I would DEFINATELY like to know the outcome of this too.

I am afraid thats not true. This has been discussed before and it was discovered that the download version also comes with SF, it just doesn't require a DVD check. Please correct me if I am wrong as I have the DVD version and I heard the above here on the forums myself (check for drivers as stated above).

In any case, it doesnt help thousands who have already bought the DVD version, unless UBISOFT offers them all free download as well i.e., if the download is free of SF and they all have super fast internet connection. My 7Kb/sec connection won't cope with it ofcourse even if I was offered a free download of SH3.

But thats the problem - We show you how you are wrong - in my case I showed you that it is even a hidden device driver that modifies IDE calls and is designed for the normal user to not even be able to find it, yet you continue to defend it. By definition - that is a rootkit. Call me crazy, but I think this is VERY weird or abnormal behavior to blindly defend it like that. That is why I asked if you worked for Starforce, and you still never answered the question. Do you work for Starforce?

-S

It appears you are right, which is strange. It wasn't there after I installed, and restarted, but after playing the game, it is now listed.

Glad you posted and now you know how to find them.
Once you run the game they have to initiate and that's when they get installed.



SC

It´s the responsibility of the publishers to make SF removable, that is what also Mark Russinovich´s said just in case you don´t believe me. Without the removal tool it´s very difficult or almost impossible for the average user to remove it.

I´m not defending it blindly.

I´ve answered that already several times. No, I don´t.

Take a look at this guys:

http://virtual-hideout.net/articles/...t2/index.shtml

Sounds exactly like my problems with my Plextor 712A, except after removing SF, I do not notice any write problems anymore, so theoretically, my drive didn't get damaged. Then again, maybe I should run a PIO test in Plextools Pro? I don't think I've done one since I first bought the drive so now may be a good time to check its health.

My other two drives in the system are a crappy Sony DVD-ROM that I use to keep my Plextors from getting worn out, and a Plextor Premium CD burner (Best CD burner ever made!). I can reliably squeeze about 100 minutes of music onto a 80 minute CD. It will do 113 min of music, but playback in a lot of drives is not completely reliable. DVD readers still seem to be able to read the 113 min of music, but junk CD players have issue.

Basically the point is, my Plex Premium still works good. I should check the DVD burner though.

-S

Yeah you may want to check it out. His article sounded very much like what happened to me.

Allright, messing with the Silent Hunter 3 install program, and it is possible to defeat Starforce and 'never' have it install on your system (This is not a guide to bypassing SF, so don't ask me, and everything I write here has to be legal - This is just a workaround to keep it from installing). I won't say how this is possible other than the fact that Starforces flaw is in how it installs itself - and I discovered it tonight (but had an inkling of before which is what prompted me to try). The key is that SF is 'not' installed upon installing the said software, nor is it installed by patching the said software. It is installed by 'playing' the said software since it is embedded in the exe. That is the key. Don't run it!

To get around the rest, you guys will have to use your own minds because it is against this boards policy to post about bypassing the actual copyprotection.

The point is, if SH3 is your thing to play, it is possible to keep you sys secure and still play SH3. Hopefully SF will be dropped like a hot potato by dev's in the future and we all won't need to worry about it ever again! I'm off to play now, so don't expect me around for a while! :)

-S

PS. I can play SH3 and Sf has never graced the sectors of my HD!!! At least not in this install of XP MCE 2005!!!

That's wonderful news! :yep: :rock:

Subman, exactly the same problem with the exact same drive I have. Thankyou for confirming. :up:

Gizzmoe, no offence ment and it is good to be challenged, but most your arguments seem to be about definition.

We now use the term Trojankit, which removes this definition problem.

We fully accept that other issues can trigger these problems, however as with most things in the Computing world, its rarely 100% factual evidence that you deal with as in many cases all you have to work with is the balance of probabilities.

1 person has DMA step down. he/she removes SF and the problem goes away. You can call that coincidence, but when 800,000 people get the same reaction you can safely assume that SF has an issue.

So at that point we set about finding out what it was.

That same thing applies with slow downs, Code 41 errors etc.

Now in the latter case, the mess caused to the filter section of the registry is very easy to observe in a before and after scenario.


So when Soulcommander says you questions have been answered, why do you keep repeating the same things in a slightly different worded format?

I can understanding someone defending SF if they had financial amounts to gain from it, but I am yet to comprehend why somebody would defend shoddy coding just for the sake of it?

Especially when such code actually leave end users systems open for exploitation by persons with malicious intent.

Dude you really should go here:

Starforces Technical Support forum and see how badly they treat people with technical issues.

That is not what the industry thought it was buying into.


to quote from the rules

However that actually includes offering technical support for real issues that end users are having problems with.

