SafeDisc, SecuROM DRM support removed from Windows 8, 7, Vista

[Syphadeus]

Great, an update which disables security software that consumers never wanted or asked for in the first place which may make games that they wanted and purchased not work. Further, none of these DRM mechanisms actually had any appreciable effect on piracy of these games. Disgraceful. Publishers who own the IP of any of the affected games should be made to honour the original purchase and offer a digital non-DRM copy of each affected title to holders of the discs. They decided to put bloody security measure there in the first place, it is them who should bear the burden and hassle not the other way around.

[ik9000]

Great, an update which disables security software that consumers never wanted or asked for in the first place which may make games that they wanted and purchased not work. Further, none of these DRM mechanisms actually had any appreciable effect on piracy of these games. Disgraceful. Publishers who own the IP of any of the affected games should be made to honour the original purchase and offer a digital non-DRM copy of each affected title to holders of the discs. They decided to put bloody security measure there in the first place, it is them who should bear the burden and hassle not the other way around.

This. This with bells on.

Welcome to the forum buddy.

[GuidoLS]

Great, an update which disables security software that consumers never wanted or asked for in the first place which may make games that they wanted and purchased not work. Further, none of these DRM mechanisms actually had any appreciable effect on piracy of these games. Disgraceful. Publishers who own the IP of any of the affected games should be made to honour the original purchase and offer a digital non-DRM copy of each affected title to holders of the discs. They decided to put bloody security measure there in the first place, it is them who should bear the burden and hassle not the other way around.

Except that it wasn't MS that put in the DRM. It was EA, and Ubisoft, and Sierra On-Line, and a multitude of smaller companies that no longer exist. The ONLY game on the very short list of games I have that was effected by this was Bioshock, and that's because I bought it through a third party. Quite literally, every other game either received a no-cd patch from the the developer, a Steam key, or in a couple of cases, 'freebies' from GOG or EA/Origin.

So your argument about the devs that hold the IP is kind of meaningless - they've already taken care of business. It's just easier to point fingers and yell at the messenger than it is to do some due diligence and find what you need for games that are 10 years old or older....

MS is no angel. But they aren't guilty of anything other than removing a security hole from their software, which is their right.

[Corky34]

Except that it wasn't MS that put in the DRM.....

Not disagreeing with what you've said just it's caused me a head scratching moment.

Yes those companies were responsible for the DRM but on my system (W7SP1) i have the file "secdrv.sys" that is part of the afore mentioned DRM (anyone else have it?), now I'm fairly certain I've never installed a CD based game so I'm guessing "secdrv.sys" comes with windows but isn't started or used until a game sets it to start automatically?

In effect it seems all this update does it switch "secdrv.sys" to not start automatically as it would be if you never installed one of these CD based DRM games.

[GuidoLS]

Not disagreeing with what you've said just it's caused me a head scratching moment.

Yes those companies were responsible for the DRM but on my system (W7SP1) i have the file "secdrv.sys" that is part of the afore mentioned DRM (anyone else have it?), now I'm fairly certain I've never installed a CD based game so I'm guessing "secdrv.sys" comes with windows but isn't started or used until a game sets it to start automatically?

In effect it seems all this update does it switch "secdrv.sys" to not start automatically as it would be if you never installed one of these CD based DRM games.

The way SecuRom and Safedisk (and Stardock, to an extent) worked was that they set up what Windows saw as a virtual CD rom, much in the same way that Alcohol and similar programs did, with the difference being that there were (mostly) randomly generated code that the various programs checked against to make sure your system was valid. It was a cheaper way of inserting a key-fob type device, if you will. Because they changed their code so often, and because the DRMs sometimes fought with each other, MS basically either made (as is the case with secdrv.sys) or forced the devs to make a generic version that just worked - at which point the DRM became pointless, because it was far less random, and made it far easier for those that partook of such endeavors to find the code in the game exe's and code in their own little work around.

