Hi,
well, open source is pretty nice. But in some cases I don't want to show
the sourcecode to other users. Maybe because of an encryption, or an
special algorithm. Is there any chance to hide the code? Compiling the
application with the interpreter directly?
Greetings
Mike
Michael Gebhart wrote:
well, open source is pretty nice. But in some cases I don't want to show
the sourcecode to other users. Maybe because of an encryption, or an
special algorithm. Is there any chance to hide the code? Compiling the
application with the interpreter directly?
Not that I want to sound academical or religious or anything, but if your encryption algorithms need to operate in the dark to be secure they probably aren't working very well. Also note that copying source code is not legal so you might not even need to obfuscate it to get protection against naive copy attempts.
That aside it's quite hard to hide code well -- just have a look at Java where there's disassemblers that can produce pretty readable code from byte code and there's lots of people reconstructing algorithms directly from machine code -- if the machine can read it, it is quite likely that an human will also be able to do so -- it's just a matter of how hard it will be for him to do so. You're really only safe if you have the code logic residing on an external server which will just take input and give back output without disclosing how it processed the information.
There's tools available that will make reconstructing of the source code non-trivial for inexperienced users -- RubyScript2Exe[1] and Exerb[2] come to mind. But note that these just encode the unfiltered source code directly and if somebody knows how that is done he can reconstruct the original source code.
Other approaches include taking the code itself and making it harder to read for humans (via variable/method/class name substitution or removing meaningless whitespace) and dumping Ruby's syntax tree directly. The latter is quite similar to how Java does this and can for example be accomplished via NodeWrap[3]. I think I also heard about somebody modifying Ruby itself (you are allowed to do so even without releasing the source code of your modified Ruby) so that it would use a different mechanism for loading code.
I hope you can understand the trouble associated with all this and will still find a solution that works for you.
[1] Redirect Notice
[2] http://exerb.sourceforge.jp/index.en.html
[3] http://rubyforge.org/projects/nodewrap/
I wondering if your best bet wouldn't be making your application
web-based. Then the source code is as secure as the host you're
running it on. For applications that can run with a Javascript-based
GUI or flat-out as a web service it's worth considering.
Hi,
first thanks for your answer.
Not that I want to sound academical or religious or anything, but if
your encryption algorithms need to operate in the dark to be secure they
probably aren't working very well. Also note that copying source code is
not legal so you might not even need to obfuscate it to get protection
against naive copy attempts.
Yes, sure you are right. But one example: I wanna have a registration code
in my application. The user gets a code to activate some more features. In
the code, there only is a flag reg=true/false. When the code is entered,
the application checks it and sets the variable to true, or false. The
user can now take a look at my code and simply change this part. After the
check he sets: reg=true.
So my mechanism to check the code is not useful. Also if I try to do the
check of the code on a external server and give back a true or false, the
user can change this part in the code directly.
Ok, now you can say: registration codes are ugly and everything has to be
opened 
Sure, but if it is a commercial project, there is no other way.
I only could appeal to the users forthrightness.
And yes: With Java I had the same problem. And with C# I will have it too.
But: I thought Microsoft would develop their applications in C# too. But
then the users also can see the code. Maybe Microsoft will keep on using
C++ for the huge projects? And only use C# for not important parts?
Greetings
Mike
Greetings
Mike
That aside it's quite hard to hide code well -- just have a look at Java
where there's disassemblers that can produce pretty readable code from
byte code and there's lots of people reconstructing algorithms directly
from machine code -- if the machine can read it, it is quite likely that
an human will also be able to do so -- it's just a matter of how hard it
will be for him to do so. You're really only safe if you have the code
logic residing on an external server which will just take input and give
back output without disclosing how it processed the information.There's tools available that will make reconstructing of the source code
non-trivial for inexperienced users -- RubyScript2Exe[1] and Exerb[2]
come to mind. But note that these just encode the unfiltered source code
directly and if somebody knows how that is done he can reconstruct the
original source code.Other approaches include taking the code itself and making it harder to
read for humans (via variable/method/class name substitution or removing
meaningless whitespace) and dumping Ruby's syntax tree directly. The
latter is quite similar to how Java does this and can for example be
accomplished via NodeWrap[3]. I think I also heard about somebody
modifying Ruby itself (you are allowed to do so even without releasing
the source code of your modified Ruby) so that it would use a different
mechanism for loading code.I hope you can understand the trouble associated with all this and will
still find a solution that works for you.[1]
Redirect Notice
[2] http://exerb.sourceforge.jp/index.en.html
[3] http://rubyforge.org/projects/nodewrap/
Michael Gebhart <mail@miketech.net> writes:
Yes, sure you are right. But one example: I wanna have a registration code
in my application. The user gets a code to activate some more features. In
the code, there only is a flag reg=true/false. When the code is entered,
the application checks it and sets the variable to true, or false. The
user can now take a look at my code and simply change this part. After the
check he sets: reg=true.So my mechanism to check the code is not useful. Also if I try to do the
check of the code on a external server and give back a true or false, the
user can change this part in the code directly.Ok, now you can say: registration codes are ugly and everything has to be
opened
Sure there is. For example, you simply could send the customer a
module which contains the advanced features instead of a registration
code. As Ruby (and almost every other language) can load code at
run-time, this shouldn't be a problem to implement.
