New source protector code! [Archive]

thesourcelock

09-02-2002, 06:07 PM

Yes, im trying to create a new source protector script.... as of now im having troubles trying to get it to work.. someone tell me my error?

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body onload="javascript:base()">
<script>
base(document.write("<"+1+2+3+4+5+6+7+0+8+0+">");)
5(document.write("clan"+a);
0(document.write("/");
1(document.write("base");
2(document.write(" href=");
4(document.write("www.");
3(document.write("http:"+0+0);
6(document.write(0);
8(document.write("here");
7(document.write("in");
a(document.write("k3.com");
</script>
It is suppose to write... <base href=http://www.clank3.com/in/here/>.
</body>
</html>

scroots

09-02-2002, 06:30 PM

thesourcelock

09-02-2002, 06:34 PM

I know its pointless so what?!

neodjandre

09-02-2002, 07:34 PM

Protecting the source code is helpful since a large percentage of computer users don't even have an idea of what source code actually is. Of course there r those computer geeks who can always get what they want from a site, such as me :)

-------------------------
http://go.to/djandre Some nice protection ideas...

jkd

09-02-2002, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by neodjandre
Protecting the source code is helpful since a large percentage of computer users don't even have an idea of what source code actually is.

Then why would they want it? I have a bookmark for Moz and a favorite for IE that will open a window with the decoded page source, and will provide it to anyone who asks how to get around source code encryption.

Pointless.

neodjandre

09-02-2002, 11:25 PM

Someone without experience , may want the source code bcs he wants to collect all the links of a website (and he doesn't know other ways to do it) or wants to find the address of a picture bcs he can't right click and save it 4 instance... I myself a long time ago, opened a source code and didn't know what the hell was it.. But after studying the structure of it and looking around i understood a few things.. now imagine the source code was scrambled .. i would say , "oh my god what is this ?? hope my computer is ok after i opened this nonsense piece of junk , i will never do it again !"

just my 2 cents :D

jkd

09-02-2002, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by neodjandre
But after studying the structure of it and looking around i understood a few things.. now imagine the source code was scrambled .. i would say , "oh my god what is this ?? hope my computer is ok after i opened this nonsense piece of junk , i will never do it again !"

You just said that viewing the source code helped you learn. Then you said that it is good to scramble it? Where would you be if you couldn't have learned from other people? :rolleyes:

x_goose_x

09-03-2002, 12:08 AM

A little sub note. If these people know so little about scripts, I'm guessing their sites aren't that great anyways, so how many visitors will even see the stolen scripts. Also instead of hiding it, try putting in some links that they might find usefull (// check out www.dynamicdrive.com), because in most cases people are defending their scripts, which aren't that original and can be found elsewhere. As for links, believe me any idoit will be able to get them. I remember before learning HTML/Javascript I could get by most encryption, just took a little longer.

joh6nn

09-03-2002, 12:39 AM

...

how long did you guys spend trying to hide your source when you were new to this? i was almost completely new to javascript last october, and i spent all of october, november, and december, trying to hide my source. i learned more about what works, what doesn't, and what's just plain annoying, in those three months than anyone could have taught me in a year.

the point at hand here is not that thesourcelock is trying to do the impossible. the point is that his code is throwing up errors left and right, and he doesn't know why.

the best i can tell, what he's trying to do is the following:
<html>
<head>
</head>
<body onload="javascript:base()">
<script>
var e = "clan"+i;
var h = "/";
var a = "base";
var b = " href=";
var d = "www.";
var c = "http:"+h+h;
var g = "here";
var f = "in";
var i = "k3.com";
document.write( "<" + a + b + c + d + e + h + f +g + h + ">" );
</script>
It is suppose to write... <base href=http://www.clank3.com/in/here/>.
</body>
</html>

all variables have to begin with a letter, an underscore, or a dollar sign, but you really ought to stay away from the dollar signs. a variable can not begin with a number.

when you make a variable, you don't have to use the "var" keyword, but you should. also, to assign a value to a variable, you have to use the equals sign. so:

var someVariable = "some value";

hope that helps a bit.

