Special Issue of Ubiquitous Computing Security Systems

DISTRIBUTED SOFTWARE AND LICENSE KEY MANAGEMENT

“AN INITIATIVE TO STOP SOFTWARE PIRACY”
Vineet Sharma1, Dr. S.A.M.Rizvi2, Dr. S. Zeeshan Hussain3
1
Krishna Institute of Engineering & Technology, Ghaziabad, India
2,3
Jamia Millia IslamiaCentral University, New Delhi
Vineet_sharma@kiet.edu

ABSTRACT
It is really a boon for computer users that they get some software free with the operating
system. But what if this software was not given free and would have cost thousand dollars.
This would have given rise to the bug called “software piracy” but not to worry the bug is
still in the market and is the major concern of software developers. The major reasons of
piracy include the high cost of software and it is also the business of some unethical people
who have chosen piracy as their jobs. Various software companies are inclined towards the
research of techniques to handle this problem of piracy. Many defense mechanisms have
been devised till date but the hobbyists or the black market leaders so called “software
pirates” have always found a way out of it. This paper identifies flaws in the existing
defense mechanisms – the static defense mechanisms and identifies the impossibility to
prevent the duplication of digital data. The paper presents a dynamic defense mechanism
and makes it difficult to pirate. Furthermore it also enables a fine grained control over
distributed software. In this methodology the organization can not use the software on the
number of computers, exceeding the number of license purchased but it provides an ethical
way for optimal uses of that software in the network of the organization by dynamic
software and license management which morally and socially build an environment for the
prevention of software piracy.

Keywords- End User License Agreements (EULAs), Electronic software distribution

(ESD), Electronic software distribution and Licensing (ESDL), Distributed software and
License key management, Byzantine agreement protocol, Election Algorithms

these software packages with new system were very

1. INTRODUCTION
Among the various approaches that have been
explored recently to counteract the problem of
software piracy, some are of legal, ethical and
technical means.
Legal means are based on the fear of consequences
of violating piracy law. But while most software
piracy cases legal means are available, prosecution
on a case by case basis is economically unviable.
Furthermore, it is conceived as bad publicity and can
take a long time.
Ethical measures relate to making software piracy
morally unappealing. While the intentions are
laudable, it takes even more time to change the moral
standards of a larger group of people. [5]
The technical means include the static measures of
defense which incorporates in itself the protection
mechanism that is built into the distributed database.
Once the system is broken then the static protection
techniques are not satisfactory at all.
It is a matter of history that with the introduction of
IBM PC in the early 1980’s a revolution began.
Some famous software applications like “word
star”,”lotus123”,”dBase” were used with IBM PC.
Hardware was relatively more expensive than
software, and often inclusions of the latest version of
common and routinely expected. Upgrades to the
software packages were available usually directly
from the developers, or as often was the case through
resellers, but always incurred additional fees.
Tragically, this also led to underground trade on
these applications. Ironically, the more popular the
application was, the greater its appeal in the so called
“black market” and its traders, the “software pirates”.
[1, 4]
The concept of “software license was developed by
the software industry since its early inspection. Most
licenses were limited to operating systems and
development tools. Enforcement of licenses was
relatively trivial and painless. Any software customer
had certain rights and expectations from the software
and developer. Some software was licensed only to
one user or one machine, while some software may
have been licensed to a site specifying the maximum
number of machines or concurrent instances of the
program in execution (processes). These are also
known as “End User License Agreements” (EULAs).
The terms of each EULA may vary but the general
purpose is the same – establish the terms of contract
between software developer and user of software
product. [4]
Borland licensed is TURBO PASCAL and other
software categories under what was referred as the

