[Keygen me] KKGM #2

[KKR_WE_RULE]

Hello to all.

My first kgme is this board.

All the code in this lil thing belongs to me

Have fun genning it

Rules :-

Keygen is the only valid soln

Winners are :-
1) HVC 

KGM2.rar

Edited March 9, 2010 by KKR_WE_RULE

[HVC]

Nice work.

The GCD function, which i assume is of your own creation, and is used in computing the 64 bit checksum, is buggy. Take a closer look at it.

Thanks for the crackme.

KRKR.Sol.rar

Edited March 9, 2010 by HVC

[KKR_WE_RULE]

Well, the GCD function is buggy in the sense that its a bit inefficient.

It takes quite a while for considerably longer nums

Excellent work with ya Keygen

There is one thing that I would like to know.

How much would you rate this kgm at out of 10 ?

Edited March 9, 2010 by KKR_WE_RULE

[HVC]

Ratings are relative to someone's experience etc.

Someone can see it as very easy, while someone other can see it as medium, hard, and so on.

I would rather not label it.

As for the gcd function, it is buggy in the sense that it has a static variable, that retains data from previous passes, and which are outputted, when for instance, one or both numbers being passed to the algo is negative.

The source i included, reproduces this bug in order to generate valid keys.

There is also a possibility that there are names for which the checksum may be miscalculated in my source, but im not interested in further persuing exact recovery of this algo (hey, its only a keygenme after all).

Edited March 9, 2010 by HVC

[KKR_WE_RULE]

Ratings are relative to someone's experience etc.

Someone can see it as very easy, while someone other can see it as medium, hard, and so on.

I would rather not label it.

As for the gcd function, it is buggy in the sense that it has a static variable, that retains data from previous passes, and which are outputted, when for instance, one or both numbers being passed to the algo is negative.

The source i included, reproduces this bug in order to generate valid keys.

There is also a possibility that there are names for which the checksum may be miscalculated in my source, but im not interested in further persuing exact recovery of this algo (hey, its only a keygenme after all).

I see.. so thats the bug , which is in there..

Thanx for pointing it out