter what 3rd party dongle is used, if it has to communicate with the software then there will be a way where the data stream can be intercepted, afterall if its USB / serial etc it still has to comply with the standards for these devices otherwise the dongle would not be recognised with the PC.

Maybe the only real way to make it hard for hackers would be to imbed the appliaction in the dongle, with just a shell to display the graphcs etc ?

The thing is... that for every application, a security system fitted to a car or building, new means of encoding music etc, there will always be someone out there who will spend their time developing a way to get round that protection - regretably that's human nature.

[Ade]

thing is... is it really worth cracking sims like phoenix? the rewards really arent there. the user base is low relative to the big games and the cost is relatively low so theres not much to save.

similar thing with clearview. I was talking to a local expert and the clearview methods of protection as well as being a royal pain for the user if you want to use it on more than one computer are easily hacked but nobody has bothered because its too cheap to be worthwhile.

Ade

[bilboa]

This has become an interesting thread, and although its mainily discussing a topic that is in breach of the rules, I hope the moderators don't lock it as it is more of a general discussion on how to protect the software rather where to get the items to circumvent the protection.

I think AJ hit the nail on the head in post #23 - in that no matter what 3rd party dongle is used, if it has to communicate with the software then there will be a way where the data stream can be intercepted, afterall if its USB / serial etc it still has to comply with the standards for these devices otherwise the dongle would not be recognised with the PC.

Maybe the only real way to make it hard for hackers would be to imbed the appliaction in the dongle, with just a shell to display the graphcs etc ?


Actually you can make it sufficiently difficult to for hackers by a) using a dongle which is sufficiently hard to emulate/hack, and b) making sure that many places in your program independently communicate with the dongle, and in suficiently obfuscated ways, that someone would need to do a heck of a lot of binary editing and disassembly to work around it. Of course it'll always be possible to hack given sufficient effort, but the key is to make it not worth the effort given the price of the software.

[Malc C]

Ade, I don't that has anything to do with why applications are hacked / cracked. I've seen patches for $15 programs which probably have a smaller customer base than a flight simulator.

The sad thing is that there is some sort of Q-Dos in the underground world, and those who crack more appliactions, or crack an application within hours of its release score extra brownie points and clime higher up the tree...

[Ichigo]

thing is... is it really worth cracking sims like phoenix? the rewards really arent there. the user base is low relative to the big games and the cost is relatively low so theres not much to save.

similar thing with clearview. I was talking to a local expert and the clearview methods of protection as well as being a royal pain for the user if you want to use it on more than one computer are easily hacked but nobody has bothered because its too cheap to be worthwhile.

Ade

so whats the problem adding usb support then?