Topic on Talk:SecuROM

This page shows the changes between two versions of a post by Mirh in the topic "Plan" on Talk:SecuROM. You can see other versions of this post at its history page.

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 * Intel's [https://web.archive.org/web/20160205070308/http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/specification-updates/desktop-6th-gen-core-family-spec-update.pdf errata doc] isn't of great insight, and anyway they only started to publicly release microcode for Skylake with a hint of a changelog [https://salsa.debian.org/hmh/intel-microcode/-/blob/releases/bpo7/debian/changelog#L239 months later]. After some tinkering though <small><small>(I bisected [https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/GA-Z170X-Gaming-7-rev-10/support#support-dl-bios GA-Z170X-Gaming 7] bios F3 and F4, and found a [https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebooks-Archive-Read-Only/SecuROM-8016-error-due-to-Skylake-CPU-needing-microcode/td-p/5394582 clear bug report] placing a tighter lower bound)</small></small> I could at least confirm this fix came with microcode, in either revision 2F if it even exists, or most definitively 3A.
-* there's always that asterisk about older ([https://web.archive.org/web/20010117055800/http://www.cdmediaworld.com/hardware/cdrom/cd_protections_1.shtml#SecuROM oldest]) releases possibly not working for real in modern systems. Is it a myth, or maybe could they employ some DOS/9x/16-bit voodoo? What is the "SecuromVistaVersionLie" ACT shim for? <small>EDIT: [https://github.com/Luca1991/luca1991.github.io/commit/9cd5ea46ee856a1c2994e466c4bea1b1637bc821#comments well], [[Arabian Nights]], [[South Park Rally]] and [[Populous: The Beginning|Populous III]] should be tested I guess. Maybe they relied on DOS interrupts or drivers once upon a time?</small>
+* What was the "SecuromVistaVersionLie" ACT shim for? Is it related to [https://web.archive.org/web/20140430015741/http://technet.microsoft.com/library/dn383989.aspx SecuROM7] (that to this day is still inside W10 32-bit {{file|AcSpecfc.dll}})?
+* there's always that asterisk about older ([https://web.archive.org/web/20010117055800/http://www.cdmediaworld.com/hardware/cdrom/cd_protections_1.shtml#SecuROM oldest]) releases possibly not working for real in modern systems. Is it a myth, or maybe could they employ some DOS/9x/16-bit voodoo? <small>EDIT: [https://github.com/Luca1991/luca1991.github.io/commit/9cd5ea46ee856a1c2994e466c4bea1b1637bc821#comments well], [[Arabian Nights]], [[South Park Rally]] and [[Populous: The Beginning|Populous III]] should be tested I guess. Maybe they relied on DOS interrupts or drivers once upon a time?</small>