UbiCC Journal - Volume 5 www.ubicc.org 1770

Special Issue of Ubiquitous Computing Security Systems
“Borland No Nonsense License” [4] which allowed
the user to treat the software as the book. The license
allowed an end user to install the software in as many
computer machines the user needed, but limited the
user to using only one copy in one machine at a time.
There was no license cracking built into the software
and the license was enforced strictly by “honour
system”. [7]
To tackle this problem this paper presents a diverse
view of dynamic protection scheme. In such scheme
each installed copy of program is unique which
actually differs from all other installed copies to
guarantee that the attacks cannot be generalized
successfully to other installed copies.
An additional advantage of the proposed scheme is a
fine grained level of control over the distributed
copies. This follows from the fact that a software
provider in our scheme can enable the installation of
a copy on an arbitrary number of machines or even
tolerate an arbitrary level of software piracy.
2 Related work to stop software piracy:
This section provides an overview of the related
work that has been done to stop software privacy and
identifies their fundamental weaknesses.
2.1 Overview:
The fundamental idea to stop piracy is very simple as
in nature the genetic diversity provides protection
against an entire species being wiped out by a single
virus or disease so is the software diversity.
Piracy prevention has drawn a lot of attention from
both the software industry and the academic
community. This large interest in piracy prevention
is largely due to the huge financial loses attributed to
software piracy, and has resulted in a plethora of
technical means. These include hardware based and
software based approaches.
All hardware based approaches use tokens. In these
schemes it is impossible to execute the program
without the presence of a hardware component like
CD, Dongle, and smartcard. The link between
software and token can be weak or strong. [5]
The most common software based approaches are
also based on the use of the token such as license
key, license file or an activation code likewise token
and software can be weakly or strongly connected.
While software watermarking [13] and fingerprinting
are not the techniques that prevent copying of
software itself, they dissuade the pirate by increasing
the likelihood of being caught. This is done by
adding identification to released copy. One
advantage of finger printing is that it is more difficult
for attacker to be sure that he has removed a
fingerprint, and then it is to be sure that a copy
protection mechanism has been cracked. One
disadvantage of fingerprinting is its reliance on
cumbersome legal measures.
UbiCC Journal - Volume 5 www.ubicc.org
Software aging [12] is another technique that relies
heavily on program updates. For this technique to
work it is assumed that illegitimate users interact
only with the original pirate to obtain these updates.
As result pirated software becomes decreasingly
usable because it is not kept up to date. This
protection mechanism is dynamic form of protection.
Techniques like tamper- proofing [9] and obfuscation
do not prevent software piracy to a great extent.
Temper proofing which makes it hard to modify a
program makes it harder to remove embedded
protection mechanism. Obfuscation, which makes a
program more difficult to analyze, can be used to
hide the location of the protection mechanism.
A combined hardware software approach is used by
trusted computing platform alliance (TCPA), [10]
Microsoft also started a comparable initiative called
Palladium. [5]
2.2 Fundamental flaws in the existing piracy
prevention scheme:
Furthermore, any future software protection scheme
will eventually be broken because it must depend on
the operation of a finite state machine. Given enough
time and effort, this finite state machine can be
examined and ultimately modified at will by a
malicious host running the software, because the
owner of the software cannot impose restrictions on
the host means to inspect the program. For example,
only a few months were needed to create a key
generator for the activation of Windows XP, which
was one of the most complete systems, including on
–line activation and links to the hardware. [6]
The disadvantage of static protection mechanism is
that once a copy is available that undoes the static
copy protection or no longer carries the identification
of the perpetrator, it can be distributed virtually
unlimited and the software provider can no longer
enforce its copyright. In short it is the static nature of
existing defense mechanisms that makes them bound
to fail.
Another reason why static protection techniques are
so susceptible to attacks is that, while the first copy
is very expensive to produce, subsequent copies are
inexpensive to reproduce and distribute. This is an
important facilitating condition for software privacy;
hence its elimination will make software privacy less
attractive. [3]
As in the world of physical objects where each object
is unique and cost to reproduce it is nonzero , we
believe that the only way to achieve useful
reproduction at nonzero cost is to make each
legitimate copy unique. This is most obvious for the
hardware based mechanism as they combine the
software with a unique hard to duplicate, physical
object. The software approaches also use a part that
is unique for each install copy such as license
number, license file, activation code, decryption key
