Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Anti-Counterfeit code in Photoshop

This is topic Anti-Counterfeit code in Photoshop in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002869

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-13-2004, 10:40 PM:

I'm sure at least of few Film-Tech Forum members have heard about this new "feature" in Adobe Photoshop CS, the latest version of the world's most popular graphics application. It seems PhotoshopCS and JASC's Paint Shop Pro both have new technology that prevents users from opening and manipulating images of currency from several nations.

I found out about this a few days ago at the Adobe Forums where users were complaining about this feature interfering with legitimate work. It seems the feature works so well that a lot of different types of images featuring money as a design element will not open.

This new situation can be a real bitch if the art director from Forbes needs a illustration featuring a collage of bills for an article about currency exchange. You're going to be in trouble if you don't have an older version of Photoshop.

A number of international banks approached Adobe and JASC about implementing the code created by Digimarc. Adobe is only now admitting to this issue since users are being negatively affected by this --not to mention that tech news sites like Wired News are running the story.

I can understand why Adobe, JASC and those banks want the anti-counterfeiting feature installed. Photoshop is a very powerful program. Newer flatbed scanners are sporting optical hardware resolutions of staggering levels. Epson's Perfection3200 Photo scanner (3200 X 6400 dpi optical resolution) has been on the market for only a few months. Now they have a newer 4870 Photo model featuring 4800 X 9600 dpi hardware resolution. It is scary to think what counterfeiters could do with that kind of capability.

Still, you have the matter of intent. I have had to do graphic designs and illustrations featuring images of money worked into a layout and there will continue to be demand for such illustrations and designs in the future. The way the law is written, you're not breaking counterfeiting law if you duplicate only one side of the bill. You're further protected if your images are no more than 50% of actual size or more than 150% of actual size. The US Treasury also says you have to delete the original scan once your job is done. The way Adobe's software is implemented you just can't deal with images of money period.

All the more reason for me to just keep using Photoshop 6.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-13-2004, 10:52 PM:

I agree Bobby!

I'm gonna go back to 6 cuz I hate the "reporting" to the home office of the later versions!

>>> Phil

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-13-2004, 11:21 PM:

Is this Photoshop 7? I'll have to try that if it is version 7 you are speaking of.

I must agree Phil, the "checkin" thing is awful aggravating.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-14-2004, 08:51 AM:

Adobe CS (For Crappy Suite) is all new. Like Photoshop 7, CS offers no real improvements over the previous version. It has a new browser I guess, but who cares? We have it at work and I am quite underwhelmed.

I laugh at people who upgrade right away, especially now in the age of the internet when companies will release an unfinished buggy product just to get it out and then "fix" it later.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-14-2004, 12:15 PM:

How does this reduce counterfeiting? And why would anyone need to use Photoshop to make fake bills? Obviously, the crooks don't actually want to _edit_ the scanned images, they just want to print them on paper stock that resembles the original. I don't get it.

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 01-14-2004, 12:36 PM:

I was talking with an astronomer friend about this problem the other night and he says Photoshop CS anti-counterfeit stuff keys off of patterns that resemble star patterns, on the bills. This is of concern to astronomers who use PS to post process CCD images. Theoretically the star patterns on the bills could show up in astronomical pictures (or at least close enough) and keep those pics from opening. It hasn't happened yet, but it's a big universe.
I'm staying with PS 7

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-14-2004, 05:49 PM:

quote:
And why would anyone need to use Photoshop to make fake bills?

Counterfeiters would create high-rez scans of original bills, remove the serial numbers and then input changing ones using a digitized vector version of the numeral font. The process would be fairly easy; certainly not as labor intensive as the "analog" methods shown in the new DVD of "To Live and Die in L.A."

According to Wired News today, some people have been able to get around the feature. One method involves scanning the bills in chunks and then stitching them together. Apparently you can scan the image into one photo-editing app (such as Corel PhotoPaint) and then copy/paste it into Photoshop. And, of course, an older version of Photoshop (anything from version 7 and previous) will scan currency with no trouble at all.

Counterfeiters will happily employ the workarounds to get their digitized versions of counterfeit currency made. But an honest graphic artist working against a deadline for a finance magazine can be jammed up with this bullshit. Adobe claims their main concern is making sure legit users are not hurt by this technology. But it is very clear from the posts on their forums that this new technology is doing exactly that.