Why has MS waited so long to do what's really the right thing to do? Well, most of these DRM schemes don't work in Win10 already, and it's taken a number of years, but it seems like there's finally an exploit that's been reported that can use these virtual drives as a vector to install root kits, a la Sony, etc. So the simple answer is, it wasn't really a problem until now, and the fix is easy. And one less 'driver' being loaded is that much more ram and system resource available for something else.

[ik9000]

The way SecuRom and Safedisk (and Stardock, to an extent) worked was that they set up what Windows saw as a virtual CD rom, much in the same way that Alcohol and similar programs did, with the difference being that there were (mostly) randomly generated code that the various programs checked against to make sure your system was valid. It was a cheaper way of inserting a key-fob type device, if you will. Because they changed their code so often, and because the DRMs sometimes fought with each other, MS basically either made (as is the case with secdrv.sys) or forced the devs to make a generic version that just worked - at which point the DRM became pointless, because it was far less random, and made it far easier for those that partook of such endeavors to find the code in the game exe's and code in their own little work around.

Why has MS waited so long to do what's really the right thing to do? Well, most of these DRM schemes don't work in Win10 already, and it's taken a number of years, but it seems like there's finally an exploit that's been reported that can use these virtual drives as a vector to install root kits, a la Sony, etc. So the simple answer is, it wasn't really a problem until now, and the fix is easy. And one less 'driver' being loaded is that much more ram and system resource available for something else.

Which is all nice and dandy, but people paid to own a game they could play. Unless they maintain an XP system - and it would be lovely to have the house space for a 2nd machine - they can now not play the thing. unless they reactivate the secdrv.sys. In which case it is still sitting there and malicious code can presumably also reactivate this to do its thing. It doesn't seem to me to be patching the issue that an exploit can access. It is however creating problems for the average win7 user who doesn't know why their paid-for software won't load anymore. And that's my objection to it. The paid for legitimate software is borked while pirate copies remain unaffected.

[GuidoLS]

Which is all nice and dandy, but people paid to own a game they could play. Unless they maintain an XP system - and it would be lovely to have the house space for a 2nd machine - they can now not play the thing. unless they reactivate the secdrv.sys. In which case it is still sitting there and malicious code can presumably also reactivate this to do its thing. It doesn't seem to me to be patching the issue that an exploit can access. It is however creating problems for the average win7 user who doesn't know why their paid-for software won't load anymore. And that's my objection to it. The paid for legitimate software is borked while pirate copies remain unaffected.

I've already stated that at least 90% of the programs in question have already been patched by the companies involved. I'll not do your homework for you - this is your due diligence. Your propensity for hating MS on a rather grand scale isn't unknown here, and you're now making really unfounded statements. You're the one that wanted to make a dual-boot machine, which, iirc, takes one machine... kills that really stupid no room for 2 machine theory... and yes, it's really, really, REALLY stupid. Unless you're living in a cardboard refrigerator box, stealing electric and internet from the building you're using for a windbreak - in which case, you have far larger problems than having to figure out how to legally use 20 year old software.

And I'm sure there's not a user on these forums that don't have at least one piece of software and/or hardware that hasn't worked from one OS update to the next. OMG, my championship backgammon game I paid $20 for when Win 3.1 was on my computer no longer works natively 25 years later... my Lexmark printer and Logitech eyeball webcam don't work anymore - let's go to Redmond and burn the building to the ground!!!111!!!one

[ik9000]

you make me laugh. I don't hate MS. I dislike their current strategy and t&cs. I don't hate them in the way you claim. And I'm not sure what dual boot BS you're on about. Frankly I wouldn't expect a yank sitting in his sprawling urban wooden shack to understand the cramped london apartments (we call them flats) I get to live in. Spacious they ain't sunshine.

Go lose that angst and take a chill pill. I won't be reading your BS posts again. Auto block is a wonderful thing. L8rs.