LINK.EXE :P

[Antariy]

All posts was removed to avoid bacchanalia about "proper" or "unproper" things to do.

[sinsi]

http://ntcore.com/files/richsign.htm

[sinsi]

I don't see the problem...you could always write your own linker, or use fasm  :bg

[japheth]

Your post was about patching a copyrighted binary - so there is indeed a certain justification for the removal of the thread.

However, recently a thread was removed which was about providing a sample for static TLS in PE, a well-known and "officially" documented mechanism. This removal was pure impudence.

[Antariy]

Your post was about patching a copyrighted binary - so there is indeed a certain justification for the removal of the thread.

However, recently a thread was removed which was about providing a sample for static TLS in PE, a well-known and "officially" documented mechanism. This removal was pure impudence.

As about unproper post - only *info* was posted have notice (!) - not the patcher etc - that's the difference (big difference).

As about TLS - yes, for sure :green2.
Though, calling of user's code *before entry point of executable* is possible without using of TLS, you know this :wink

[oex]

However, recently a thread was removed which was about providing a sample for static TLS in PE, a well-known and "officially" documented mechanism. This removal was pure impudence.

I think it was removed after someone asked how this all applied to cracking :lol

[japheth]

... that's the difference (big difference).

De jure the difference might be big, but de facto it is not so big.  :bg

However, we're not in a trial here ( although one might get this impression seeing all the hobby prosecutors lurking around here   :toothy ), so the de jure aspect is inferior to the de facto one.

[Magnum]

Your post was about patching a copyrighted binary - so there is indeed a certain justification for the removal of the thread.

However, recently a thread was removed which was about providing a sample for static TLS in PE, a well-known and "officially" documented mechanism. This removal was pure impudence.

It was paranoia.

Especially when you see posts by Microsoft employees about how to "move XP" to other drives, motherboard changeouts etc.  :U

[lingo]

sinsi,

A long,long time ago (before Pistelli), I answered in details to The Svin's question:
"What is the data between the DOS-stub-code and the PE-header in MASM-linked files?"..
Unfortunately my full answer was deleted..->http://www.asmcommunity.net/board/showthread.php?threadid=11182&

See dELTA's Reply #25 on: 2004-03-16 13:54:05
http://www.asmcommunity.net/board/index.php?topic=14699.15

See my Reply #4 on: 2003-08-15 13:41:25
and S.T.A.S's reply #11 on: 2003-08-15 23:44:20
http://www.asmcommunity.net/board/index.php?topic=14699.msg113971#msg113971

About the patch:  :lol
See my Reply #124 on: 2003-08-08 18:45:56
http://www.asmcommunity.net/board/index.php?topic=10554.120

[Magnum]

Would it be safer to just insert the NOPs into the executable rather than patch link.exe?

Would the program still work fine?

[Antariy]

[japheth]

Is this your reply to my post?  :bg

Well, I think it is a good response, but to be honest, I didn't intend to impress you so strongly that you lost speech. I hope that you're able to recover somehow.

[Antariy]

... that's the difference (big difference).

De jure the difference might be big, but de facto it is not so big.  :bg

However, we're not in a trial here ( although one might get this impression seeing all the hobby prosecutors lurking around here   :toothy ), so the de jure aspect is inferior to the de facto one.

...

Well, I think it is a good response, but to be honest, I didn't intend to impress you so strongly that you lost speech. I hope that you're able to recover somehow.

Of course, no. I've posted actually. But deleted after some time - my post wasn't very polite (not about you though! Edited: and not about anyone). I'm not want to looks like hypothetical opponent :green2

One notes though (you forced me :bg):

3. Legality of content is not a negotiable matter in the forum. Assembler programming is mainstream programming and is primarily used by professional programmers who require the performance in specialised areas. Low level coding is both allowed and encouraged but there will be no viral or trojan technology allowed including technical data under the guise of AV technology, no cracking and similar activities in the guise of "Reverse Engineering", no hacking techniques or related technology and no support or help with or reference to pirated software. There will also be no links to pages that support or display any of these or any other illegal areas of coding.

My thread is not falls into any points from the rule.
Except, maybe, thread contains the word link.exe - very similar to the links to bad pages :green2

As about pointed with a color - well, if this impudent and mendacious advertising thread is not fall under the rule-to-be-deleted, then there is no reason to delete my useful peaceful and harmless thread.

[redskull]

Since when is it against the law to modify copyrighted material?  When I buy textbooks, I often modify them with highlighting, additional notes, underlines, and other sorts of other scribbles.  You can do whatever you wish to your copyrighted material (DMCA notwithstanding), as long as you don't distribute copies of it.  Legality of patching a licensed software binary deals exclusively with the *license* you received that software under.  For my copy of the SDK, it says you cannot:

· work around any technical limitations in the software;
· reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation;

It's 'illegal content' because the license prevents people from reverse engineering the code, not because copyright doesn't let you modify it.

-r

[japheth]

Since when is it against the law to modify copyrighted material? 

Just in case you replied to my post: I mentioned "de jure", that's true, but the "law" to which I was referring were just the infamous "forum rules". And since those rules "reject" RE, it has some inner logic that binary patches are also "rejected".