Adobe just needs to remove the feature with a maintenance patch.

And here's another reason for Adobe to remove the feature. A lot of new inkjet printers already have similar features built in to reject print jobs containing exact size dupes of currency. So why should it be in the photo editing software, particularly when none of the stuff I would do with a dollar bill scan would be of exact size anyway? Durp!
[uhoh]

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-14-2004, 09:00 PM:

quote:

Phil Hill: I'm gonna go back to 6 cuz I hate the "reporting" to the home office of the later versions!

Try getting this little ditty called Little Shitch.

It monitors your IP connection and lets you know when an application is phoning home. You then have the option to allow or deny the attempt. It also allows you to make rules to always allow/deny connection attempts by certain applications or other criteria like IP address or port.

Needless to say, Photoshop is NEVER allowed to have an IP connection on MY computers.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-14-2004, 09:09 PM:

Why does "Needless to say" sound like "I don't license my software" to me?

Everything from digital satellite receivers to sewage tanks call home these days (as far as I know sewage tanks were the first too) to assure contractual agreements. Although it's certainly not the most effective piracy prevention scheme, it is certainly less of a hassle than many other methods. Besides, any statistics that can be collected by having the software report home can only help to improve a product that you obviously find useful. In most cases, being notified in a timely fashion of free updates is a nice extra too.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-14-2004, 09:17 PM:

If I said that I never used software beyond the trial period I would be lying but I assure you that my copy of Photoshop is legit.

I let the program register itself the first time after it was installed. You don't get support or product updates if you don't. (Getting a hard copy manual with your legit copy of an app is often worth the price of the program too!) After that, the program is cut off. If I think PS really needs to phone home for crash reporting, etc. I can temporarily unblock it.

I don't think ANY application should EVER phone home without telling you and giving you the chance to accept or deny it.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-15-2004, 08:32 AM:

I agree with Randy. It's called "Invasion of Pivacy". It basically turns Photoshop into spyware, though I've never had any version of Photoshop try to phone home, I thought only CS did that.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-15-2004, 09:55 AM:

I'd be FAR MORE concerned about the privacy issues revolving around the use of data recorders in cars (often used to deny warranty claims) and OnStar systems that track everything you do with your vehicle... and call the cops on you when they think you're being bad.

Nobody seems to make a fuss about cellular phones that track your movement either (they didn't used to). Sure, tracking you makes the cell system a lot more convenient for some people (some would disagree), but you give up a lot more of your privacy than you do by having a piece of software report data for statistical analysis used to improve the software product.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-15-2004, 02:21 PM:

The question at hand was about Photoshop. I get just as pissed off about those other things too!

Unless there is a government-issued warrant stating the reason why such information needs to be transmitted secretly, NO electronic device (or mechanical, chemical, etc.) should EVER send information without the user's knowledge and giving him/her the option to deny the transmission.

On a satellite TV decoder that phones home when you order a pay-per-view movie, a little icon could flash on the screen that says, "Connecting...". With the On-Star system in your car, there could be a little light on your dashboard that flashes the message, "Transmitting..."

I never said that such information shouldn't be transmitted. It's often useful to have machines do things for you like that. I am, however, adimant that NO macnine should transmit this information without telling the user what is going on and giving the user the option to override. (Except if there is a warrant.)

In fact, I think that no machine should ever be built that doesn't have some kind of ability for a human to activate a manual override or even a complete shutdown if need be!

Joe: I don't know if my version of PS phones home after the initial registration or not. Most of my applications get their internet connections blocked shortly after installation, except Eudora and Camino, etc. (Eudora isn't allowed to make any outgoing connections to port 80 either.)

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-15-2004, 03:34 PM:

quote:
NO electronic device (or mechanical, chemical, etc.) should EVER send information without the user's knowledge and giving him/her the option to deny the transmission.

Good firewall software is all you need to do that. With the security level set at "high," Zone Alarm will not allow anything to leave your computer unless you allow it. Software developers know this, which is one reason why a growing number of applications must be "activated" within 2 weeks or 30 days of install. The software goes dead otherwise.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-15-2004, 04:27 PM:

OK, fine. Simply TELL the user that the software needs to be registered or else the program(s) will stop working. If the person knows what's going on and has the chance to decide whether or not to comply then it's the USER'S problem if the software stops working because he didn't register.

So long as the user knows what's going on.