or fingerprint. Software aging uses a key to identify
1771
Special Issue of Ubiquitous Computing Security Systems
legal owners of a copy and TCPA identifies the host
computer and operating system.
A fundamental drawback of these schemes however
is that these unique parts are not part of original
program instead they were added for the purpose of
copyright protection. We believe that this is one of
the reasons why they have been proven to be
relatively easily removed or circumvented.
2.3 Software distribution model:
This paper presents a software distribution model
whose components are:
• Software providers: who want to maximize
their profits now and in the future.
• Legitimate users: who are willing to pay for the
software and want to use it without being
impaired by the piracy prevention mechanism.
• Pirates: who have technical skills and the desire
to circumvent the piracy prevention mechanism
and want to minimize the risk of being caught.
• Illegitimate users: who have no technical skills
and want to enjoy the same privileges as
legitimate users without proper compensation.
We will assume that number of pirates is
limited. [5]
2.4 Electronic software distribution (ESD):
The cost of shipping of some software was very high
which was also to be paid by the customer. This
inspired the customer towards piracy. In order to
solve this problem a technique called ESD came into
existence ESD is also known as digital distribution or
electronic software delivery. It refers to the practice
of allowing users to download software products
electronically (and primarily over the internet) as
opposed to receiving physical media. Although not
all software vendors discount the prices of
electronically distributed software from the price of
the physically distributed versions, such a discount is
common, as electronic distribution can typically be
much less costly for the vendors than its
conventional counterpart.
ESD as a service can be further broken down based
on straight purchase of the software (above) and try –
before – you – buy (TBYB), TBYB allows the
consumer to try the product for limited time or with
limited features and then, through the software
interface, purchase the software from the publisher.
• ESD services are broken down into several
components including Digital Rights
Managements (DRM), Trial Management and the
transaction or E-commerce component. Each of
the services can be purchased and managed as
standalone components or they can be outsourced
through third party companies.
UbiCC Journal - Volume 5 www.ubicc.org
• Electronic software distribution and
Licensing (ESDL): ESDL is the combination of
electronic software distribution and electronic
software licensing. [8]
3. Distributed software and License key
management:
Distributing files over network has been considered a
great achievement in the development of computer
technologies. Message distribution has been the core
technique behind the success and popularity gained
by Distributed Systems.
A distributed system can be defined as the one in
which components located at networked computers
communicate and coordinate their actions by passing
messages. This definition of distributed systems
leads to the following characteristics of distributed
systems as-concurrency of components, lack of
global clock and independent failures of components.
The distribution of files or information over the
network faces a lot of problems to achieve better
efficiency in distributed systems. The message
delivery should be fast and number of messages
should be less to achieve efficiency in distributed
systems. The transfer of message should be fast and
for this UDP messages are preferred.
3.1 Methodology:
In this model an organization tries to keep the
information about the specified software on a single
machine (considered as coordinator) and the
complete management of the dynamic distribution of
that software and its license is to be done on the
same machine. The selection of the coordinator is
done arbitrary or by executing the election
algorithms. If in any case the coordinator goes down
than any other machine is voluntary elected as the
coordinator to provide uninterrupted functioning for
dynamic or electronic distribution of the software
license. Here the software and license key
management is done dynamically by the coordinator
machine. The coordinator machine is responsible to
make an account for all those machines which are
executing the software. In this methodology the
organization cannot use the software on the number
of computers, exceeding the number of license
purchased but this methodology provides an ethical
way for optimal uses of the software in the network
of an organization. Therefore it prevents
organizational piracy and supports optimal use of
software in the network of an organization, for
example if there are 500 users in a network and
software is used by at most 300 users at a time then it
is better to take 300 licenses and use it with the
prevention of piracy.
In this scheme a machine known as
coordinator is dedicated for dynamic software and
license management. Generally the coordinator
machine is that machine which executes the software
first of all in the network. When this machine first of
1772
Special Issue of Ubiquitous Computing Security Systems
all executes the software, it broadcast the search
message packets in the network because there is no
machine in the network which is working as the
coordinator at that moment; no response message is
transferred back. This gives the knowledge to that
