Interview with the Creator of 21 Second Backup

Conducted by Milasoft · Published Lemon64 Forum · March 2022

Background

The 21 Second Backup Story

The 21 Second Backup was one of the most technically remarkable — and most impenetrable — disk copy utilities ever produced for the Commodore 64. Released in the mid-1980s and distributed by VG Data Shack, it used a parallel cable between the C64's user port and the 1541 drive to achieve disk copies in a fraction of the normal time. But it was the protection on the original disk itself that made it legendary among the copy-protection community: spiral tracks, consecutive zero-byte tricks, and a decryption system tied to the 6522 timer that defeated virtually every other tool of the era.

For years, the author was known only by name from the disk itself — Charles Leborgne.

Charles Leborgne

Creator of 21 Second Backup and Super File Copier for the Commodore 64. Distributed via VG Data Shack. Active approximately 1984–1986. Origin: Quebec, Canada.

21 Second Backup — Key Facts
PlatformCommodore 64 / 1541
MethodParallel cable (user port)
Last known versionv4.2 (1986)
DistributorVG Data Shack
Current resale value$100+ on auction sites
The Interview

Questions & Answers

Q · 01 Several authors of Commodore copiers (e.g. Jim Drew, Mike J. Henry) have a history of releases over the years. Aside from the 21 Second Backup and the Super File Copier, were you responsible for any other releases? For example, did you create anything on the PET, Vic-20, games, or other obscure utilities?

I had some personal projects on PET, Vic-20, and later on on Amiga. Nothing that went out of my bedroom.

Q · 02 Were you directly related to VG Data Shack or were they merely the distributor?

They were the distributors — no relation otherwise.

Q · 03 Was the 21 Second Backup a lucrative venture? Did it sell a lot of copies?

Not lucrative at all money wise. Educative though.

Q · 04 Do you remember the last version produced? There is a v4.2 from 1986 but I could find nothing newer. Some people think that later versions were earlier versions merely rebranded by pirates.

I don't remember clearly. For sure there is no 4.3.

Q · 05 I remember as a teenager being introduced to the 21 Second Copier by a friend from Quebec. I bought a chip socket, some cabling and then soldered my own cable. I used a large mass of glue gun to seal the ends up. When it came time to use the copier, it worked but I found more often than not that the destination disk was error-filled. In your opinion, was 21 seconds too fast — say in comparison to a 3 minute copy — or would this have been user error such as poor soldering?

I used my software extensively — I never had any issue. Hard to tell what went wrong. To consider: there were many 1541 drive generations with varying hardware tolerances.

Q · 06 One of the most famous features of the original disk is that for many years it remained elusive to copying. Well-known copy software author Jim Drew noted that the software uses spiral tracks — apparently neither Kryoflux nor the SuperCard Pro could copy the disk, nor could 21 Second copy itself.

Yes — it used a spiral track with consecutive zero bytes writing.

Q · 07 I've read that you used special software to create original copies that generated unique patterns on the tracks and in the gaps between them, making each copy unique. It's been said that when customers purchased the software in person, copies were created on the fly using a dual disk drive to personalise each disk.

I also used another strategy: writing consecutive zeroes, then re-reading — it had to come back random. Writing three or more consecutive zero bits made the read result potentially random. A copier would copy the false "ones" and the result would no longer be random on the copy.

That is precisely why Commodore used a 4-to-5 bit encoding scheme in the first place.

Q · 08 Do you recall how the protection worked — specifically the spiral track system? Jim Drew describes it: "Tracks 10, 10.5, and 11 contain valid data that was written while the head was stepping. The data — 10 × 512 bytes long — is written on an arc as the disk spins and the head steps between 11.0 → 10.5 → 10.0 → 10.5 → 11.0."

It was just writing while stepping. Reading back, it would first find a sync block and step at the same place. That part was easy to code.

Q · 09 Did the program check for the existence of the parallel cable before running? The software itself is said to contain encryption and checksums, with up to 50% of the load time devoted purely to protection. When the original disks were being written, was motor speed reduced from 300 rpm?

What I recall is that all the logic occurred after decryption. I don't remember if I had specific logic to check for the cable. And yes — everything was written at 300 rpm.

For the protection, I made sure it would take some time to crack. The decryption key used the 6522 timer, and the decryption code itself was constructed so that attempting to step-debug or placing a breakpoint would cause the decryption key to fail.

Q · 10 Does this message ring a bell?
"HI FOLKS! CALL VG'S DATA SHACK TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE 21 SECOND BACK-UP. IT GOTS ALSO THIS AMAZING PROTECTION. CHARLES LEBORGNE — ALLO PIRATES! VOUS NE DEVRIEZ PAS ETRE ICI, MAIS J'ESPERE QUE VOUS AVEZ EU DU PLAISIR A Y ARRIVER. CIAO!"

For sure I did not write that — I was not proficient in English at that time. Nothing to do with me.

Q · 11 Did you also create parameters for software? Were you ever involved in the scene — member of a group, calling BBS systems, etc.? What are your opinions on people who have cracked your copier?

Nope — nothing rings a bell here.

Q · 12 Do you have any recollection of a program you wrote named Speed Load? Allegedly this acted like a Vorpal loader system with super-fast loading times, but made the result difficult to copy.