The same thing goes for this so-called anti-counterfeit feature. Simply tell the user something like, "Adobe does not condone the use of its software for illegal purposes and for that reason the application will not allow images of <some illegal subject matter> to be loaded." It's that simple.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-15-2004, 04:46 PM:

They do tell you.

From the first page of the Adbobe Photoshop CD EULA:

http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/pdfs/cs_combined.pdf

quote:
THE SOFTWARE MAY INCLUDE PRODUCT ACTIVATION AND OTHER TECHNOLOGY DESIGNED TO PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED COPYING. THE ACTIVATION TECHNOLOGY MAY PREVENT YOUR USE OF THE SOFTWARE IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THE ACTIVATION PROCESS DESCRIBED IN THE SOFTWARE AND DOCUMENTATION. Visit http://www.adobe.com for information about product activation.

http://www.adobe.com/activation/main.html

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-15-2004, 05:12 PM:

God! Daryl! You are such a geek!

Who the hell has the patience to read a 144 page document of the "rules"?

I paid big-time $$$ originally and to upgrade, that should be all that is required!

I don't like the premise of "WE NEED TO UPGRADE YOUR FILES" by calling the home office. Fuck Them! Let ***ME*** decide when to call!

I want to turn that off!

>>> Phil

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-15-2004, 05:19 PM:

Actually, the English text is only 8 pages. So you don't need to read 144 pages unless you're really bored.

If people weren't so damn cheap activation wouldn't normally be necessary. There are two sides to Moore's law... (i) processing speed will double every 18 months, and (ii) so will software piracy.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-15-2004, 05:31 PM:

Perhaps there is a 3rd side: Let's fuck with the legit customer and make them jump thru our hoops! [Mad]

>>> Phil

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-15-2004, 09:27 PM:

They need to tell the user WHEN the connection is being made, not simply say, "We may do this sometime..." Like I said before, "It's as simple as putting up a message, "Authenticating your software..."

People tend to use technology because they CAN and not because they SHOULD or even if it makes SENSE.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-15-2004, 10:20 PM:

Just delete everything on your drive that has to do with Photoshop 7 and reinstall, this time electing NOT to register online and when the dialog box pops up asking you to register the first time you launch it after that, click the box that says "NEVER SHOW ME THIS AGAIN!" I swear I have never had an Adobe product, Mac or PC, try to phone home.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-15-2004, 11:39 PM:

Is there a chance the software "Search and Destroy" (or whatever it is called) would delete the monkey that calls home?

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-16-2004, 09:01 AM:

I had the beta of Photoshop 7. The only new feature that I liked was the modified cloning tool, but Commotion had a better version of that for my purposes, so I switched back to 6 right away.

Plus, why do they always have to jack with the tool functions and layout on every upgrade?!

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 01-16-2004, 09:50 AM:

My graphics computer does not have a modem. Photoshop can't "phone home"

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-16-2004, 11:54 PM:

If you run a computer "stand alone" (not connected to the Internet or networked with anything), you will have to phone Adobe in the old fashioned "analog" method if you ever upgrade to PhotoshopCS. I guess you have to do something manually to get it to "activate."

My understanding is PhotoshopCS will write something to the boot sector of your hard disc and that will remain present regardless of uninstall/reinstall procedures; it takes formatting the hard disc to get rid of it.

Overall, Adobe has been clear in its up-front warnings about the activation feature in PhotoshopCS. Also of note, the activation feature is only present in the Windows version of PhotoshopCS. The Mac version does not have it. That's because the vast majority of Photoshop piracy is Windows-based. FYI, all the other apps in the Adobe Creative Suite do not have the activation feature.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-17-2004, 10:24 AM:

I'm NAT'd and behind 2 s/w firewalls. Having said that, the one time I tried Zone Alarm, I couldn't get any work done because it was constantly in my face. I do run AdAware, SpyBot Search and Destroy, and WindowWasher regularly. Beyond that, I don't give a shit.

Ignorance is bliss. [Wink]

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 01-17-2004, 11:27 AM:

quote:
which is one reason why a growing number of applications must be "activated" within 2 weeks or 30 days of install. The software goes dead otherwise.

When I come across a program like this, I wait until the last possible day to do it. One example was Microsoft PowerPoint which I needed to read almost every professor's notes. You could only use it 30 times without activating it. Two semesters later, I finally got down to the last usage, almost 8 or 9 months later.

