Talk:StarForce/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Some changes for better fitness

If somebody fined a grammar mistake plz correct my english.

Added in Protection strategies section: Till the 4.0 version StarForce has been blocked the use of SCSI optical ......

Added in StarForce family of products section: StarForce Frontline 4.0/4.5/4.7 description

--Oh really? 1. Where's the proof? 2. We would like verifiable content on SF please. 3. All I see Sopinsci doing (that's the guy who made the previous comment here) is making edits to primarily one article. And that article is StarForce. I haven't looked at every single edit he's made, but somebody find out what exactly is he up to.crazyviolinist 02:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've been thinking about this for a while. I'm removing Sopinsci's previous edits he made about the "Some changes" section. I don't see proof about his claims at all on the Internet. If someone finds proof in the future, they are welcome to put the info back in, and I will apologize for the edits I made, but at this time, the info should be considered non-factual. Oh and Sopinsci, if you have a problem with this article, say its not neutral and tag it rather than vandalize the article. crazyviolinist 01:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the less than helpful edit summary. The summary should have read "removed all Sopinsci unsubstantiated claims. crazyviolinist 01:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to give credit to Crazyviolinist for removing the blatent lies part about the "6 time PIO mode" thing, I suspect this is either someone at starforce or Derek Smart himself, I got into a discussion with Derek about this myth on the now defunct SF forums, he made one post, I corrected him several times, he made a second, I corrected EVERYTHING he posted in that thread, the rest of the thread consisted of pictures of coke vending machines, suffice to say he had nothing more to argue back with, but I have noticed he still tries to use this arguement on forums across the net, unfortunatly because he's made a handful of poor quality games and beaten up a coke machine people seem to think he knows what he's talking about, maybe if he spent more time on his games instead of trying to support SF then his games wouldnt stink so badly.... 85.178.197.70 18:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Most people here do not want the whole clear situation on StarForce to be displayed in the article. They think people shouldn't know about new StarForce versions and it benefits. Also they think the fact that StarForce drivers pass "Designed for Windows XP" Test has no right to be mentioned here. The fact that later SF version has much better perfomance and compatibility and have pretty new architecture is also not for the free encyclopedia. Why you rob people of thier rights to know that StarForce Technologies first of all other digital right managment companies has developed and released copy protection sheme with backup copy capability? They complaint me that i'm vandal and haven't gave facts for my article changes. Much easier to fined negative material using search engine than to fined that, for instance, offical game forum "LMA manager 2007" which protected by SF 4.0, do not contains a single SF problem in troubleshooting section for a months. Sure, such materials could not be fined using "starforce" in search string.And for all StarForce haters and bushers i want to say - your article is pretty out of date. There is no new facts, only the old ones. Interesting what will be here in a year? The 2004 news or broken links? I will change only "News coverage" section in the article, to bring more facts and independent vision.

We're on to you, you do realize. You have only been adding "official press releases" and new StarForce products which are unconfirmed. I searched for the new StarForce versions, and nothing came up except for the StarForce website and various unconfirmed forums. Even Microsoft's website says nothing about the "Designed for Windows XP" test for StarForce, in fact, several forums say otherwise. Granted, this is original research and won't appear in the article, but so are your additions. I gave you your vandal warning for a reason: you have a tendency to go and badmouth StarForce's competitors, as well as consistently violate Wikipedia's policies such as no original research in the articles. At this time I'm reverting your edits and giving you another chance to work with us on the article, but if I find that you do this again, I will have no choice but to report you based on your edit history. crazyviolinist 13:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hm... May be you are right with "offical press-releases", but CosmicD’s Quadrant blog's article... Independent point of view on StarForce protection and all this hysteria. Whats wrong with it?

You said that you fined info on new SF's versions on "various unconfirmed forums" and right away you said that "several forums say otherwise" about Designed for Windows XP Logo for SF, so you have the list of trusted forums and untrusted ones? How do you choose sources of information for the article? This is the PROOF of Windows XP sertifited logo:

http://testedproducts.windowsmarketplace.com/item.aspx?idItem=5582bc87-93c6-481c-d0c4-2484b1a50911

Could we now add this fact to the article?

This discussion is a tangled mess. Please sign your posts! Fehrgo 06:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

---

You wrote:

"I gave you your vandal warning for a reason: you have a tendency to go and badmouth StarForce's competitors"

Oh dear! Please point me where i'v did it? Seems that if the article will continue to represent StarForce in bad light, SF's competitors will feal better lol.