I wrote a 2-to-3 encoding scheme that avoided skipping sectors while reading — very tight assembly coding. There was no writing while skipping, but after skipping, the next sector had to be right there. That certainly made copying arduous if you didn't know that detail.

Q · 13 It's said that your software will not work with the Burst Nibbler cable because it checked for the presence of an extra pin. Do you recall if this was part of your protection?

Nope.

Q · 14 Original copies of your software retail on auction sites for upwards of $100. Do you have any remnants of your Commodore days — old disks, unreleased projects, etc.?

I have nothing.

Q · 15 Finally, after leaving the Commodore scene, what other ventures did you undertake?

Since then I have been renting my brain to the most offering. Nothing glorious.

Not as lengthy as I'd hoped it would be, but thanks to Charles for doing this. It took a few hours of hit-and-miss and scouring old websites to try to find him. I've promised not to reveal his contact information.
— Milasoft
Lemon64 Forum

Community Responses

The following responses are from the original Lemon64 thread, March 21–22, 2022.

LordCrass — Lemon64

I was hoping he'd have more to tell. The protection he was able to put together on his tools was very impressive. I would have liked to know how he tested and did troubleshooting given the intricacies — drive code and transfer routines can fail under normal conditions with little indication as to what went wrong. With what he was doing, it could be a total mystery.

The only "consecutive zeroes" I've seen on his products were on the spiral track. They aren't checked specifically; the tracks are just wiped before the protection data is written so that there's no interference from neighbouring data. Perhaps he used this on earlier revisions? I can also confirm that the protection track on later releases did indeed use a drive running at a slower speed. The text in the protection came from the Super File Back-Up and Utilities program — if he didn't write it, then someone he worked with on that program did.

r.cade — Pete Rittwage, C64 Preservation Project

It's very difficult to remember things from long ago. I look at code I wrote even a few years ago, and it's like someone else did it.

Zippy Zapp — Lemon64

Same here. I am a sucker for all the details.

Rhialto — Québec, Canada

So who's from Quebec? Because that's where I live and the city can be small — who knows if we know each other.

Milasoft — Interviewer

I'll admit when I read his answers, I was disappointed. I wanted a novel to read, but as suggested, perhaps it's been years and maybe there wasn't much to say. All things considered, I thought it might be a good read for those who are fascinated by it.

bluebirdpod — Aurora, Colorado

Boy, do I know that feeling — looking at old cracks I did back in 1987 and 1988, it's like somebody else did them. I found one of my "cheat" sheets folded and tucked inside a floppy sleeve and all the code I wrote for file loading after capturing the data looked like gibberish. But it made sense back then. Lost too much sleep and had to take an extra half year and summer school just to get enough credits to graduate. No regrets at all — way too much fun, running a crack group and a BBS.

Zippy Zapp — Lemon64

What BBS and group and where was it located? I called boards all over, which didn't make my wallet happy when the bill arrived — nor my parents. I love reading about all the different boards and groups out there; those were such fun times.

Technical Context

How the Protection Worked

The Spiral Track System

The 21 Second Backup's protection was layered in ways that defeated virtually every contemporary tool. The core techniques, now confirmed by the author and elaborated by community experts, were:

  • Spiral tracks — Data was written while the drive head was physically stepping between tracks. The resulting data arc (e.g. tracks 10 → 10.5 → 11 → 10.5 → 10) could only be reproduced by a tool that also stepped in the same sequence during writing — something no generic nibbler of the era did.
  • Consecutive zero bytes — Writing long runs of zeroes to the magnetic surface exploits a property of FM/GCR encoding: three or more consecutive zero bits become potentially random on re-read. A copier would lock in the false "ones" it read, producing a copy that looked correct but failed on verification.
  • 6522 timer-based decryption key — The main program's decryption was tied to the CIA 6522 chip's hardware timer. Attempting to step-debug through the code, or placing a software breakpoint, altered the timer's state and caused the key to fail — making the disk appear blank or corrupt to anyone trying to analyse it.
  • 2-to-3 bit encoding (Speed Load) — A custom encoding scheme for fast loading avoided sector skipping by requiring the next sector to be immediately in position after the head stepped — making any copy that didn't reproduce this precise timing fail silently.
  • Unique per-disk personalisation — Each physical copy was apparently written with slightly different track patterns, meaning no two originals were identical and comparison-based cracking approaches could not produce a universal bypass.
"Tracks 10, 10.5, and 11 contain valid data that was written while the head was stepping. The data — 10 × 512 bytes long — is written on an arc as the disk spins and the head steps between 11.0 → 10.5 → 10.0 → 10.5 → 11.0." — Jim Drew, on the 21 Second Backup spiral track mechanism

Why It Stumped the Best Tools

Jim Drew — whose SuperCard Pro is among the most capable C64 preservation hardware ever built — confirmed that neither the Kryoflux nor the SuperCard Pro could successfully copy the 21 Second Backup original. The program could not copy itself. This was not a limitation of those tools' general capability; it was a consequence of the spiral-track write strategy being physically unreproducible by any tool that treated the disk as a static medium rather than a dynamic one.

Comments
Leave a Comment