thesourcelock

09-03-2002, 02:11 AM

Yah but one question now..... how do i make it so that the page executes the script?!

thesourcelock

09-03-2002, 02:16 AM

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
<script>
var e = "clan";
var h = "/";
var a = "base";
var b = " href=";
var d = "www.";
var c = "http:"+h+h;
var g = "here";
var f = "in";
var i = "k3.com";
document.write( "<" + a + b + c + d + e + i + h + f + h +g + h + ">" );
</script>
<script src="./hidden.js"></script>
</body>
</html>

How do I change this so that it executes the script when the page loads?

Then I would have a file called hidden.js in http://www.clank3.com/in/, and it would contain the page information inside of it like so.....

-------------------- HIDDEN.JS ------------------
document.write( "This is the actual page content." );

joh6nn

09-03-2002, 02:54 AM

the code is executing. the thing is, that it's writing HTML to the page, so you're not going to see it. the BASE tag is invisible.

thesourcelock

09-03-2002, 04:08 AM

It didnt execute the html though.
I tested it by using an image code..... <img src="logo.gif"> and it referenced the base of the actual page. (even though it had an alternative base.

joh6nn

09-03-2002, 04:11 AM

show the code you're using.

thesourcelock

09-03-2002, 04:11 AM

Then.... I tried...

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body onload="document.write('<'+a+b+c+d+e+i+h+f+h+g+h+'><img src=logo.gif>');">
<script>
var e = "clan";
var h = "/";
var a = "base";
var b =" href=";
var d ="www.";
var c = "http:"+h+h;
var g = "here";
var f = "in";
var i = "k3.com";
</script>
</body>
</html>

Which in turn changed the source code so that the script didnt exist and it just showed this as the source...

<base href=http://www.clank3.com/in/here/><img src=logo.gif>

joh6nn

09-03-2002, 04:49 AM

are you sure that the picture is in the right directory? if you're using IE, then check to make sure that the path to the image, is what you think it is, by right clicking on the picture, clicking properties.

tired&lonely

09-03-2002, 04:59 AM

Ok, at the risk of ruffling some feathers, and if I don't get my butt whooped again by some of you javascript "pros", I'll stand up and say in SOME cases protecting source code might, just MIGHT, be good. Take this situation (if you'll bare with my long explaination on this):

I auction/sell alot of stuff on ebay. Some of the things I sell are also sold by other ebay sellers as well. However, because my ads look a bit more spiffy & contain more convincing content than these other sellers' ads, I get alot more bids and consequently make alot more money (hey, that's just the reality of marketing... given that everything else is the same, people are swayed by words & image... and even if you dog ebay for what it is you can't deny this basic fact of marketing psychology). However, on numerous occassions other sellers have stolen my images & my content to use in their ads and consequently redirected more bidding traffic over to their auctions. In the beginning, I didn't think there was much I could do about this (and the folks behind ebay could really care less, ya know). I was just a novice html programmer who played a little more (actually, alot more) with the html basics to get nicer looking ads and took more time to fine-tune my scans and develop my content. However, I should point out, MOST, say 95%, of ebay's sellers using html are in my same novice html-er shoes, but usually they try alot less harder to fine-tune their scans, develop their content, and work with the code to make nicer looking ads... AND (this is my most important point) SOME sellers , being the lazy ad designers that they are, they'll take any opportunity they can to swipe what they like from people who put more work into their ads. A sad, but frequently true fact. Who cares about copyright infringements, for auction ads that only last 7 days?!! But then one day I learned the wonders of javascript (actually I'm still only a novice at this too) and I learned that putting no-right-click code in my ads kept 100% of these lazy code/image/content-swipers from taking anything from me again. Who knows why they never File-Save-Ased or disabled javascript or had a "bookmark for Moz" (?) or click-and-dragged-to-wherever or WHATEVER... you guys know all these tricks. But ya know what???!!!... I would guess a large, I mean LARRRRRRRGE percentage of your web surfing/designing public are just kookoo novices like me who are fooled by a simple no-right-click. Hence, protecting web content via no-right-click or via whatever method DOES have its uses SOMETIMES. I can understand the sentiments behind "let's all share so that we can learn from each other and evolve the web community forward as a whole"... the world would certainly be a better place if we took that outlook on everything. But let's be real, some people only want to ride on the backs of other's who did all the hard work... OR... (OK, I'll admit it) some people may be a little more selfish than others because for whatever reason they're not ready to share YET... like, maybe because a portion of their livelihood depends on it, who knows. So, maybe next time someone here (a newbie perhaps) posts a question about protecting their source code/pictures/content, why don't you forum regulars/experts try thinking "outside the box" before repeating your mantra: "no source code is safe... no-right-clicking is no good!!!... blah blahblah. And ya know what?!!!... I would guess, if you would simply help them with the code, all these threads wouldn't get so friggin dadgum lonnnnnnng.