---

TrackMania United - the very popular game has been protected with StarForce 4,5. Link to the forum:

http://www.tm-forum.com/index.php

LMA Manager 2007 - famous football manager simulator has been protected with StarForce 4.0. Link to the forum:

http://community.codemasters.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=547

---

If you want to know what people think about wiki projekt this is the "quote":

'"'wikipedia even speak about rumors, no prove...give me a link of Symantec, Trend Micro, Network Associate, ... that give the vulnerability and a virus/malware that exploit it..."

So base on last quote i want to ask - why this article is in "Digital rights management | Rootkits | Malware" category? Especialy if now we know that SF's driver succesfully passed the XP certifited program.

I will repeat what I said earlier: This is original research. I also found forums relating to the above, but I did not include them per official policies on original research. If, for example, CNET confirmed your claims, of course you would be welcome to place this information in, WITH the appropriate link. Forums are much like Wikipedia, only with lots and lots of original research. This is obviously not a soapbox, let alone a forum

As for your edit history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sopinsci. Based on this, I tracked every one of your edits. Granted, you were initially correct on the ring 0 and ring 3 access. I retract my previous comment, your info seems correct on these articles--for now. What I cannot accept is you continuously making NPOV and original research edits to StarForce. Continued violation of this policy is considered vandalism.

As for the blog: read the article on Wikipedia:Verifiability. A blog does not count as a verifiable source. I understand your concern, but both of us need to play by the rules. NO forums, whether positive or negative. I don't choose the articles on this site, all of us do by popular consensus. The Windows Marketplace site is also not trustworthy: It hasn't been updated for several years, and they did not conduct the test. According to StarForce Corporation, a company called VeriTest did. Incidentally, no such documents of StarForce passing the test have been found other than on StarForce's website.

I'm afraid that this may turn into an edit war soon-if it turns out that way, I may request an administrator to protect this article. If you continue to disagree with my points, you may contact an administrator to settle this dispute. And please sign your posts with four tildes. crazyviolinist 03:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Shortly after I posted the above, I found an article regarding the "Designed for Windows XP" test. I will add it tomorrow at the latest, so I can think of a way to add it without violating NPOV. crazyviolinist 03:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ok. Thanks for understanding me in some ways. Why i'v made some edits to this article is because i understand the word ENCYCLOPEDIA, as something which honestly says not only what was in the past, but also whats going on now. My main criticizm for this article is that it is pretty out of date, аnd many facts are differ from what the subject is now. Also some materials are based on myths form internet which were replicated by people without knowlage what is StarForce in fact, its architecture and how it works. Such myths have tendency to grow up like a storm, especialy over the internet.

Copy Protection subject is very delicated. Users do not like it because CPs bring them some inconveniences like disk insertion every time they want to play. Also, and may be this is the main thing, CPs bring users to BUY games. We know that computer piracy is crowng up and advance at the moment even in low_piracy_level contries like Western Europe and US. Such pirate groups, based on dishonest user's opinions, could start and carry out almost all PR campain in the internet they like, skilfully interpret imperfection of something and stir up phobias. I'm afraid that Wiki's StarForce article became a part of such campain without Wiki's knowledge of it. And those who read the article became a victums of lie and ignorance. I can cite the "Alcohol 120%" article as an example. This piece of software has all bugs and vulnerabilities that describes in StarForce article, but there is no even one word about it! The Deamon tools software, which is in fact use the same engine as Alcohol 120% and developing by one company, has not article at Wikipedia. Here are some links to offical support forums of this programs:

→ "DuplexSoftware forum": Duplex Software is the same company as one which developing Alcohol and DT. They just use this name as a cover of thier beta testing of buggy SPTD driver for future DT Pro program.

→ "Deamon Tools offical bug report forum"

→ "Deamon Tools offical support forum"

I should start the article on DT, but my english skill is far from perfect to do so.

I know that they start to blame me for calling them pirates and illegal users. Many of us are honest gamers, who buy only licensed games and support game industry, but please don't be naive thinking that all users are. Almost all friends of mine support piracy, and using p2p networks for new releases. When StarForce's employee posted link to an illegal download source of Galactic Civilizations 2, he want to show to everybody that several thousand users downloading this game at the same moment!!! Nothing more, nothing less. But they casted it in a false colour, like StarForce support piracy and revenge StarDock for non using of CP. Don't you understand that it is rubbish! And if you understand it, why do you left this nonsense in the article?

