Rockstar games using Razor 1911 cracks on Steam?

M76

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
14,039
Rockstar Games and its parent company, Take Two, are known for going after those who reverse engineer their games, which makes it especially ironic that the company is reportedly using software cracks created by the Razor 1911 cracking group to remove DRM from some of their older software titles sold on Steam.

What's worse is that they meddled with the cracked code which led to the known issues running Manhunt and Midnight Club II on Windows Vista and later versions of Windows. While the original cracked .exe from Razor 1911 works flawlessly.

This all came to light after GTA content creator Vadim M. shared a video on how Rockstar incorporated a crack for its Manhunt and Max Payne 2 games on Steam to bypass the built-in anti-piracy protections that they added in the first place.

mc2-hex.jpg


Source
 
SystemXS said:
To not only use the crack without citing it or permission, but then fuck with it to mess up the game, classy.
Click to expand...
Why would they have to cite or ask for permission to use the crack for the game they own the rights to?

It’s lazy, but the cracker can piss off.
 
Mchart said:
The crack is illegal - No one can own it.
Click to expand...
Maybe so, maybe not... that depends on an awful lot of variables that could be present none of which have been discussed. jumping straight to "its a crack so its illegal" is not a valid step and is ultimately just as lazy as what rockstar did in the first place. Just because it may be illegal in some places does not mean that it is "owned" by the company that created the game the crack is for. You know it, I know it, just about everyone thats a regular on these boards knows it and it was stupid for Rockstar to do what they did.

Im not saying cracking software is the way to go through life, but lets not play make believe that Rockstar has any "rights" to do what they did any more than the guy that created the crack in the first place.
 
pendragon1 said:
other than introducing crashes isk, its their ip.
Click to expand...
These early cracks generally didn't crash the games, because all they were really doing was bypassing the CD-ROM check, and back then it wasn't generally anything sophisticated, unless the game was protected by like starforce which did a lot of BS.
 
Mchart said:
These early cracks generally didn't crash the games, because all they were really doing was bypassing the CD-ROM check, and back then it wasn't generally anything sophisticated, unless the game was protected by like starforce which did a lot of BS.
Click to expand...
ok. still dont care if they use a crack on their own game. same as when roms are reused by nintendo/sega, if theirs to begin with.
 
Mchart said:
The crack is illegal - No one can 'own' it. So if they want to use it they can since they own everything about that game & code.

But sure - Let's see the Razor1911 warez group sue Rockstar. I'm sure that will go well.
Click to expand...
Actually reverse engineering is not illegal, it is only against the TOS probably, but at best that would be a civil suit against those who reverse engineered the code, not a criminal case.
Also there is an exemption of law that allows an end user to circumvent DRM if it is preventing them from using a legitimately purchased copy of the game due to the activation servers no longer being available. Which is true for many games from this era using cd keys to activate. Which makes cracks legal to use.

And even if something is created by skirting the law that doesn't mean Rockstar can just use it to make profits off of it. Just imagine the risks of the cracked version containing malicious code (not by the crackers as they probably have a better moral code than rockstar but by whatever shady source they obtained the cracked exe from).

This is absolute incompetence meeting absolute recklessness.
 
M76 said:
Actually reverse engineering is not illegal, it is only against the TOS, so at best it would be a civil suit against those who reverse engineered the code.
Also there is an exemption of law that allows an end user to circumvent DRM if it is preventing them from using a legitimately purchased copy of the game due to the activation servers no longer being available. Which is true for many games from this era using cd keys to activate. Which makes cracks legal to use.

And even if something is created by skirting the law that doesn't mean Rockstar can just use it to make profits off of it. Just imagine the risks of the cracked version containing malicious code (not by the crackers as they probably have a better moral code than rockstar but by whatever shady source they obtained the cracked exe from).

This is absolute incompetence meeting absolute recklessness.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't run it either. Just saying that 'asking Razor1911 for permission' is idiotic.

I agree it's stupid to use it, and it's likely not safe either from a cybersecurity perspective.
 
Mchart said:
I wouldn't run it either. Just saying that 'asking Razor1911 for permission' is idiotic.

