Well, i understand its for free sharing. But noone is willing to start and invest the initial ammount. So i cant be bothered to beg for it. Thats why i will set up a pool. We will invest, and donate for free to the rest. Besides, i have been leeching off years free comics from others. Time to ship in.
Comics Collection DOFANTASY / Fansadox Collection [2024-02-01] [DOFANTASY]
- Aug 6, 2016
- 7,793
- 43,607
If you really have to set up a pool, I only ask that you keep it to conversations, private messages or even better- off-site. 
And of course, please distribute links here without a password.
But keep in mind that pools come with risks so be sure you "vet" each other to make sure nothing goes wrong. Just saying that any time money changes hands, it's always a risk.
And of course, please distribute links here without a password.
But keep in mind that pools come with risks so be sure you "vet" each other to make sure nothing goes wrong. Just saying that any time money changes hands, it's always a risk.
- Nov 12, 2016
- 108
- 290
This whole thing got me curious so I decided to take look at the guts of one of the most recent pdfs I could get my hands at (Ernisch's 465) to check about our options.
Despite the pdf having an AES 128 protecting it, the password is obviously a blank since we can open preview its contents at all. This allows trivial decryption.
So I wrote a small and dirty POC in bash that does just that and then immediately tries to strip everything xmp it can, tags and metadata, before outputting the finalized pdf.
I used exifinfo, pdfinfo, qpdf and pdftk as tools in a Unix evironment and I'm attaching a zip of the bash.
It might be ported to windows if it proves to be efective, so I'm uploading the cleaned comic in clear to my MEGA acc and I'm placing my bets in that if the file name and the hash have both been changed, then MEGA won't be able to comply with the DCMA unless there happens to STILL be means of tracking the file (pixel tracking for instance).
MEGA to the cleaned comic:
You must be registered to see the links
- May 3, 2017
- 211
- 821
FANSADOX_COLLECTION_476_BAD_LIEUTENANT_7_WHORED_HEIRESS
content : PDF size : ~ 60 MB
EDIT : fastest take down ever....may be coz personal info included
get from muttdoggy..shared in OP
content : PDF size : ~ 60 MB
EDIT : fastest take down ever....may be coz personal info included
get from muttdoggy..shared in OP
Last edited:
- Aug 5, 2016
- 303
- 51,735
@Anon4990 already metioned some good ways to break the drm . So no point i add other.
But from other stand point - copyright law actually is very vague.
Copyright means with the intent to sell/distributed copyright item without permission.
Copyright loophole - if item stored in cloud, accidentally mentioned password in social media - ie , stolen , content get distributed.
Simply said, if your content got stolen and distributed, copyright law can't touch you when you are also the victim.
Law always come with loophole. Thats why the rich love the law
But from other stand point - copyright law actually is very vague.
Copyright means with the intent to sell/distributed copyright item without permission.
Copyright loophole - if item stored in cloud, accidentally mentioned password in social media - ie , stolen , content get distributed.
Simply said, if your content got stolen and distributed, copyright law can't touch you when you are also the victim.
Law always come with loophole. Thats why the rich love the law
- Aug 6, 2016
- 7,793
- 43,607
IDGAF about copyright/dmca bullshit. Don't give out any apparent personal info at all. You get thread bans and/or site bans. I'm adding FC 474 to the op. I've done what I can. Maybe someone can do a better job?
- Feb 1, 2017
- 2,785
- 27,188
- Nov 12, 2016
- 108
- 290
It was an interesting read though.
if what that guy said is true, then there's also image watermarking going on this chebang, which would complicate things a bit.
If what he said is true, then all pdf images would have to be subjected to substantial amounts of noise before being shared under any kind of publically crawlable host. That one he mentioned in particular, based on wavetlet, is weak against rotation.
if what that guy said is true, then there's also image watermarking going on this chebang, which would complicate things a bit.
If what he said is true, then all pdf images would have to be subjected to substantial amounts of noise before being shared under any kind of publically crawlable host. That one he mentioned in particular, based on wavetlet, is weak against rotation.
Has it even been confirmed that the newer comics have digital watermarks? I have a degree in EE with some experience in this field.
It would certainly be more complicated to break, though it depends on the robustness of the algorithm. Someone with the latest releases should fft() the images and post results. And if Fansadox pursued a commercial solution it would almost certainly be scale / rotation / reflection invariant.
It would certainly be more complicated to break, though it depends on the robustness of the algorithm. Someone with the latest releases should fft() the images and post results. And if Fansadox pursued a commercial solution it would almost certainly be scale / rotation / reflection invariant.
- Nov 12, 2016
- 108
- 290
It was a message that one user posted a couple of posts ago but got quickly deleted by the mod because it contained personal info of some random dude
In this post the user claimed that fansadox employs 3 different kinds of image watermarking in their images using inverse wavelet among others.
I recently had the opportunity to check two different samples of a recent issue that one guy showed me in PM. I don't know as of yet if those came from different sources but they were clearly different in size, so I decompressed both and ran a diff to compare them against each other.
The reason why I'm telling this is because despite noticing that they had small diferences in a couple of their font subsets the streams related to the respective XObjects of the images between those two pdf were seemingly the same, which could indicate that whatever combination of watermarking they are using it doesn't seem to be used in such a way that they could uniquely differentiate one such image sample from any other at this present time.
Does it make any sense?
Also I have my doubts that fansadox could afford a very robust form of watermarking since image quality is the butter of their bread. I'm by no means expert in this whole DRM / steganography / watermarking scene ( I'm just a curious engineer ) but I imagine that a bit of gaussian noise would be enough to at the very least confuse wathever OCR system fansadox uses to interpret the ID tags
Thanks for adding it to OP, but you incorrectly named it 474. It's actually 476. 474 is the coveted Tourist trap and hasn't been made available yet.
- Aug 6, 2016
- 7,793
- 43,607