At the same time i agree that StarForce has imperfections and bugs, as every other PC's software. In 2003 i'v bought my first copy protected game, it has been using StarForce and due to it game refused to work. Right that moment i'v became interested in drms and especialy StarForce. Sopinsci 09:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm only someone who watches this article. I don't pretend that I'm an expert on StarForce, I only watch out for vandalism and possible violation of NPOV, as well as potentially false information. To address your concern about the StarForce employee, the incident should be covered under StarForce's creator, Protection Technologies. However, no such page exists, and is redirected to StarForce itself. I didn't insert this factoid in, and I will not move it until someone gathers enough information to create a page on Protection Technologies.

The story itself is also a good example of the bullying tactics StarForce is using. I don't think the original intent was to say that the company supported piracy, that would be tantamount to self-cannibalization. The fact that Protection Technologies also had to apologize for their actions also implies something else entirely. As such, it stays, but I will seriously take into consideration your concerns.

For your primary concern: I'm pretty sure this is as up to date as anyone can make it before sounding like an ad campaign for either side. We already had problems in the past where people had tried to make it blatantly pro-StarForce. At the same time, StarForce haters quickly realized that this was not the place to slam StarForce. One person even tried to say that on December 4th, 2006, Protection Technologies had filed for bankruptcy and lost all their creditors. There's a reason why we haven't updated the products section: the Wikipedia community simply doesn't have a way to confirm that there is a StarForce 4.0. If there is solid proof that there is, then I owe you an apology for the revert that I made a month ago. Until then, the article stays as is, of course pending consideration of items I already listed.

By the way, there is already an article on Daemon Tools. I think you just spelled it wrong when searching for it. crazyviolinist 00:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Seems that we start to understand each other like US & USSR in the end of 80th =).

So why not to add to the article a few words about SF's drivers which passed XP tests? Guees that people hardly check unnamed link in Reference section. Sopinsci 08:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Weird, I thought I did. It's somewhere in the middle of the article, when Protection Technologies released the removal tool. I could put it in the external links, but that might be redundant. Already in the time you and I last conversed, somebody blanked out part of the article. I didn't revert it, someone else did, but as you can see, we're not very tolerant of StarForce haters. I don't know how people aren't checking the link, they should be, but I think the link itself is enough to convince them that I based the sentence in fact rather than fiction. crazyviolinist 01:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Vista Compatibility

I know several people with Windows Vista, and it seems that any game that uses StarForce will not work on Vista, many times crashing the computer.
Maybe someone could research this a little bit more, it might just be coincidence, but it makes sense what with all of the security software silently running with Vista,
and StarForce is sometimes recognized as malware. --Dr. Van Nostrand 00:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, reputation section needs update; recently I've noticed a number of SF protected titles with good ol' (ordinary) crack thrown out before, or at the time of official release. D.I.R.T. the Origin of the Species and Night Watch are verified to be such titles… Lovelight 09:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• • SF works on Vista pretty good. Do not forget that there is no offical release of Vista for end users yet, so we can be sure that they use some beta versions of Vista. Moreover StarForce passed Vista Compatibility tests. Also we have to remember that protection on some old titles (like splinter cell 3) do not support Vista. SF's drivers need to be updated from SF's offical web site.
• If you have game with version till 3.04.062 you can't run it on Vista unless publisher reprotect game with fresh protection version
• Starting version 3.04.062 you could turn on support of 32bit vista simply update protection driver from starforce web site
• If you have game with version till 3.05.000 you have to forget about 64bit OS unless publisher make a patch
• All SF versions starting 4.x fully support Windows Vista 32/64, but it could be some problems if you have version till 4.00.013. In that case simply update protection driver
• Starting 4.00.013 everything works fine

---

Another problem with StarForce and vista is that according to their site it is certified for vista. (implicating whql certified) However, on update of the starforce drivers using their driver update tool to get the latest (and working) version under 64bit vista a message comes up stating that it is in fact NOT certified or signed for Vista. It can't be certified for 32bit and not certified for 64bit, this is a new requirement from Microsoft. This is shady to say the least and makes it seem as though they are hiding something. Maybe that they cannot be certified because it is malware, but thats just an opinion. Either way, it should be stated on wikipedia since they have the false claim plastered on the front page of their site.