I agree it's stupid to use it, and it's likely not safe either from a cybersecurity perspective.
Click to expand...
100% agreed. Asking their permission is just as stupid as using the crack. They should have fixed it the right way from the start.
 
harbingerofdoom said:
Yes the game is their IP. The crack however is not (at least until a court of law rules that it is, but they have to actually go through those steps to get there).
Click to expand...
the crack is still theirs, the exe was modified not created from scratch.
 
pendragon1 said:
the crack is still theirs, the exe was modified not created from scratch.
Click to expand...
No the crack is not theirs, the crack is usually a small compiled executable that changes the bytes of a file. So that executable that applies the crack is owned by the creator of that executable, assuming they would actually sue who used it without a license (like that would ever happen) because that is exactly how copyrights work. You make it you own it period. Though the modified exe after it was patched is still owned by Rockstar so they can do what they want with it even distribute it without issue.

Rockstar is perfectly allowed to use the crack though because most cracks are considered public domain anyway as there is no licensing or whatever attached to it so it is irrelevant. The most the crack group is going to do is brag about how they are the "official" crack group of Rockstar which seriously is lol funny.

BTW isn't this an old topic? I swear I already read this several months ago, maybe not the games listed here but I am pretty sure Rockstar or possibly some other company did exactly this same thing.
 
LurkerLito said:
No the crack is not theirs, the crack is usually a small compiled executable that changes the bytes of a file. So that executable that applies the crack is owned by the creator of that executable, assuming they would actually sue who used it without a license (like that would ever happen) because that is exactly how copyrights work. You make it you own it period. Though the modified exe after it was patched is still owned by Rockstar so they can do what they want with it even distribute it without issue.

Rockstar is perfectly allowed to use the crack though because most cracks are considered public domain anyway as there is no licensing or whatever attached to it so it is irrelevant. The most the crack group is going to do is brag about how they are the "official" crack group of Rockstar which seriously is lol funny.

BTW isn't this an old topic? I swear I already read this several months ago, maybe not the games listed here but I am pretty sure Rockstar or possibly some other company did exactly this same thing.
Click to expand...
I believe Ubisoft pushed a patch that used a crack for one of the Splinter Cell games, but that was years ago.
 
LurkerLito said:
No the crack is not theirs, the crack is usually a small compiled executable that changes the bytes of a file. So that executable that applies the crack is owned by the creator of that executable, assuming they would actually sue who used it without a license (like that would ever happen) because that is exactly how copyrights work. You make it you own it period. Though the modified exe after it was patched is still owned by Rockstar so they can do what they want with it even distribute it without issue.

Rockstar is perfectly allowed to use the crack though because most cracks are considered public domain anyway as there is no licensing or whatever attached to it so it is irrelevant. The most the crack group is going to do is brag about how they are the "official" crack group of Rockstar which seriously is lol funny.
Click to expand...
This is the most accurate explanation.

The crack is like a stamping tool. Sure, Razor 1911 made the tool. However, Rockstar only used the tool to effectively "stamp" their executable. Unlike the real world, the thing that got stamped can be infinitely copied with zero cost. Without a contractual agreement between the two parties, common sense laws state the tool maker gets no revenue from the thing being stamped just the cost or license of using tool itself.

The point being, Rockstar is not including the cracking tool with their distribution. They simply used the crack to modify their existing executable which gets distributed per the norm. You could argue that Razor 1911 doesn't get credit here, but this circulating in the news is probably all the credit they could have ever asked for.

This kind of stuff asks so many questions. Has Rockstar effectively lost the original source code for these titles? Does it require some old version of Visual Studio that is lost to time? I suspect there is probably some developmental cost and licensing with doing it the "right way".

This does seem like a shortcut and absolutely the cheapest route to go.
 
M76 said:
Actually reverse engineering is not illegal, it is only against the TOS probably, but at best that would be a civil suit against those who reverse engineered the code, not a criminal case.
Also there is an exemption of law that allows an end user to circumvent DRM if it is preventing them from using a legitimately purchased copy of the game due to the activation servers no longer being available. Which is true for many games from this era using cd keys to activate. Which makes cracks legal to use.

