Skip to main content
Reverse Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

6
  • This is perfect, and makes complete sense except for one part. Why would cracking software not be finding a vulnerability? Is it more the vulnerability of the architecture, and thus not the software itself? I appreciate you taking the time to answer. Commented Jul 30, 2018 at 23:59
  • People usually mean something that would let an attacker gain access or higher privileges in a victim's machine. This gives an attacker access to data and resources that belong to someone else. Cracking does let you use a software you're not suppose to, but does not put anyone in risk. In contrast, cracking is expected to be a cat and mouse game where the major advantage of anti-cracking is raising the bar. Commented Jul 31, 2018 at 0:44
  • Legislation overrules EULAs. So you may not be bound by such a restriction. As an example: within the EU it's alright to reverse engineer something for interoperability purposes. Commented Jul 31, 2018 at 8:21
  • That's clearly not what OP's asking about, though.. Commented Jul 31, 2018 at 8:41
  • Nirlzr you say cracking doesn’t put anyone at risk, but for example car manufacturers have software that allows you to mess with counters and settings on a car. This software is usually protected with DRM to only give authorized dealers access to these settings (which could probably cause harm if set improperly). Commented Aug 2, 2018 at 9:17