http://www.star-force.com/protection.phtml?c=83&id=1036

---

And about cracks:

• • Origin of the Species:

release date - 6 september 2006

crack date 7 december 2006

• • Night Watch

release date - 26 june 2006

crack date - 12 january 2007

Source - nforce.nl

Sopinsci 09:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally haven't heard anything, but if you three have anything to add to the article, feel free to do so, be sure its a reputable site though. Since now there are reports of Starforce 4.0, and fixes of various problems including Vista, feel free to add it in as well. crazyviolinist 18:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Added information on 4.0 and x64 support. Could not edit Reference section, because after pressing "Edit" i see only the following:

==References==

So may be i do not undertsand something or have no rights. Thats why link to 4.0 description is pleaced in StarForce family of products section. Removed the statement that "StarForce does not provide software updates for end-user" replacing it with specific info on how to turn on x64 support for various protection versions. Hope its not a vandalism.... Sopinsci 11:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Try placing the reference Wiki markups. I'll try to correct it right now, and reword the article if there are any grammar markups. I don't think this should be vandalism, nor is it violating NPOV or Verifiabilty guidelines. crazyviolinist 21:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sopinsci, I reworded your edits and changed where they were for flow issues. Also, I removed your update patches since it's a little bit too much information. Protection Technologies, it seems, eventually fixed StarForce's problems with Vista. The patch info seems to only add clutter to the article. crazyviolinist 22:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, but the phrase "StarForce does not provide software updates for end-users, that could for example enable 64-bit or Vista support.[2] For this, it requires the developers to create patches — as their license permits — specific for the game or application." - is not true, because StarForce offers Vista and x64 support simply via updating protection drivers from offical web site. Sopinsci 08:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• This statement is backed up by this article on the official website. In your last revision you even stated yourself that if "you have game with version till 3.04.062 you can't run it on Vista unless publisher reprotect game with fresh protection version and release a patch". If you have any sources that show this is not the case, and that older games can be upgraded with a third-party patch, feel free to update the text. Just make sure you remain neutral, and state your sources. Mfb52 10:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• In the article there is also statement that: "StarForce x64 support is automatically included in the version 3.5 of StarForce." I just want to ask your advise on how to reflect the real case that till 3.5 there is need for publisher/developer patch, and for later version just enough to update drivers. Because now, if im for instance read this article for the first time, i will only understand that all SF version need to be patched by publisher to work with 64bit and Vista and there is no drivers update utility. But it is! Sopinsci 08:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• What it comes down to is that is that older versions of StarForce require a developer/publisher patch. I updated the article a bit to be more clear, and changed the first version to introduce x64 support into 3.5 (not 3.7, where'd that come from?). I'm not sure what you meant by "just enough to update drivers"? Shouldn't version 3.5+ just work out of the box with x64 systems? Anyway, perhaps a bigger problem here is that current games may not work on future systems either... Mfb52 09:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• "just enough to update drivers" - means that to switch on x64 or Vista support you simply need to download a little update tool and run it on your system. Here is the link - http://www.star-force.com/protection/users/. Now it seems that in "Family of products" section of the article is similar to truth with the exception of 4,5 and 4,7 versions. Sopinsci 10:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, we get people trying to make unsourced statements; I suggest being on the lookout in the meanwhile. crazyviolinist 04:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Statements without sources or citations

Some statements in the article has no any proof, sources or citation. Next to statements about RELOADED research or PCGamer's "Game of the year" feature there is - "citation needed". My question is why not to remove this statements from the article untill any proof of thise hypothesis will appear? I'v made some search through the internet and fail to fined anything on it. This is the NFO for RELOADED "tools". There is 2 link on public discussions of this tools. I can't fined there any info that StarForce slowdowns games like statement mentions. Meanwhile such statements are very serious and MUST have proof!

Also user Yamla permanently edit the part of "Product" section wich talks about software updates for end users to enable x64 and Vista support. Here is the detailed information about this from offical source. So the statement that "StarForce does not provide software updates for end-users" is not right for modern SF version like 4.0. Quotation from above link - "Versions later than 3.05 need StarForce driver update".