Michael Gebhart <mail@miketech.net> writes:
Yes, sure you are right. But one example: I wanna have a registration code
in my application. The user gets a code to activate some more features. In
the code, there only is a flag reg=true/false. When the code is entered,
the application checks it and sets the variable to true, or false. The
user can now take a look at my code and simply change this part. After the
check he sets: reg=true.
If your customers are thieves, then you should sue them. Or get
better customers. Or both, possibly.
Ok, now you can say: registration codes are ugly and everything has to be
opened
If it is a commercial project, then you should get yourself some good
lawyers (you should have them anyway), and have them scare the holy
bejeezus out of anyone tempted to steal from you. The fact is, this
is the only recourse you truly have, in the end.
I only could appeal to the users forthrightness.
And their lack of desire to be sued. Consider: most customers don't
want to steal from you-- if they get $X of value from your software,
and you charge them $X-$epsilon, as long as epsilon is sufficiently
large, everybody's happy.
And yes: With Java I had the same problem. And with C# I will have it too.
But: I thought Microsoft would develop their applications in C# too. But
then the users also can see the code. Maybe Microsoft will keep on using
C++ for the huge projects? And only use C# for not important parts?
It doesn't matter; people can decompile C++ as well. In the end, the
lawyers are the only ones who can do anything about it.
-=Eric
--
Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million
typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare.
-- Blair Houghton.
Yes, sure you are right. But one example: I wanna have a registration code
in my application. The user gets a code to activate some more features. In
the code, there only is a flag reg=true/false. When the code is entered,
the application checks it and sets the variable to true, or false. The
user can now take a look at my code and simply change this part. After the
check he sets: reg=true.
Could you export some of these parts to a c module?
Bundle public keys for each unlockable feature and require a "key" to unlock it which is actually the signed name of the user (signed using the private key for the feature.
Cryptographically secure feature unlocking, with the side effect of letting you know the initial source (though possibly not purposeful) of any pirated versions.
-Brian
On Feb 5, 2005, at 5:55 AM, Michael Gebhart wrote:
The user gets a code to activate some more features. In
the code, there only is a flag reg=true/false. When the code is entered,
the application checks it and sets the variable to true, or false. The
user can now take a look at my code and simply change this part. After the
check he sets: reg=true.
Michael Gebhart <mail@miketech.net> writes:
> Yes, sure you are right. But one example: I wanna have a registration code
> in my application. The user gets a code to activate some more features. In
> the code, there only is a flag reg=true/false. When the code is entered,
> the application checks it and sets the variable to true, or false. The
> user can now take a look at my code and simply change this part. After the
> check he sets: reg=true.If your customers are thieves, then you should sue them. Or get
better customers. Or both, possibly.
It just doesn't work that way. At least not in the realm
of video games and other relatively low-cost "shrink wrap"
software.
> Ok, now you can say: registration codes are ugly and everything has to be
> openedIf it is a commercial project, then you should get yourself some good
lawyers (you should have them anyway), and have them scare the holy
bejeezus out of anyone tempted to steal from you. The fact is, this
is the only recourse you truly have, in the end.
Many of us have exactly 1 employee in our companies.
But just look at the big boys, like Adobe, Electronic
Arts, Microsoft... Plenty of lawyers. Plenty of problems
with piracy??? You bet.
> I only could appeal to the users forthrightness.
And their lack of desire to be sued. Consider: most customers don't
want to steal from you-- if they get $X of value from your software,
and you charge them $X-$epsilon, as long as epsilon is sufficiently
large, everybody's happy.
My current employer (my paying job makes software that
is very highly rated by its users. Nevertheless, people
distribute cracked registration passwords--and it's not
to "demo" the software, because this software has a very
liberal trial period. Every day we see torrents of people
who allow our software to check our website for updates
(we aren't sneaky about the checks, btw) and who we can
tell are using cracked passwords.
If you have actually worked in this field, producing low
cost "shrink wrap" software products, and you don't have
a problem with piracy, I would love to know more about
your approach.
Regards,
Bill
From: "Eric Schwartz" <emschwar@pobox.com>
Bundle public keys for each unlockable feature and require a "key" to
unlock it which is actually the signed name of the user (signed using
the private key for the feature.
Cryptographically secure feature unlocking, with the side effect of
letting you know the initial source (though possibly not purposeful)
of
any pirated versions.
Doesn't help. At some point in the program there is the (conceptual) if
statement:
if user_has_rights
do_this
else
yell_at_user_to_buy
end
For any piece of software it is possible for a human to find this if
statement and change 'user_has_rights' to true. No matter how you
complicate it with public keys, the routine that checks the keys can
always be altered to return true.
What you should be aiming to achieve is protection from casual piracy:
it should not be obvious to the user how to break your software. The
user must always think 'I can pay $x for this, or spend y amount of
time intentionally breaking it. Is it worth it?'. There will always be
people for whom cracking the software is the prefered option (and
indeed, the higher the protection the greater the itch to break it). In
the long run you cannot stop them. It's just a matter of making the
others agree to pay rather than crack the software.