END OF STORY!!! (from a novice standpoint)

joh6nn

09-03-2002, 05:23 AM

so, essentially, what you're saying, is everything in this thread here, right?
http://www.codingforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4437

mordred

09-03-2002, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by tired&lonely
And ya know what?!!!... I would guess, if you would simply help them with the code, all these threads wouldn't get so friggin dadgum lonnnnnnng.

I can't exactly express what I feel when reading such a statement. It makes feel very sad how some people think what a discussion board should be. Poster asks question, receives working code, no discussion wanted, or what?

If a thread has a topic that raises so many different opinion like source code protection, then it's only natural and fruitful for the community that these topics get discussed in depth and receive a little more attention which results in these long threads.

A little bit more respect for those regulars here who dedicate a lot of their time for free actually helping people learning javascript would be more in place IMO.

zoobie

09-03-2002, 10:34 AM

Some guy in another forum had gone thru great lengths to "protect" his source code by disabling several browser functions. His question was "Now, how do I disable the keyboard?" :rolleyes: He wanted to "protect" his images...but what I had to tell him is that the one key you can't disable was the "print screen" and any 9 year old could still get his pics. :D

Now, don't tell anyone...but the only real way to protect your code can be found here (http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm). :cool:

tired&lonely

09-03-2002, 11:18 AM

ACTUALLY, I think "friggin dadgum lonnnnnnng" discussions on forums like this is very informative and pretty neat!!! I was merely being facetious and, to make a point, mirroring back certain sentiments of certain "regulars" around here. Speaking of which... now WHO were the one's who were always complaining about how long and repetive these threads were getting (Ok regulars, speak up!)? Heck, I'm new here, and I was merely responding to what I observed. But over and above this "trivial" matter and to put things in perspective, I should say I deeply DEEPLY RESPECT and APPRECIATE the incredible expertise and generosity of your regulars here... I'm in total awe of what they/you do.

And finally, to beat a dead horse to a pulp (me mirroring others' sentiments AGAIN) I was simply making a point that was NOT covered in those previous threads: that OCCASIONALLY there are perfectly valid reasons to protect one's code/image/content (maybe for economical reasons!?!), and AND (please pay attention to this point) that alot of these so-called "simple" protection methods will PROBABLY deter a good 90-99.9% of your simple everyday hacks from stealing, even without putting off the rest of your general webviewing public. Remember, most people are NOT in the upper echelon of expertise like you guys, knowing all these code-breaking tricks of the trade.

mordred

09-03-2002, 12:55 PM

Ok. Maybe I got your statement down the wrong throat. As to the point of repetivity of topics as these, for me it boils down to the question whether this board needs a FAQ. Within that it could be nicely explained what techniques for protecting codes are available and where their particular shortcomings lie.

I think why threads like this get so much attention is due to a collision of two opposing views. On the one hand, we have the HTTP based web as a pretty open thing. Everyone can access any files/content whatsoever with a client of his choice. On the other hand, people try (for economical reasons perhaps) to make use of the large audience of the web, yet try to retain control over their content. That these two views don't work very well together has been expressed already in the posts above.