Guess that admins could establish order in the article. Thank you. Sopinsci 10:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Basing on Wikipedia:Citing sources i'v removed RELOADED information from the article. My position described in my previous post - no citation - no proof. Get proof, and feel free to back such information in the article. Also i'v removed the "Game of the year" issue due to exactly the same cause. Sopinsci 09:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the Reloaded information. According to the link I followed, it is valid that RELOADED reverse engineered Starforce. But because the links past that have no citations, the fact that the game runs 15% slower, you were correct in removing that info. PC Gamer is a print magazine source. If someone can find the issue, links are not necessary in that case. I'm adding back in the RELOADED info simply because it has the sources. crazyviolinist 20:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

maybe a link to the information about the removal tool stuff should be posted? http://www.glop.org/files/rld-sfrt.rar ?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.131.206 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 16 March 2007

No, a link to the site is already present. Wikipedia is not a link repository for software, and we already have links to removal tools in the article. One is enough. crazyviolinist 20:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• I want to ask everybody, especialy crazyviolinist what will we do with the fact that Reloaded reverse 3.x version of starforce, but not 4.x. May be let me add that RELOADED completely reverse engineered only 3.x version? Sopinsci 15:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I added the clarification for the 3.0 version already. crazyviolinist 15:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks crazyviolinist. Today i'v carried the following from the very start of the article to the Controversy section.

It is considered by many to be malware, due to it frequently resulting in degradation of IDE speed, resulting in a number of CD or DVD drives failing completely. I belive that this information has to be present in the article, but it is not for description of the product but mostly approach for Controversy section. There is no any proof of drives fail due to SF, so we could consider that all this "boycott" source is good payed PR action. Why not? Sopinsci 12:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No proof? Unlikely, proof might not be a word to use. Maybe something like reports, but I'm not sure its a PR action. I can take a look later. crazyviolinist 03:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• No proof = No independent testing. Independing testing = public test cases, public test bench configuration, public test results, etc Sopinsci 13:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I could argue with that definition, simply with how information today carries some bias. Proof means testing, you're right, after reports are followed, someone investigates them, comes up with a conclusion, then concludes finally whether the claims are "proven" or not. However, back to the point.

The point here is that the statement, while yes, you're right that the site is not an independent source, the site itself documents the problem by citing Greg Vederman's (editor of U.S. PC Gamer) complaint with StarForce. That is what the statement is currently pointing towards. Perhaps you're right that the site itself is a PR action, but I doubt it since they do provide a neutral voice within the gaming world to support their claim. I'll try to locate which issue Vederman said this column so I can back up all this reasoning, but in the meanwhile, the statement stays. crazyviolinist 23:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Making article better and more objective

Ok here we go. First of all SF 4,7 is out and there is a lot of references on it over the internet. We need it to add to article.

Second one - Protection strategies section contains totally wrong information. First of all - there is no ANY HARDWARE SIGNATURES on SF protected disks. Everybody, who emulate SF knows it. Just read, for instance, Deamon tools forum. So the statement shouls be changed to:

StarForce is believed to operate by measuring the physical angle between the first and last written sector on the CD. There is no any hardware signature on StarForce protected disks. The main thing is replicated disk geomerty which identical to the gold master and is currently difficult to reproduce when burning a duplicate CD.

Then the statement on blockoing non IDE drives, while IDE one present in system. Its gone starting SF4.0. Just search internet or ask on every copying forums. There is one bug in 4,7 version which use on Brain LARA Internation Criket 2007 by Codemasters - the thing is if you have RAID massive mounted on intel 965/775 there is wrong emulator detection occures. So people use to check disk via external USB drive, while inrenal IDE still operates.

If this is not a vandalism could i make such changes? Sopinsci 12:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Citation from text - "StarForce has a reputation[citation needed] of being extremely difficult to reverse engineer, though all[citation needed] StarForce protected games have been cracked or have other methods in order to run copies. However, the crack is usually released a couple of days after the official release of the game.". I modified this statement and add source link for evidence.

Also i removed one of starforce boycott site link from the article. As i belive that one is pretty enough, as we have only one link to the offical site of oppositing party. Also i have to point that on the http://www.boycottstarforce.net/ there is a link to THIS wiki article, thit means that article is edited to suit the boycott community. They article and make a show of it on thier site.

Also i'll plan to sort article on 2 part - first is about SF 3.xx, second - SF 4.xx. As all controversies and described problems are urgent only for 3.x version. Even http://www.boycottstarforce.net/ site mentioned that there is no information on bad influence of 4.x verion. Sopinsci 12:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)