machine that no coordinator is there in the network
and the machine itself becomes the coordinator. The
coordinator machine keeps a port at transport layer
reserved for listening the incoming request messages.
It also has a counter which keeps a check on number
of license keys that are reserved at a particular
instant of time to various users. Besides this the
coordinator machine maintains a list of active clients
which are executing the software and a separate list
for the waiting clients.
Subsequently when any other machine requires
software to execute, it broadcast same message
request packet dedicated for that specific port in the
network and waits for its response. The coordinator
listens the request messages of these clients and
sends them back a response message indicating the
presence of coordinator. In this process the
coordinator gets the IP address of the client machines
and the client machines gets the IP address of the
coordinator machine and now here after they can
communicate to each other by unicasting the
message packets. In this stage the client will get an
inactive copy of the software which needs a runtime
license key to come in the active and working state.
At this time the client sends the message packet to
the coordinator demanding a dynamic license key.
The coordinator keeps the status of the copy of the
currently active software on the various client
machines. Here two cases arises:-
Case 1: If the number of machines executing the
software are less than the number of license
purchased –in this case a message packet containing
the 32 bit encrypted license key is transferred back to
the client. On receiving the license key electronically
the client’s software application turns into active or
working state. This information is updated in the list
of currently active clients available with the
coordinator. It also updates the counter and decreases
it by one.
Case 2: If the number of machines executing the
software is greater than the number of license
purchased—in this case after the client has
demanded the license key from the coordinator, a
message is sent to the client by the coordinator which
ask the client whether to wait or quit. If the client
waits for the key then it is put into the waiting list.
The concept of waiting list works on the principal of
FIFO. As soon as a client quits the execution of
software, the key is given to the first waiting client of
the waiting list.
On the peaceful termination of the client software, a
message packet is transferred to the coordinator
indicating about its termination and coordinator
eliminates the specific entry from the active client
UbiCC Journal - Volume 5 www.ubicc.org
list. It also updates its counter and increases it by
one.
3.2 Fault Tolerance:
A common approach to provide fault tolerance in
distributed systems is by replicating data at many
sites. If a site is not available the data can still be
obtained from copies at other sites. Commit
protocols can be employed to update multiple copies
of the data. In commit protocols, when a site is
unreachable the coordinator sends messages
repeatedly and eventually may decide to abort the
transaction, thereby deny access to data. However it
is desirable that the sites continue to operate even
when other sites have crashed. Another well known
technique used to manage replicated data is the
voting mechanism. With the voting mechanism each
replica is assigned some number of votes and the
majority of votes must be collected from a process
before it can access a replica. The voting mechanism
[14] is more fault tolerant than a commit protocol
because it allows access to data under network
partitions, site failures and message losses without
compromising the integrity of data. One of the voting
mechanism algorithms is Maekawa’s voting
algorithm.
If the coordinator goes down it may create severe
problems. We consider a very general model of
coordinator failures. A coordinator may fail in three
modes: crash fault, omission fault, malicious fault. In
crash fault, the coordinator stops functioning and
never resumes operation. In an omission fault the
coordinator omits to send messages to some sites.
For example, a processor is supposed to broadcast
the message to all other processors, but it sends the
message to only few processors. In malicious fault
the coordinator behaves randomly and arbitrarily.
In case the client goes down then a problem can
arise. To counteract the problem the coordinator
periodically sends the ‘isalive’ query message to the
clients those who are registered in the active client
list. The coordinator also sends the copy of active
users to these clients along with the query message in
order to recover from a crash of the coordinator. In
case of abnormal shutdown or the abnormal
termination of the active software the client would
not respond back to the coordinator. The coordinator
checks this scenario once again for the confirmation.
When the coordinator has confirmed the information
about abnormal termination of machine or software,
it explicitly removes the specific entry from the
current active list and decreases the counter value by
one. By doing so the coordinator always remains
updated about the current active sessions of the
software executing on the network. Along with these
functioning the coordinator periodically updates its
own copy of current active list to the client machines
also.
If in case the coordinator crashes, the client will
eventually get an idea of it. For this to happen client
1773
Special Issue of Ubiquitous Computing Security Systems

