"Dennis Lee Bieber" <...netcom.com> wrote:
> SD declaimed the following in
> comp.lang.python:
>
> >
> > At 15-35 lines, it is short enough for people to copy it down on paper,
> > or even memorize it, then take it home and work on finding a
> > vulnerability in it.
>
> I'd actually been thinki
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:23:05 -0800, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
>> I expect a nice script in 15-35 lines that protects my software from
>> working on another machine.
>
> Ah, but at that shortness, what will protect the protection script?
...
> Proprietary information/trade-secret is only e
Well, I think my question was a programming question not a copyright
question.
I expect a nice script in 15-35 lines that protects my software from
working on
another machine. I don't want best protection method available, like
flexlm or etc.
My software is some kind of business secret and working
> Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (SD) wrote:
>SD> It means that there is a serious problem of "orphan works", where rare
>SD> and valuable films from the 1920s and earlier are rapidly decaying
>SD> into an unusable powder because nobody dares copy them lest the
>SD> unknown copyright owne
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:54:26 +, Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>> On 2007-12-18, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:04:29 +, Grant Edwards wrote:
>>>
On 2007-12-18, Jan Claeys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Op Fri, 14 Dec 2007 1
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:54:26 +, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2007-12-18, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:04:29 +, Grant Edwards wrote:
>>
>>> On 2007-12-18, Jan Claeys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Op Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:54:35 +, schreef Grant Edwa
On 18 Des, 22:38, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cybersource.com.au> wrote:
>
> I dare say that European countries which have had automatic copyright
> longer than the US have seen far more of their national heritage (early
> film, photographs and the like) rot away.
Indeed. One of the most fa
On 2007-12-18, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:04:29 +, Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>> On 2007-12-18, Jan Claeys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Op Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:54:35 +, schreef Grant Edwards:
>>>
Uh what? I don't know what country you're in, but i
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:04:29 +, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2007-12-18, Jan Claeys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Op Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:54:35 +, schreef Grant Edwards:
>>
>>> Uh what? I don't know what country you're in, but in the US, it
>>> doesn't take any time at all to copyright someth
Jan Claeys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Op Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:54:35 +, schreef Grant Edwards:
>
> > Uh what? I don't know what country you're in, but in the US, it doesn't
> > take any time at all to copyright something. The mere act of writing
> > something copyrights it. I thought it was
On 2007-12-18, Grant Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2007-12-18, Jan Claeys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> No, it's only copyrighted when you _publish_ it.
>
> Interesting. So, in Europe, if somebody steals something you
> wrote before you get it published, they're free to do with it
> as t
On 2007-12-18, Jan Claeys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Op Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:54:35 +, schreef Grant Edwards:
>
>> Uh what? I don't know what country you're in, but in the US, it doesn't
>> take any time at all to copyright something. The mere act of writing
>> something copyrights it. I tho
Jan Claeys([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2007.12.18 12:06:08 +:
> Op Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:54:35 +, schreef Grant Edwards:
>
> > Uh what? I don't know what country you're in, but in the US, it doesn't
> > take any time at all to copyright something. The mere act of writing
> > something copyrights it
> Jan Claeys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (JC) wrote:
>JC> Op Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:54:35 +, schreef Grant Edwards:
>>> Uh what? I don't know what country you're in, but in the US, it doesn't
>>> take any time at all to copyright something. The mere act of writing
>>> something copyrights it. I th
Op Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:54:35 +, schreef Grant Edwards:
> Uh what? I don't know what country you're in, but in the US, it doesn't
> take any time at all to copyright something. The mere act of writing
> something copyrights it. I thought it was the same in Europe as well.
No, it's only copy
On 14 Des, 11:42, Wolfgang Draxinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > I will not make reverse engineering impossible, but it will be
> > extremely difficult.
>
> No. It's just a matter of reading the decrypted bytecode from
> memory.
Ok, let med rephrase that: It may not be difficult to you. But th
farsheed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let me be clear for you: there are someone in my company who love to
> use my software in other companies that she works there also. and
> because it is an inhouse tool, my CEO wanted me to protect it from
> stealing.
If the person is that untrustworthy, yet
Grant Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2007-12-14, farsheed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Let me be clear for you: there are someone in my company who
> > love to use my software in other companies that she works
> > there also. and because it is an inhouse tool, my CEO wanted
> > me to
On 2007-12-14, farsheed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let me be clear for you: there are someone in my company who
> love to use my software in other companies that she works
> there also. and because it is an inhouse tool, my CEO wanted
> me to protect it from stealing. and really we havn't time t
On Dec 14, 9:08 am, farsheed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let me be clear for you: there are someone in my company who love to
> use my software in other companies that she works there also. and
> because it is an inhouse tool, my CEO wanted me to protect it from
> stealing. and really we havn't ti
sturlamolden wrote:
> I wrote this in another thread,
And here the HOWTO for the crack:
> 1. Put all the compiled Python bytecode in a heavily encrypted
> binary file. Consider using a hardware hash in the key.
Find the part in the binary where the encrypted bytecode is read,
start the binary
Let me be clear for you: there are someone in my company who love to
use my software in other companies that she works there also. and
because it is an inhouse tool, my CEO wanted me to protect it from
stealing.
and really we havn't time to copyright it. so I want to secure my
software from some pe
farsheed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> the code for licensing is about 15 lines and is very fast. I needed
> 20 licenses and I wrote a keygen for myself.
Given that you still haven't explained what threat in particular
you're securing against, I wonder whether "very fast" is the only
criterion. I
Thank you all. I explain what I did to do it. Very simple but what I
want:
I find the host id of system (using ipconfig) and create a hash code
based on it.(some math, md5 and functions).
the code for licensing is about 15 lines and is very fast. I needed 20
licenses and I wrote a keygen for mysel
farsheed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks. But I ask this question technically, I mean I know nothing is
> uncrackable and popular softwares are not well protected. But my
> software is not that type and I don't want this specific software
> popular.