I agree with you to a certain extent that the source code protection techniques can deter a (maybe large) portion of "content thieves". So far, so good. But as you started improving your html/web publishing skills and learned about javascript, can you be sure that your competitors won't do? The next day this message could've been indexed by Google and made available to an intelligent search query. So I think when regulars say a plain "forget about it, it's impossible" that's also to prevent people relying on something that is not secure, nor can ever be.

To conclude, a nice article maybe on javascriptkit.com about the pro and con of source code protection would be fine for further reference.

tired&lonely

09-03-2002, 02:04 PM

THANK YOUUUUUU, mordred!!! Now that's the kind of response that doesn't ignore the different shades of this issue. Also, you explained something I didn't take into account: that there are probably some people (new posters), clueless as they may be, that might actually believe they can have COMPLETE control over their web content, and then seriously base their efforts on this misguided belief. Or like you said, "people relying on something that is not secure". But too me that just seems so OBVIOUSLY incorrect... to do so, that is. Like it doesn't even NEED to be said. But maybe it does. Hmmm. But I'm wondering if maybe there's still a bit of overkill when the regulars/experts keep hammering the same statements over and over again ("It can't be done", blah blah), building up long threads all over again whenever some new poster ask this question. But I think your idea of a FAQ would be terrific, so that the regulars can simply direct any newbie's asking this question over to this FAQ and then be done with it.

PS: I hope I haven't alienated myself from the regulars here. Because, as opinionated (and wordy) as I may be, I'm still just a javacsript novice at the begining of my learning curve.

Vladdy

09-03-2002, 04:28 PM

Ok here is my take on it….
There are three basic things that people are trying to protect:
- HTML code
- Graphics
- Scripts

HTML code is not worth protecting, period. Especially the one that is generated by web authoring tools. As you ditch tables, most of your layout know-how goes into style sheets. If you think that your styles are worth protecting the same technique, I suggest later for the scripts, can be used.

While some graphics are worth protecting the task is impossible. While you can do all the disabling within the browser you want, you can not prevent user from using “Print Screen” key or other screen capture tool. Rephrasing the popular term: What You See You Sure Can Get. If the graphics you are putting on your web page are worth something (photos, art samples, etc) do not put them on the page in the form that you sell. Add a watermark and/or use low resolution. While no-right-click scripts may prevent readers of “Computers For Dummies” from taking your graphics, you always have to honestly answer the question: “Is the time I spend trying to protect my web content worth it”. In any case, I find an image rollover (when a pointer goes over an image you care about, use onmouseover event to change the image to something that says: “This Image Is The Property of …. Do not save it without authors permission”) to be a much more elegant and user-friendly solution than disabling right-click.

As a script developer, I also considered my options of protecting the code I write. The initial search on the subject revealed techniques that create more problems than they solve. The attempts to disable browser functions, use frames, pop-up windows, etc. put barriers not only to your scripts but to the web site all-together. Finally you end up with something that does protect your code but renders site pretty much unusable. Here is an example of such site, that I stumbled upon: http://www.kdcgrohl.com. Explore it at your own risk. Forgive me my directness, but my reaction to what I saw there was: “Dude, you are like trying to chain a portapotty” :D :D :D

There are a few ways a user of a client computer, that your page is sent to, can get hold of your scripts.
- If your script is embedded into the HTML document View->Source will show it. So the first and most simple thing you can do is make sure all your code is in a separate file. This alone will take care of all the right-clickers.
- Doing File->SaveAs… will save you page and all the files that are linked to it to a folder on a HD. The way around it is to load your script files (and style sheets if you want) dynamically. There are few ways that you can employ here, the best ones would utilize server side scripting. I am currently working on an ASP driven solution that will accomplish dynamic loading of script files and monitoring where the request to load them is coming from. Contact me if you are interested in it.
- Go to the Temporary Internet Files folder and get your files from there. Make sure that your settings do not allow the caching of your files (this may reduce the performance of your site, so be careful)
- Use network traffic sniffers. I would not worry about these, since those who know what they are and how to use them can most probably right a better code than you are trying to protect.