periodically sends ‘isalive’ message packets to the

coordinator and the coordinator must have to send its
presence information back to the client. In the
absence of the coordinator no message packets
would be received by the clients, knowing about the
coordinator crash down. This event can be dual
checked, i.e. when a client does not get response
message from the coordinator, after some time the
client will again send the request message to the
coordinator. If the time again the client is not getting
any response message, it will consider that the
coordinator is down. In this scenario voting process
or election algorithm is executed by the client
following the instruction made by the agreement
protocol. In case of failure, agreement can be made
among different processors in the distributed system
with the help of various agreement protocols like
Byzantine agreement protocol. [14, 15]
There are various election algorithms that are
executed on the basis of agreement protocols, some
of them include- Ring based algorithm and Bully
algorithm. [15] Election algorithms are the Figure 1
algorithms used for choosing a unique process to
play a particular role. It is needed to choose which 3.3 Algorithm:
process will play the role of server. It is essential that
all the processes agree on the choice. Afterwards, if 1) When the software is running for the first time
the process plays the role of the server wishes to on machine A, it broadcasts the search- message
retire, then another election is required to choose the packet to all machines in the network.
replacement. Each process can either be a
‘participant’ or ‘non-participant’. Participants are If there is no response
engaged in some run of election algorithm while
non-participants are not engaged in any election Then: machine A declares itself as the
algorithm.
In the bully election algorithm, crash during the coordinator and keeps a port X at the
election is allowed, although it assumes that the transport layer for listening to the request
system is synchronous, and uses time-outs to detect
message.
the failures. This algorithm assumes that each
process knows which processes have higher
Else: coordinator already exists in the
identifiers, and that it can communicate with all these
processes. Three type of messages are used- election
message, answer message, coordinator message. network.

In this way a client machine would be elected and
made coordinator machine. It will have the list of all
the client machines which was been sent by previous
coordinator to this machine. Now a message is been
transmitted by the new coordinator to all currently
active clients so that they can know the IP address of
the new coordinator. In this scheme the software and
license management is done dynamically by the new
coordinator.
There may be the case when two client machines
declare them as the coordinator at the same time. In
such cases agreement protocols can be used and
according to the consensus only one machine is
declared as coordinator.
2) Now machine B (client B) requires software to
execute so it broadcast request message at port
X of machine A and waits.
a) Machine A (coordinator) listens and replies.
b) Machine A and B communicate through
unicast message as now they know each
other’s IP address.
c) Machine B demands for license key.
d) Coordinator (machine A) checks for the
number of machines executing the
software let it be stored in the variable-
‘count’.
If count < number of licenses purchased