Now this may not be a good idea, BUT, what if when it asks you for your registration number, you give it something other than your own? That way when it "phones home" it will see it is Jack Black in Arkansas who is using the product. If anything "bad" should come of it, you have your legitimate serial number as proof that you own the product. Unless they get you for fraud or something...

quote:
My graphics computer does not have a modem. Photoshop can't "phone home"

Greg has a very good point. (did I just say that? [Wink]

) If you do a lot of graphics work or other projects that are vital to you, you should do it on a computer that's not connected to the internet. These days, there's too many ways for people or software to check on what you're doing.

That's why I hate TiVo and the "thank God its dead" DivX format. More convenient ways for companies to track what you watch, when, how often, and from what source so they can better "Tailor marketing strategies to the consumer's individual desires." [puke]

=TMP=

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-17-2004, 07:36 PM:

Why not just use the Microsoft PowerPoint Viewer?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-17-2004, 07:50 PM:

Why would anyone want to view anything created in PowerPoint in the first place? I suggest that the professor who loves PowerPoint should get a gallon of sugar in his gas tank.... and in the gas tanks of all his family, friends, and anyone else who happens to park in the same lot! [Smile]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-18-2004, 02:18 PM:

I hate PowerPoint because I get all kinds of damned "customer art files" delivered in it. Blah!

The US Army is real bad about using PowerPoint for everything. Our sign company has to reproduce unit crests all the time. You can pretty much count on the soldier bringing in a disc with a .PPT file on it. Inside the PPT file is just some dopey bitmap (like a TIFF, BMP, JPEG or GIF) that is totally useless. And it is usually so low and crude in resolution that there is no way to auto-trace into vector format using Adobe Streamline or Photoshop. I just get to spend an hour or two manually rebuilding the damned graphic into vector form. You would think with the military's budget the Army could afford at least a few copies of Adobe Illustrator! But that's okay. We just nail them with the $50 per hour digitizing fee.

Little piece of advice for anyone designing logos: do it in a vector drawing program like Illustrator, Freehand or CorelDRAW. It is totally stupid to do it in Photoshop or any other raster editing app.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 01-20-2004, 05:45 PM:

A user posting to Bugtraq has reported that some Hewlett-Packard print drivers also have this currency restriction. The driver will print a small portion of the image, then refer the user to a RULES FOR USE web page.

Here is what Richard M. Smith found when he looked at some of the driver code:

quote:
I did some investigating on my own computer and discovered that HP has also
been shipping currency anti-copying software in their printer drives since
at least the summer of 2002. I have an HP 130 photo printer and found the
string "http://www.rulesforuse.org" embedded in the driver.

According to a few newsgroup messages posted in 2002 and 2003, folks are
seeing this URL printed out when they attempt to print images of certain
types of bills. An HP printer with this anti-copying technology only prints
out an inch of a currency image before aborting the print job.

Here is a list of HP printers which appear to have this anti-copy technology
embedded in their Windows printer drivers:

HP 130
HP 230
HP 7150
HP 7345
HP 7350
HP 7550

I suspect the list of affected HP printers is much longer.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-20-2004, 11:46 PM:

I would think that the answer to that question would be to spike the printer inks with "Unobtainium". ie: Some sort of chemical that would never be found in real money which could instantly differentiate real currency from fake.

Not to say that current printing technology (inks, intaglio process, etc.) don't already make it very easy to tell the genuine article from an inkjet copy. Let's just make sure it's harder to slip the fakes by bill changers, etc.

But then, again, electronic bill changers ALREADY look for the "Unobtainium" contained in genuine bills. Bill changers are programmed to look for about 5 or 6 different characteristics, if I remember right. Thus, unless the potential counterfeiter has some real savvy it would be pretty damn hard to slip one by one of those machines.

The only thing that one could hope to do with an inkjet fake is slip one by an unsuspecting cashier. Unfortunately that's too easy, even without good inkjet printers. Cripes! I've seen cashier take really bad "corner clips" before. You don't need good copies to slide one by the average cashier!

This whole anti-counterfeit issue is really a moot point!

Corner Clip: Taking a lower denomination note, such as a $1 bill, and pasting on the numbers clipped off the corners of another high denomination bill, such as a $20 bill and passing it off as a $20. Funny thing... $20 bills don't usually have George Washington's picture on them! Still! I've seen them pass on more than one occasion!