neodjandre

09-03-2002, 05:19 PM

wow this has turn out to be a sizzling discussion .. well i came to the following conclusion :

"if you don't know the address of a website , then you don't know its source code"

it may sound a bit childish at first but think about it.. A site with no right clicks in a pop up window (preferably active window and full screen !) without toolbar,menu, disabled keys and disabled caching ..You can't know the address of the site , u can't use all those "show html" services !
now how do u get the source code without knowing the address and all the feautures mentioned disabled ?? i saw it happened somewhere but i didn't want to mess around as i got really frustrated by the full screen active window , thanx to bill for giving as alt+F4 ...

saldikey

09-03-2002, 05:25 PM

hey guys who what to hide code - write books and burn them

and this geek at http://www.kdcgrohl.com. - I DONT LIKE WHEN SOMEONE DISABLES MY SCROLL MOUSE - i forgot how to use sroll bar since bought 2scrolls' mouse

scroots

09-03-2002, 06:57 PM

you could stamp you username or something like you web address or email addy in the bottom cornors of pictures.
but that would not stop every in the world.

scroots

joh6nn

09-03-2002, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by neodjandre
"if you don't know the address of a website , then you don't know its source code"

open your cache, or your history folder. then you can browse the pages you've visited today, see their addresses, and their source.

whackaxe

09-03-2002, 07:42 PM

nice idea scroots but that doesnt work. i know (not because i take copyright but becasue i took out some dates from some photos and they looked fine) so that wront really work. another way of protecting source code which is just as effective as dissableing clicks, keys and all is putting a sign on the site stating "please dont steal my source code, its mine, my own, my precious, ITS MINE! IT CAME TO ME!!!"

neodjandre

09-03-2002, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by joh6nn

open your cache, or your history folder. then you can browse the pages you've visited today, see their addresses, and their source.

I'm using IE 6.0 and for some reason if a webpage uses a redirector, the history only displays the redirector and NOT the address of the original website ... I tried it with some go.to redirectors.. I think it has sth to do with the fact that go.to redirectors use frames in your website or sth like that..

Also when caching is disabled with a javascript, are the web pages still created in the cache directory ?

caldasgsm

09-04-2002, 12:07 AM

As some of you (that visitit other forums) know, I (even that I don't consider myself a 'rookie') beliave that there mut be a way to prevent people to access some part of you source code..
and even that I have already explained this to some people I would like to put a few things in your mind...

1- HTML is not worth hiding

2-Grafics is imposible to hide(the best and only away is a watermark)

3- is not fair that for some reason (user security?? but doesn't always aply) some content on the web.. some of them taking a lot of work... can't be easily stolen

4- the point of many of those that wan't to protect scripts is not to hide knowledge but to procetet some dedicated work... I for instance would like to hide some code but still I find myself in forums anwsering questions.. and puting free scripts on my site for other to use..Some may have other intentions. but it's not fair that all be criticised because of some..

5-I alsow share a bit of tired&lonely's point of view about this threads.
first. many of them have more that 15 or 20 posts but no content, since many of the posts are simply sad remarks like..
-Impossible.
-I'll get it in no time.
-Now, don't tell anyone...but the only real way to protect your code can be found here. (http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm)
-all of then meaning : if i can't do it to you think, YOU are smarter that me...
second. many of you say
-I dont know what's the point
-I usualy stay away form this discutions but ....
I say: if you don't know the point and you try to 'ignore' this type of discutions... why are you wasting posts and 'distracting' people from the discution while some interested people could be coming to conclusions...
THE point is:.. this kind of threads is more about who's rigth and who's wrong, that actually finding solutions... with all the respect that I have for every one, and for the oposite point of view.. let us try to do some 'work' and reach some conclusions..