Then machine B is issued the license key&

UbiCC Journal - Volume 5 www.ubicc.org 1774

Special Issue of Ubiquitous Computing Security Systems
Coordinator updates the count as count--
Else machine B is asked to wait or quit.
3) If machine B wants to terminate so it sends a
connection termination request to the
coordinator.
a) Coordinator deletes the entry of this machine
from the list of the active users.
b) Coordinator updates count as count++.
c) First machine which is waiting in the waiting
queue is given the license key along with the
updating done by the coordinator in the list
and the count variable.
3.4 Solutions to Various forms of piracy:
There are multiple forms of piracy which are a cause
of concern for software developers. In this section
we will come across how this paper stands before all
forms of piracy and makes them viable.
a) Cracks and Serials:
Cracks and serials are forms of software piracy that
consists of legally obtaining an evaluation version
and subsequently entering a copied license code or
applying a generic patch that undergoes a copy
protection. This is a widespread form of piracy. It is
so popular because of small amount of information
that needs to be exchanged illegally distribute and
obtain a license code or a patch than a complete
program. The scheme so proposed gives a dynamic
solution to the problem of piracy as the key is
provided at the run time.
b) Soft lifting and hard disk loading:
The term soft lifting refers to the act of piracy where
one copy is legally obtained and installed on more
computers than allowed.
Hard disk loading is the unauthorised installation of
copies of software onto the hard disks of personal
computers, often as an incentive for the end user to
buy the hardware.
Both forms consist of installing the software on more
computers than allowed by the license. In these
cases, we can expect exchange of updates between
the legitimate user of the copy and the illegitimate
user of the same copy. We assume that the software
provider cannot easily become aware of these forms
of piracy because of the limited size of communities
sharing the copy.
UbiCC Journal - Volume 5 www.ubicc.org
The scheme prevents piracy by issuing less number
of licenses to the computers on the network than the
exact number of computers but checks that license
keys are given at run time only to that number of
machines as the number of license purchased.
c) Internet piracy and software counterfeiting :
Internet piracy is the act of making unauthorised
copy of copyrighted software available to others
electronically. Software counterfeiting is the illegal
duplication and distribution of copyrighted software
in a form designed to make it appear legitimate.
Both forms consist of installing a piece of software
on more computers than allowed. The scale typically
larger than of the forms discussed in the previous
paragraph. We assume that there cannot be a
continuing interaction between the pirate and
illegitimate users, as the exposure of the pirate and
thus the risk of legal action against him would be too
high.
This scheme provides a way to use the same number
of license keys as purchased by an organization.
In practice, the majority of versions printed this way
has the same origin. For example, most of the pirated
versions of windows XP were tied to a few volume
license product keys. Given the large scale , the
software provider probably can become aware of
piracy, for example by searching the internet for
illegally distributed copies alternatively ,as these
illegitimate versions need to be kept sound and up
to date and there cannot be a continuing interaction
with the original pirate ,many requests for the same
instance. This would also arise the suspicion of the
software provider. If an instance is considered to be
corrupted, the software provides updates for these
instances, thereby impairing the illegitimate user.
4 Feasibility Study:
This section is devoted to the feasibility check for the
scheme. The feasibility study is done under five
categories-TELOS: Technical feasibility,
Economical feasibility, Legal feasibility, Operational
feasibility, Social feasibility.
4.1 Technical Feasibility:
The scheme is completely technically feasible
because the technique used is based on distributed
systems and electronic distribution of software. The
electronic distribution of software and dynamically
1775
Special Issue of Ubiquitous Computing Security Systems
providing the license key at the run time provides a
way to stop piracy. Till date only static protection
measures against piracy were common which were
not of great use so this scheme is the advanced
version of technology.
4.2 Economical Feasibility:
The scheme presented in the paper is economically
viable also. As indicated previously it optimally uses
the software on the network. The clients’ needing the
software communicates with the coordinator and
asks for the key, if the free key is available then it is
issued to the client.
The scheme also prevents the piracy and thus cuts
down the cost on both the sides-software developer
side and the customer side.
Now there arises a question why will a software
developer provide less number of licenses to an
organisation which is implementing this concept for
optimal use of software. The answer to this question
lies in the fact that the piracy is more costly then this
act of providing less number of licenses to the
organisation.
4.3 Legal Feasibility:
This scheme is legally feasible from the point of
view of dynamic allocation of license key.
“Evaluation License Key” means a file that allows
using the software for the evaluation purpose for
limited period of time.
“Development License Key” means a file that allows
the licensee to integrate the software into their own
larger work.
“Run Time License Key” means a file that is
required for the distribution of the licensee’s work
that enclose the software.
“Personal License” means a license is the individual
specified in development and runtime license key.
The scheme provides following license restriction.
You may NOT
