>>25
It's simple: someone who knows how to break superficial (always breakable) client-side software security knows how to make design protections which are harder to break (it's impossible to make one which is impossible to break, simply because you're just dealing with a physical system that must function, and as long as it functions, it is crackable). I still have doubts that he would deliver a solution better than the engineers they currently have. Their security was relatively decent in general, with only a few specific mistakes, however even a single mistake can be fatal. The best he can hope to deliver is to make the software secure enough that hardware reverse engineering would be required for a crack, and maybe make it in such a way that such a crack would be quite expensive to achieve.