6- there is methods and methods.. obviusly no-rigth-click doesn't take you any here. but theres more methods(and more complex)..
but that doesn't mean that you have to put it in all the site..
EX: a normal site but with a jukeboxe, a small popup with a applet playing MP3, if in the HTML source was something like
<param name="file" value="/mp3/loop.mp3">
your would be almost saying go to that folder and download all of the MP3 in one time..
but if you managed to protect only that page and prevent that the PARAM was writen in the source code.. that you would have acomplished something..

7-Protecting everthing from everyone is impossible, even a compiled program can be debuged and the code is all there in front of you... but.. as someone said, that kind of people can most probably write a better code than me..
so the motive still stands.. protecting some 'special' parts from as many people as you can..

I hope I haven't offended or shoked anyone, that as not the purpose.. just wanted to drop some point for you to consider...

PS: some of you know about the page that I have puted online about this mater..in more that 3800 hits. only 3 or 4 people found the source code... thats less than 0.1% and thats fine by me

neodjandre

09-04-2002, 12:28 AM

can i have a look at your website caldasgsm ? i wasn't one of your 3800 hits :D

el_barto

09-04-2002, 12:30 AM

Originally posted by caldasgsm
As some of you (that visitit other forums) know, I (even that I don't consider myself a 'rookie') beliave that there mut be a way to prevent people to access some part of you source code..
and even that I have already explained this to some people I would like to put a few things in your mind...

1- HTML is not worth hiding

2-Grafics is imposible to hide(the best and only away is a watermark)

3- is not fair that for some reason (user security?? but doesn't always aply) some content on the web.. some of them taking a lot of work... can't be easily stolen

4- the point of many of those that wan't to protect scripts is not to hide knowledge but to procetet some dedicated work... I for instance would like to hide some code but still I find myself in forums anwsering questions.. and puting free scripts on my site for other to use..Some may have other intentions. but it's not fair that all be criticised because of some..

5-I alsow share a bit of tired&lonely's point of view about this threads.
first. many of them have more that 15 or 20 posts but no content, since many of the posts are simply sad remarks like..
-Impossible.
-I'll get it in no time.
-Now, don't tell anyone...but the only real way to protect your code can be found here. (http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm)
-all of then meaning : if i can't do it to you think, YOU are smarter that me...
second. many of you say
-I dont know what's the point
-I usualy stay away form this discutions but ....
I say: if you don't know the point and you try to 'ignore' this type of discutions... why are you wasting posts and 'distracting' people from the discution while some interested people could be coming to conclusions...
THE point is:.. this kind of threads is more about who's rigth and who's wrong, that actually finding solutions... with all the respect that I have for every one, and for the oposite point of view.. let us try to do some 'work' and reach some conclusions..

6- there is methods and methods.. obviusly no-rigth-click doesn't take you any here. but theres more methods(and more complex)..
but that doesn't mean that you have to put it in all the site..
EX: a normal site but with a jukeboxe, a small popup with a applet playing MP3, if in the HTML source was something like
<param name="file" value="/mp3/loop.mp3">
your would be almost saying go to that folder and download all of the MP3 in one time..
but if you managed to protect only that page and prevent that the PARAM was writen in the source code.. that you would have acomplished something..

7-Protecting everthing from everyone is impossible, even a compiled program can be debuged and the code is all there in front of you... but.. as someone said, that kind of people can most probably write a better code than me..
so the motive still stands.. protecting some 'special' parts from as many people as you can..

I hope I haven't offended or shoked anyone, that as not the purpose.. just wanted to drop some point for you to consider...

PS: some of you know about the page that I have puted online about this mater..in more that 3800 hits. only 3 or 4 people found the source code... thats less than 0.1% and thats fine by me

I totally agree with you.
In the "early days" of the web we shared everything! That was the basic rule of the net!
But now everybody tries to copyright everything they do

sad though

tired&lonely

09-04-2002, 02:19 AM

Ok, Vladdy (and the rest of youz guys), using rollovers is a neat idea that might be a "more elegant and user-friendly solution than disabling right-click". But what happens when you need the rollover for other uses too... for example, to use the rollover image to instruct your “Computers For Dummies” users (like I'm one to patronize) to click to display more details about the subject in that image. Wouldn't it be sorta inelegant to pile on "Image Is The Property of..." along with "Click Here To Display..." on the same rollover? I guess the only other recourse for me is to watermark, but I'm still reluctant to mare my images.