• Modify, adapt, alter, translate, decompile,
reverse engineer, and disassemble the software.
UbiCC Journal - Volume 5 www.ubicc.org
• Remove any proprietary notices or labels on the
software.
• Make more copies of the software than the
number of obtained license.
• Rent, lease or otherwise transfer rights to the
software.
Evaluation License Restriction: in addition to the
general restrictions as the holder of evaluation
license you may NOT
• Use software for commercial purposes.
• Use the software after expiration of
evaluation period.
Development and runtime license restriction: in
addition to the general restrictions you may NOT
• Use the software on the number of
computers exceeding the number of license
purchased.
• Use development license key for
redistributing your applications.
• Use run time license key for development
purposes.
Personal license restrictions: in addition to the
previous restrictions you may NOT
• Use the software on computer not
exclusively used by the licensee.
• Permit other individuals or entities to use
the software.
4.4 Operational Feasibility:
The scheme is also operationally feasible as it can be
operated on any network with the help of distributed
systems.
4.5 Social Feasibility:
The most important aspect that the scheme covers is
its social importance. The scheme provides a way to
stop piracy in the society and will also be helpful in
inculcating moral values in the society. The software
piracy starts at the individual level and then moves
on to family level, society level and last to all other
levels.
According to the Global Report on Software Piracy:”
the unauthorized copying of personal computer
software for use in office or at home or ”sharing” of
software among friends and co-workers is the most
pervasive form of piracy encountered and is
1776
Special Issue of Ubiquitous Computing Security Systems
estimated to be the responsible for more than half the
total revenue lost by the industry”.
5 Evaluation and Efficiency:
The protection scheme presented in this paper
overcomes the fundamental flaws common to almost
all existing technical means for software piracy
prevention. The protection mechanism migrates from
static nature of defence to a dynamic nature. The
marginal cost of using the software decreases.
Of the existing technique, software aging is of
dynamic nature but the number of forms of software
privacy against which it provides protection is too
late.
The efficiency of the scheme presented in the paper
is of average class as it provides protection against
many forms of piracy and the fault tolerance in the
scheme is of good class.
The only drawback of the scheme occurs when the
failure of the channel occurs, in this case all the
messages that are transmitted between the
coordinator and the clients is lost and the coordinator
is then unable to contact the clients and update its
table of active users .
5.1 Future Enhancement:
The scheme has a future perspective also. It can be
used as a plug-in style model with a central machine
having various ports on which any client can plug-in
and use the software by demanding the license key
on the basis of Distributed Software and License Key
Management.
6 Conclusion:
The paper presented a new scheme for the prevention
of software piracy. Its strength is based on dynamic
distribution of key to the clients needing to execute
the software and then managing these license keys.
The chance of piracy is eliminated because no static
measures to prevent piracy are used.
We pointed out the importance of the concept and
also discussed the improvements over previous
approaches and argued that it makes most software
prevention schemes difficult and unrealistic under
realistic assumptions.
UbiCC Journal - Volume 5 www.ubicc.org
7 REFERENCES
[1] Arand, Kevin, Software Piracy/Copyright Issues
http://cerebro.xu.edu/~arand/csci380/papers/piracy.ht
m, Xavier University Computer Science. April 2002.
[2] Buckman, Becky, Microsoft Malaysia Policy,
The Wall Street Journal. May 20, 2004, pp B1, B2.
[3] Ealfert, “GNU General Public License”,
http://www.gnu.org/ copyleft/gpl.html Free Software
Foundation. June 1991.
[4] Luis E. Cuéllar, Open Source License
Alternatives for Software Applications
43rd ACM Southeast Conference, March 18-20,
2005, Kennesaw, GA, USA.
[5] Bertrand Anckaert, Bjorn De Sutter, Koen De
Bosschere, Software Piracy Prevention through
Diversity
DRM’04, October 25, 2004, Washington, DC, USA.
2004 ACM 1-58113-969-1/04/0010
[6] International Planning & Research Corporation,
1999 Global Software Piracy Report. Made available
by BSA
http://www.bsa.org/usa/press/newsreleases/New-
Global-Piracy-Study-
Released.cfm Business Software Alliance. May 24,
2000.
[7] Leugimap, Why “Free Software” is better than
“Open Source”, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-
software-forfreedom.html Free Software Foundation.
October 6, 2004.
[8] K. Altinkemer and J. Guan. Analyzing protection
strategies for online software distribution. Journal of
Electronic Commerce Research, 4(1):34–48, 2003.
[9] H. Chang and M. Atallah. Protecting software
code by guards. Security and Privacy in Digital
Rights Management,LNC S, 2320:160–175, 2002.
[10] E. Felten. Understanding trusted computing:
will its benefits outweigh its drawbacks. IEEE
Security and Privacy, 1(03):60–62, 2003.
[11] B. Horne, L. Matheson, C. Sheehan, and R.
Tarjan. Dynamic self-checking techniques for
improved tamper resistance. Security and Privacy in
Digital Rights Management,LNC S, 2320:141–159,
2002.
[12] M. Jakobsson and M. Reiter. Discouraging
software piracy using software aging. Security and
Privacy in Digital Rights Management,LNC S,
2320:1–12, 2002.
[13] C. Collberg and C. Thomborson. Software
watermarking: Models and dynamic embeddings. In
Principles of Programming Languages, pages 311–
324, 1999.
[14] Mukesh Singhal & Niranjan G. Shivratri.
Voting and Election Algorithms. In Advanced
concept in operating Systems pages 209 & 343, 2002
[15] George Coulouris, Jean Dollimore & Tim
Kindberg. Election Algorithm, Bully Algo & Ring
based algo. In Distributed Systems page 445-448,
2006
1777