This is not security by obscurity, rather a simpler model of
cost-effective security: both for you to develop and for the user to
crack. Make evreyone happy by supplying cost effective solutions.
Cheers,
Assaph
"Bill Kelly" <billk@cts.com> writes:
Many of us have exactly 1 employee in our companies.
But just look at the big boys, like Adobe, Electronic
Arts, Microsoft... Plenty of lawyers. Plenty of problems
with piracy??? You bet.
This is my point. If they, with all their resources and lawyerage,
can't stop it, how can you possibly hope to? I guarantee they have
many more, and smarter, people than you or I working on it, and they
still can't stop pirates. To me, this suggests it's a mug's game, but
YMMV.
If you have actually worked in this field, producing low
cost "shrink wrap" software products, and you don't have
a problem with piracy, I would love to know more about
your approach.
It's not a matter of not having a problem with piracy, it's keeping
that problem down to a manageable level. Take iTunes, for instance:
you can't tell me that even with the RIAA suing dead people for
copyright infringement, that I couldn't find a download of nearly any
pop tune I cared to if I tried hard enough. So how do they make
money? By pricing product at a level that even though people could
pirate it, they look at it and say, "Yeah, I could steal that song,
but hey, it's only a buck, why not?"
In any event, the problem is that, at least with ruby, you can't get
there from here. There simply is no way to run ruby code without
giving the OS, and thus the user, permission to read it. You can't
get there with C# or Java either, but you can pretend a little while
longer, if you like.
-=Eric
--
Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million
typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare.
-- Blair Houghton.
Actually, this method _could_ work with Ruby. You _don't_ need to have
that conditional, because Ruby has open class/module definitions. You
could separate the extra functionality into a separate set of files.
Then create an encrypted package of the files. When the files are
pulled out of the package and placed in the correct directory, the
extra functionality would be enabled.
Sure, someone could distribute the files illegally after gaining
access, but that's a slightly different issue.
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:20:12 +0900, Assaph Mehr <assaph@gmail.com> wrote:
Doesn't help. At some point in the program there is the (conceptual) if
statement:
if user_has_rights
do_this
else
yell_at_user_to_buy
end
--
Regards,
John Wilger
-----------
Alice came to a fork in the road. "Which road do I take?" she asked.
"Where do you want to go?" responded the Cheshire cat.
"I don't know," Alice answered.
"Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter."
- Lewis Carrol, Alice in Wonderland
Hi,
"Bill Kelly" <billk@cts.com> writes:
> Many of us have exactly 1 employee in our
companies.
> But just look at the big boys, like Adobe,
Electronic
> Arts, Microsoft... Plenty of lawyers. Plenty of
problems
> with piracy??? You bet.
Apparently, even 1-employee companies can now have
free legal help:
Group forms open-source legal defense center -- ADTmag
Not that that will help much, but still something to
consider while we are (were?) on that issue 
-- shanko
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
John Wilger wrote:
> Doesn't help. At some point in the program there is the
(conceptual) if
> statement:
> if user_has_rights
> do_this
> else
> yell_at_user_to_buy
> endActually, this method _could_ work with Ruby. You _don't_ need to
have
that conditional, because Ruby has open class/module definitions. You
could separate the extra functionality into a separate set of files.
Then create an encrypted package of the files. When the files are
pulled out of the package and placed in the correct directory, the
extra functionality would be enabled.
For which you will need to distribute the decryption key. After the
user will have this key, they will have access to the sources. Why go
through all this trouble, when you can simply give the source once the
user paid? The end result is the same (user pays, gets access to
source).
Sure, someone could distribute the files illegally after gaining
access, but that's a slightly different issue.
Actually this is the exact same issue: if a user is bent on getting
illegal access to the software, will he care if he gets from a cracker
the decryption key or the actual sources? You just need to look at all
the sites distributing full and cracked software to realize that this
is indeed the same issue.
It all boils down to a cost-benefit calculation for the user: Will
paying for the software be better for me than getting the software
illegally? Each user will think of the costs, the risks and his efforts
and make a decision whether to pay or to obtain an illegal copy of the
software.
Cheers,
Assaph
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:20:12 +0900, Assaph Mehr <assaph@gmail.com> wrote:
Oops ... posted before reading.
--- Shashank Date <shanko_date@yahoo.com> wrote:
Apparently, even 1-employee companies can now have
free legal help:
This applies only to Open Source Projects.
Sorry for the noise.
-- shanko
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
Well, it doesn't solve this problem, but it's good to know about just the same.
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 03:45:45 +0900, Shashank Date <shanko_date@yahoo.com> wrote:
Oops ... posted before reading.
--- Shashank Date <shanko_date@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Apparently, even 1-employee companies can now have
> free legal help:
>
> Group forms open-source legal defense center -- ADTmag
>This applies only to Open Source Projects.
Sorry for the noise.-- shanko
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--
Bill Guindon (aka aGorilla)