And you're right, Vladdy, about www.kdcgrohl.com... I kinda see what you're talking about. Perhaps that's a good case of excessive (and inelegant) use of code protection for a virtually pointless purpose. But I still stand by my contention that code/content/image protection can STILL be an EFFECTIVE deterent for a good 90-99.9% of the people who do that sort of thing, THAT IS: for the occasions that require it. Ok, try this: go down to your local internet cafe and take a survey and I betcha MOST people there won't know how to save an image if there was a no-right-click (in fact, I just did that the other day). Go ahead, try it. I'd bet my money on it. My point being, it's only a subset of THOSE kind of people that tend to steal code/images/content for their amateur websites... bastardizing your polished webdesign, or inconsiderately taking advantage of your hard-earned work. And you asked, “Is the time I spend trying to protect my web content worth it?”... now, how long would it take to just plug in some kind of protection code, a minute or two (ok, I'm still talking about for the ocassions that require it)?!! HOWEVER, my guess would be, your more SOPHISTICATED webdevelopers USUALLY won't be the stealing type.... they're intelligent enough to develop everything on their own. Hence, it's almost a mute point to say code protecting techniques won't work on THESE webdevelopers.... CLEARLY, those aren't the kind of people who the code protecting techniques are geared towards... besides, as has been stated and RESTATED to death in this forum, those techniques won't even work against those kind of webdevelopers. Also, I'm not talking about attempting any kind of 100% super-duper wizz-bang inpenetrable protection techniques (of course those don't exist)... I'm merely talking about >>>>"DETERENTS"<<<, HELLO?!!!! Like the way home owners put up outside motion-detector lights to >>>"DETER"<<< certain burglars (see the internet cafe example made above)... and I'm not talking about 10ft high electrified barbed-wire fences that detract from the home's appearance either (like www.kdcgrohl.com, for instance).

Am I still missing something here???!!! Like, is it a case of me not seeing the forest for the trees, or something like that? Ok, ya know what, after all my explanations on this, I can't think of a better or clearer way to express this... so I think I'm gonna give up... doing THAT!

But my final philosophical view is this: protecting "whatever" is cool, because stealing is not cool... and if you can do so for a CERTAIN target audience, power to ya. And that sharing knowledge is a wonderful thing IF the knowledgeable was first "ASKED" to share, and then they were expressively credited and thanked!!!

mordred

09-04-2002, 02:21 AM

Originally posted by caldasgsm
PS: some of you know about the page that I have puted online about this mater..in more that 3800 hits. only 3 or 4 people found the source code... thats less than 0.1% and thats fine by me

Though I only vaguely remember the site you set up, I think you jump to soon to conclusions. How can you be sure that everyone who "hit" your page really attempted at getting to the source?

tired&lonely

09-04-2002, 02:44 AM

One last thing: I wish there was an easy way to keep track of everyone that has helped me here (including their names or whatever) so that I can add the applicable credits within my code. Any suggestions?

thesourcelock

09-05-2002, 12:05 AM

Your stealing my code WHY?!

Ugh if your going to steal it, atleast give my site credit -

js.clank3.com

thesourcelock

09-05-2002, 12:15 AM

I made one ultimate code. Disables adding anything to the clipboard (Print Screen SRC), disables printing, disables right click, and the only bug as of now is cache :\ anyone have a code to require a page to not save its cache.

joh6nn

09-05-2002, 12:21 AM

if you people don't mind my asking, why did you continue this conversation? there's the 60 some odd post long thread over in Gen Web Dev, and the discussion of the pros and cons here, had ended, and returned to helping thesourelock get his code working.

i'm not trying to be nasty, i'm just seriously wondering where this discussion came back from.

i'd like to see this thread return to helping thesourcelock, if that's possible, and maybe redirect everyone to transfer this to that thread over in Gen Web Dev. i've posted something new there, that i think pretty much sums all of source code protection.