I know first hand because they deleted my DMA step down fix and Code 41 error fix. When I challenged the senior SF moderators about this. This is one of the responses I recieved.

I kid you not, This is a word for word copy and paste from the PM I recieved.


I knew they had problems but check this part out "Right now he has no idea whats going on". This is their programmer, he does no have a clue what is happening.

I thought WTF :o this is crazy..............

After offsetting advice I decided to help, but only if the request came through official channels. As they do have such a lousy reputation with peeps that have tried to help them in the past.

As you may have guessed, they will not contact officially.

Indeed. I really wouldn´t care about the whole thing if I knew that you don´t know what you are talking about and that you simply use this term because you´ve heard it somewhere and you think it sounds cool and dangerous. But that´s not the case. You know what you are talking about and it was a concious decision to make up a new definition for "Trojankit" so that SF fits 100% into it and then to use this term in an intentionally wrong way. That´s pretty unprofessional (to put it mildly).

I´ve asked that already: How can this term and the definitions of it be any helpful? There are enough people out there who don´t know about the potentional dangers of SF yet. Do Larry and you from now on answer questions like "What´s Starforce?" only with "Please read the definition of Trojankit at n-gage-help.com"?

Re: Be watching for an Update on Starforce from Toms Hardwar
 

Ok, its the 11th but I can't seem to find the article on TH website (it has an awful layout).
If somebody can post the link to the article it will be appreciated.

The article isn´t out yet.

Actually this is old news....But I understand your willingness to help. I can tell your a caring guy as by what you posted to try to help others. First off I would like to say that the Dev team has nothing to do with Starforce. The Publisher does, thats my understanding. Correct me someone if it's incorrect.

Second, although I have a willingness to also help everyone I want all of you to know the kind of individule I am...
Yes there is a crack available for SF. But I have not installed it. Nor publicised it. (Until now I guess :stare: )
Yes I love SHIII and would love to play it again without SF.

But here is what I really want to see happen:

I would prefer the Game Publisher provide it! (Ubisoft)
I will suggest this to Ubisoft. Also on any games that are exceptionally old and have dropped in price, it would also be nice to see Staforce removed and not a part of any future releases of those games as well.

The only problem here is "IDENTIFING" what games have Starforce in them and which ones DON'T! I think it's way past time that if UBISOFT still feels Starforce is such a good thing that they give Starforce CREDIT and list them on the outside packaging of the game box!
If the Publishers are so proud of this copy protection then "Give Starforce some Publicity!"


These are all suggestion's I will bring up to Ubisoft. What do you guys think? Shoot me a pm! I will include your name if you provide it as someone that feels the same way.

Of course it's also possible that Ubi takes an active response and becomes the first company to do away with Starforce...This will show the gaming community that Ubisoft does care about it's consumers.
Go back to Safedisc or some other established protection that is not going to mess up your system and hardware.

Re: Be watching for an Update on Starforce from Toms Hardwar
 

I will post it as soon as someone alerts me that it's out. Toms Hardware includes many, many companies!

Hosted By © 2006 Tom's Guide Publishing.
TG Daily
Tom's Hardware Guide
Tom's Networking Guide
Mobility Guru
TwitchGuru
DenGuru
TG Forumz
TG Stores

Select a Region: China | France | Germany | Hungary | Italy | Poland | Sweden | Russia | Taiwan | Turkey| UK & Ireland


Did I leave any out?????????

FYI http://www.tgpublishing.net/

Actually, quite a few publishers I talked to said that the dev. teams choose the anti-piracy software. Other publishers are the ones who do that. So it goes both ways.

I try to be reasonable and held back on my comments and this is what I get in return.

The definition is put together in manner to cover a range of unstable DRM's that have been used lately that do not sit in Mark definition of Rootkits. As explained previously a lot of organisations and people in forums having been saying its not a "rootkit" as if that fact some how made these technical problems go away.

I ask are you now saying Mark was wrong in creating the term rootkit to match with what he was seeing?

As an example would you create the definition of an egg if you where describing an apple?

Yes this description is convenient, convenient for everybody to explain a complex range of software/hardware interactions in a single word. Thus avoiding blurring of the definition of the problems.

In fact that is a very professional approach as it stops incorrect association or misuse of the term. Clear defined criteria are always better than open ended streams of information.

I way to you what isa rootkit?

You can go and look it up

I say to you what is a TrojanKit

You can go and look it up.

That is the difference of using single terms to define a range of processes, rather than having to repeat pages and pages of explanations time and time again.

I really do not know why this needs to be explained to you, given that you appear to be a very intelligent chap.