How to get CPU serial number using HISE?

[Dan Korneff]

@ustk I think the method can just be swapped out with the new one.
I've been tinkering with implementation on this end. Lots of little hurdles backporting from juce 8. Got a huge stack trace to work out, but I've been too swamped to complete

[Dan Korneff]

@Christoph-Hart Here's where I'm at:

https://gitlab.korneff.co/dankorneff/HISE/-/commit/614553958d5a52e212fc6a5f681b0b6e623a6e6b

I'm currently stuck at

Severity	Code	Description	Project	File	Line	Suppression State	Details
Error	LNK2001	unresolved external symbol "public: __cdecl juce::juce::MemoryBlock::~MemoryBlock(void)" (??1MemoryBlock@juce@1@QEAA@XZ)	HISE Standalone_App	Z:\GitHub\HISE\projects\standalone\Builds\VisualStudio2022\include_juce_core.obj	1		
Error	LNK2001	unresolved external symbol "public: __cdecl juce::juce::MemoryBlock::MemoryBlock(void)" (??0MemoryBlock@juce@1@QEAA@XZ)	HISE Standalone_App	Z:\GitHub\HISE\projects\standalone\Builds\VisualStudio2022\include_juce_core.obj	1		
Error	LNK2001	unresolved external symbol "public: __cdecl juce::juce::MemoryBlock::MemoryBlock(unsigned __int64,bool)" (??0MemoryBlock@juce@1@QEAA@_K_N@Z)	HISE Standalone_App	Z:\GitHub\HISE\projects\standalone\Builds\VisualStudio2022\include_juce_core.obj	1		
Error	LNK2001	unresolved external symbol "public: __cdecl juce::juce::MemoryBlock::MemoryBlock(class juce::juce::MemoryBlock &&)" (??0MemoryBlock@juce@1@QEAA@$$QEAV011@@Z)	HISE Standalone_App	Z:\GitHub\HISE\projects\standalone\Builds\VisualStudio2022\include_juce_core.obj	1		

Any chance you could take a look? (ignore the image file stuff..)

[Dan Korneff]

[Dan Korneff]

@ustk Got it sorted. Sending to beta for testing now.

[Dan Korneff]

@Christoph-Hart @ustk Confirmed working:

https://gitlab.korneff.co/dankorneff/HISE/-/commit/70837baec92f3dda87ca88f34c694017978a5c57

It requires 2 new files:
juce_Span.h
juce_EnumHelpers.h

and edits to:
juce_core.h
juce_win32_SystemStats.cpp
juce_SystemStats.cpp
juce_OnlineUnlockStatus.cpp

[Felix W]

@Dan-Korneff Hey buddy, sorry to bother you, I don't know what's going on with GitLab, I can't see your code on GitLab, will you publish it on GitHub? Or is there another way for me to get it? I will be very grateful

[Dan Korneff]

@CatABC I set the repo back to private.
Here's a link to the files:
https://hub.korneffaudio.com/index.php/s/M6kgXeaZ9BstR7Q
This will replace the existing method with the new one. No need to keep the old one since it's flawed.

[Felix W]

@Dan-Korneff Thank you so much! I don't know how to thank you, you are my big brother, hahahaha

[Felix W]

@Dan-Korneff I used your file, but the generated machine code is the same as the original one. I'm not sure if this is normal. Could you give me an answer?

[Dan Korneff]

@CatABC You have to enable this setting in projucer and rebuild HISE:

Now HISE will use the new code to gather system IDs.

Then you need to set JUCE_USE_BETTER_MACHINE_IDS=1 in your project so the exported plugin references the correct system ID.

[Felix W]

@Dan-Korneff well，I understand！thanks bro！

[Felix W]

@Dan-Korneff Hello Dan, after compiling your C++ code, I found a problem. When a new display device is connected, the machine code will change. I wonder if you have this problem?

[Dan Korneff]

@CatABC said in How to get CPU serial number using HISE?:

Hello Dan, after compiling your C++ code, I found a problem. When a new display device is connected, the machine code will change. I wonder if you have this problem?

I haven't seen this yet.

[ustk]

It seems this issue is still here.

I have a situation where a customer apparently needs to re-activate the license each time he wants to use the plugins.

I have very sparse information, but this is probably due to a changing MachineID after a restart. I have told the customer to verify if the current ID matches the one in the currently activated license to confirm the theory. Hopefully I'll get this crucial information.

In the waiting, is there anything I could do aside of just using JUCE_USE_BETTER_MACHINE_IDS?

[dannytaurus]

@ustk Seems like user account verification is the way to go - à la Moonbase.

Very, very not helpful to this thread, I know, but the machine ID issue is only going to get worse, it seems.

[ustk]

@dannytaurus Thanks, yes it might be... But what makes you think it's going to be worse?

[dannytaurus]

@ustk Just the ever-tightening security of OS vendors. Privacy is a selling point now, as is anti-machine-fingerprinting.

A user account authentication system, via the browser, feels much more lightweight, predictable and more transparent to the user.