> It is some kind of in house tool and I wan
You can make it hard and annoying etc.. to crack! but you will never stop
people from cracking it!
On Dec 10, 2007 8:15 AM, farsheed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wrote a software and I want to protect it so can not be cracked
> easily. I wrote it in python and compile it using py2exe. what is t
Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why is this a problem? The more time the Original Poster spends
> struggling to maintain his copy-protected in-house software that
> nobody else wants, the less time he will have to go out and cause
> mischief by writing something useful and copy-prote
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:07:02 +1300, greg wrote:
> Tim Chase wrote:
>> -Write Lovecraftian code ("import goto" comes to mind) designed to make
>> reverse-engineers go insane trying to figure out what you were thinking
>
> The problem with that is it makes it hard for *you* to figure out what
> you
>
> 1. Put all the compiled Python bytecode in a heavily encrypted binary
> file. Consider using a hardware hash in the key.
>
> 2. Program a small binary executable (.exe file) in C or C++ that:
>
> 2a. Reads the binary file.
>
> 2b. Decrypts it to conventional Python byte code.
>
> 2c. Embe
greg wrote:
> Tim Chase wrote:
>> -Write Lovecraftian code ("import goto" comes to mind) designed
>> to make reverse-engineers go insane trying to figure out what you
>> were thinking
>
> The problem with that is it makes it hard for *you* to
> figure out what you were thinking...
Psst...other th
On 10 Des, 08:15, farsheed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wrote a software and I want to protect it so can not be cracked
> easily. I wrote it in python and compile it using py2exe. what is the
> best way in your opinion?
I wrote this in another thread,
1. Put all the compiled Python bytecode in
Tim Chase wrote:
> -Write Lovecraftian code ("import goto" comes to mind) designed
> to make reverse-engineers go insane trying to figure out what you
> were thinking
The problem with that is it makes it hard for *you* to
figure out what you were thinking...
--
Greg
--
http://mail.python.org/ma
Carl Banks wrote:
> From the OP's post, it seemed likely to me that the OP was asked by a
> misguided management to make sure it was "reverse-engineer-proof".
In that case, just package it with py2exe and tell him
it's done. The misguided management won't know any better.
--
Greg
--
http://mail.
farsheed wrote:
> It is some kind of in house tool and I want to copy protect it. this
> is very complicated tool and not useful for
> many people.
So there will be very few people with any incentive to
steal it, and even less if it's not distributed to the
public.
--
Greg
--
http://mail.python.
On 2007-12-10, Chris Mellon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2007 5:56 AM, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Dec 10, 6:26 am, Tim Chase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > So you say there is not any trusted way?
>> >
>> > You cannot distribute any program with the expectation that i
On Dec 10, 2007 5:56 AM, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 10, 6:26 am, Tim Chase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So you say there is not any trusted way?
> >
> > You cannot distribute any program with the expectation that it
> > cannot be reverse engineered.
> [snip]
>
>
> >From the
On Dec 10, 6:17 am, Tim Chase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, are there any ways to make it "harder" to reverse engineer a
> > program?
>
> In addition to the standby of
>
> -Don't distribute your program (SaaS)
>
> I'll add to the list:
>
> -Only distribute your program to people too non-techni
> So, are there any ways to make it "harder" to reverse engineer a
> program?
In addition to the standby of
-Don't distribute your program (SaaS)
I'll add to the list:
-Only distribute your program to people too non-technical to
consider reverse-engineering
-Don't document your program (or eve
On Dec 10, 8:15 am, farsheed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wrote a software and I want to protect it so can not be cracked
> easily. I wrote it in python and compile it using py2exe. what is the
> best way in your opinion?
I used SoftwarePassport ( http://www.siliconrealms.com/ ) for exactly
this
On Dec 10, 6:26 am, Tim Chase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So you say there is not any trusted way?
>
> You cannot distribute any program with the expectation that it
> cannot be reverse engineered.
[snip]
>From the OP's post, it seemed likely to me that the OP was asked by a
misguided manageme
> So you say there is not any trusted way?
You cannot distribute any program with the expectation that it
cannot be reverse engineered. Despite what various protection
companies would have folks believe. At some point, the user's
CPU has to execute the code, and at that point, it can be
intercep
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:55:13 -0800, farsheed wrote:
> Thanks. But I ask this question technically, I mean I know nothing is
> uncrackable and popular softwares are not well protected. But my
> software is not that type and I don't want this specific software
> popular.
Then make it as ugly and un
On Dec 10, 9:55 am, farsheed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks. But I ask this question technically, I mean I know nothing is
> uncrackable and popular softwares are not well protected. But my
> software is not that type and I don't want this specific software
> popular.
Understood.
> It is som
So you say there is not any trusted way?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Dec 10, 9:55 am, farsheed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks. But I ask this question technically, I mean I know nothing is
> uncrackable and popular softwares are not well protected. But my
> software is not that type and I don't want this specific software
> popular.
> It is some kind of in h
Thanks. But I ask this question technically, I mean I know nothing is
uncrackable and popular softwares are not well protected. But my
software is not that type and I don't want this specific software
popular.
It is some kind of in house tool and I want to copy protect it. this
is very complicated
On Dec 10, 8:15 am, farsheed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wrote a software and I want to protect it so can not be cracked
> easily. I wrote it in python and compile it using py2exe. what is the
> best way in your opinion?
Don't. This is a fight you already lost. Besides, people who crack
softwar
47 matches
Mail list logo