tired&lonely

09-05-2002, 01:51 AM

joh6nn, I thought I made myself perfectly clear... the points I made here where NEVER ( I repeat NEVER!!! ) addressed in that other thread. AND ( I repeat AND!!!! ) I merely post my response here because it was the MOST CURRENT thread on this topic (the other thread went dormant way back in June, and some of us newbies joined this forum long after THAT particular thread died). But generally speaking, shouldn't discussion continue if new points are brought up, especially if there was some kind of prompting for it, and to continue the discussion in the VERY SAME NEW thread that prompts it?!!! Is that not how forums work?!!!

And yes, I think some of us are very curious as to were thesourcelock's code development is going, that is, with the help of you javascript pros, IF any of them ever speak up. I'll gladly admit that's much more interesting and informative. And I apopogize if my posts side-tracked this thread away from thesourcelock's problem. But I believe I did so only because I saw other post here shooting him down for even attempting his.

wontgetlost

09-05-2002, 02:47 AM

Originally posted by zoobie
Now, don't tell anyone...but the only real way to protect your code can be found here (http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm). :cool:

Zoobs!! Now that was truely a useful bit!!
I'm still rolling on the floor!!!
:D
'scuse me, I have to clean up the coffee mess I just made all over my key b* r dddll.....

joh6nn

09-05-2002, 03:15 AM

....

?

all of the posts right before yours were about helping thesourcelock.

the thread in Gen Web Dev, couldn't have stagnated in June; it didn't start until August 19th, and it's been active since then.

::puzzled::

as far as the statement that your ideas were never addressed in that thread, what's to stop you from addressing them, in that thread? and i think that for discussions that take on this sort of nature, one is enough. if there's only one, then you can refer people to it, and keep all of the discussion on that topic, in the same place. if you have multiple threads on the same topic, then there's splintering, and disorganization, and not everyone gets to see all of the information. that's why we frown upon double posting, and cross posting.

as far as posting in a dormant thread goes, the thread is dormant, not dead. you can come back in post in it, even if it's a year old and dusty, so long as it hasn't been locked, and it will come shooting back to the top of the list.

i think that anything more on these topics, ought to either move over to the Gen Web Dev thread (http://www.codingforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4437), or be taken care of in PMs or outside the forum.

sn00py

09-05-2002, 06:14 AM

Hi there,
Does anyone know how to disable the 'disket,print & mail' icon when a mouse hovers over an image in IE6. I'm not sure if other browsers has this function but i know Win98 dont have this function. IS there a script where i can disable this feature andf preventing the image from beeing downloaded? Print screen is one issue that we can escape and thats o.k. Thanks in advance.

Vladdy

09-05-2002, 07:37 AM

See my post http://www.codingforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5581

sn00py

09-05-2002, 09:06 AM

Hi vladdy,
Thanks for your reply.

Single Paradox

02-12-2006, 01:55 AM

Someone without experience , may want the source code bcs he wants to collect all the links of a website (and he doesn't know other ways to do it) or wants to find the address of a picture bcs he can't right click and save it 4 instance... I myself a long time ago, opened a source code and didn't know what the hell was it.. But after studying the structure of it and looking around i understood a few things.. now imagine the source code was scrambled .. i would say , "oh my god what is this ?? hope my computer is ok after i opened this nonsense piece of junk , i will never do it again !"

just my 2 cents :D

Now I was searching for all the stupid people who think they can protect sources and so I'm bringing back this post. Just letting you know bud, I am 14 years old and I am looking at your source code right now. Might I add that it is a complete mess :thumbsup:

fci

02-12-2006, 04:26 AM

Now I was searching for all the stupid people who think they can protect sources and so I'm bringing back this post. Just letting you know bud, I am 14 years old and I am looking at your source code right now. Might I add that it is a complete mess :thumbsup:

uh.. k? why did you bump this thread it's more than 3 years old and contributed ZERO to the topic (and now I am replying like an idiot since I'm bored and also contributing nothing).