And even if something is created by skirting the law that doesn't mean Rockstar can just use it to make profits off of it. Just imagine the risks of the cracked version containing malicious code (not by the crackers as they probably have a better moral code than rockstar but by whatever shady source they obtained the cracked exe from).

This is absolute incompetence meeting absolute recklessness.
Click to expand...
Bypassing DRM is a pretty big set of clauses in the DMCA and is generally a big no-no, unless the software in question can be classified as abandoned by the developer then go to town.

But yeah this is lazy as fuck, but I don’t know why anybody would expect better from them.
 
I am not sure if people are serious about asking permissions to use a crack (about the company that was cracked), could be sarcastic joke obviously, but could be semi-serious.

They do not always have a known name and phone number to call and the crack tend to be released with a anyone can run it license/copyright
 
Lakados said:
Bypassing DRM is a pretty big set of clauses in the DMCA and is generally a big no-no, unless the software in question can be classified as abandoned by the developer then go to town.

But yeah this is lazy as fuck, but I don’t know why anybody would expect better from them.
Click to expand...
DMCA just allows copyright owners to make websites and social media take down their copyrighted content.
 
M76 said:
DMCA just allows copyright owners to make websites and social media take down their copyrighted content.
Click to expand...
If only it were so specific but no, some of the biggest lawsuits in the last 20 years have used copyright and DMCA as it’s basis.

It has a lot of power and is quite open to interpretation.

It’s why the EFF has spent much of the last 20 years fighting it. And only won is the ability to crack and modify abandonware with out fear of legal reprisals in 2018.
 
Last edited:
They used a crack to alter their own game

Just like people use photoshop to alter their own photos.
 
Is it pure speculation that they actually ever got the code of the crack (where would have they got it, are those crack opensource somewhere )? Maybe they just ran the crack on their executable and the other change does not come from having achieved to put their hand on the code of the crack and changed it.

Is disassembly under that IP and speculation that they did it ?
 
LukeTbk said:
Is it pure speculation that they actually ever got the code of the crack (where would have they got it, are those crack opensource somewhere )? Maybe they just ran the crack on their executable and the other change does not come from having achieved to put their hand on the code of the crack and changed it.

Is disassembly under that IP and speculation that they did it ?
Click to expand...
Cracks are not patches usually they come as a modified executable for the game. Rockstar just took this cracked executable and applied steam DRM to it, which actually broke it. They never had the source for the crack.
 
Been a busy day, but this thread turned out to be all I had hoped for. We can't let corporations pick on poor, innocent, indy crack development and warez teams. Someone needs to stand up for the little guy. They should be paying Razor 1911 royalties and punitive damages for stealing their work. What kind of company just steals something like that? Are there no morals anymore?
 
They along with Ubisoft and I believe EA in the past have officially released cracks as updates to remove old DRM that stopped working.
 
M76 said:
Cracks are not patches usually they come as a modified executable for the game. Rockstar just took this cracked executable and applied steam DRM to it, which actually broke it. They never had the source for the crack.
Click to expand...
They come in both forms, the modified executable and/or a patch tool. Although typically release groups bundle one or the other, not both.

In my past experience, patches are typically the more appealing option as often a patch can be applied to future executables to achieve the same effect.

The downside to patches is that the patch tool itself often gets flagged by virus scanners. Such is the world of piracy though.
 
M76 said:
Cracks are not patches usually they come as a modified executable for the game. Rockstar just took this cracked executable and applied steam DRM to it, which actually broke it. They never had the source for the crack.
Click to expand...

There probably is no source as there was nothing to write - unless they include a patcher for the sake of trying to survive updates, but they're generic and there's nothing particularly interesting to glean from them. They just do a signature scan to find the location of the data they need to overwrite.

All the reversing probably happened in an analysis tool like IDA Pro. You can see all the assembly changes by just diffing the two files yourself.
 
SystemXS said:
Been a busy day, but this thread turned out to be all I had hoped for. We can't let corporations pick on poor, innocent, indy crack development and warez teams. Someone needs to stand up for the little guy. They should be paying Razor 1911 royalties and punitive damages for stealing their work. What kind of company just steals something like that? Are there no morals anymore?
Click to expand...
Lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top