Jump to content
Tuts 4 You

[Keygen me] KKGM #2


KKR_WE_RULE

Recommended Posts

KKR_WE_RULE

Hello to all.

My first kgme is this board.

All the code in this lil thing belongs to me :P

Have fun genning it :)

Rules :-

Keygen is the only valid soln :)


Winners are :-
1) HVC

KGM2.rar

Edited by KKR_WE_RULE
Link to comment

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 by HVC
Link to comment
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 by KKR_WE_RULE
Link to comment

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 by HVC
  • Like 1
Link to comment
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 :)

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...