Skip to main content

Home/ Groups/ myRIZZEBookmarks
JE ORFEVRE

4 Ways To Protect Your Online Content From Thieves | Alicia Cowan - 0 views

  •  
    "Here are four fast (and free) things you can do to protect your property from thieves online: Include the copyright symbol on all pages of your website and your content like e-books and PDF downloads. This will deter those who innocently think it's ok to copy your stuff without realising it's an infringement. Use Copyscape a duplicate content checker to search the internet for copies of your web or blog pages. You pop your page address in the search box and it will scan the web for copies. Note that it searches each page individually not a whole website. If you have a WordPress site try a plug in called WP-Copyprotect. This 'locks' your blog so text and images can't be highlighted, copy and pasted. This works on the assumption that anyone wanting to steal your blog post or text from your website will be too lazy to re-type it out for themselves. I think it's a pretty good deterrent although I don't use it myself as I'm always copying text from my website to use elsewhere and this plug in would stop me from doing that! It may be a good solution for you if you want a hassle free way of protecting your online property. Protect your online products, photos and images using a Creative Commons license. You can get one set up in seconds for free to protect ebooks, images and other materials for that extra bit of security."
JE ORFEVRE

Zsebzsaru.hu | Matrix rendszám-azonosító rendszerek - 0 views

  •  
    "SATURNUS INFORMATIKAI KFT."
JE ORFEVRE

Dion Hinchcliffe's Blog - Musings and Ruminations on Building Great Systems - 0 views

  •  
    "Modern Web Identity: Why Your Web Applications Should Be Offering OpenID, OAuth, And Probably Facebook Connect"
JE ORFEVRE

Looking for a Face.com API replacement? Try ReKognition. - 0 views

  •  
    "makes use of a few bleeding edge features around drag and drop and file APIs. I tested it in the latest Chrome and Firefox and it worked fine. Drag an image into the box, let go, and you should see it doing a XHR2-based Post to ReKognition. (And yes, this is using my own keys so it may run out of available calls. I don't have any good error handling there yet.)"
JE ORFEVRE

obfuscation - What kinds of steps can I take to make my C++ application harder to rever... - 0 views

  • 20 down vote accepted Compiler The choice of a compiler has minimal effects on the difficulty to reverse engineer your code. The important things to minimize are all related to information leaks from your code. You want to at least disable any runtime type information (RTTI). The leakage of type information and the simplicity of the instruction set of the virtual machine is one of the reasons CLR and JVM code is easier to reverse engineer. They also have an JIT which applies optimizations to code which may reduce the strength of obfuscation. Obfuscation is basically the opposite of optimization and a lot of obfuscations are solved by first applying an optimization pass. Debugging information
    • JE ORFEVRE
       
      Ce passage est tres bon
JE ORFEVRE

java - Is it really impossible to protect Android apps from reverse engineering? - Stac... - 0 views

  • byte code targeted at Android's Dalvik VM (via Dex). It's a really great tool and can increase the difficulty of 'reversing' your code while shrinking your code's footprint (in some cases dramatically: a recent applet of mine went from about 600 KB down to about 50 KB). Like others are
  • recommend the use of ProGuard
  • maybe the most 'creative' approach lies with tweaking the business model rather than the technology.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • f it's a possibility: remote procedure calls to a well-protected server (the server has the code you want to protect).
  • ou can't. Any scheme can be defeated by someone with sufficient skills, time and motivation.
  • In other words, don't share your secrets.
  •  
    "he first stop for me would be to optimise and obfuscate the code with ProGuard which is known to work with byte code targeted at Android's Dalvik VM (via Dex). It's a really great tool and can increase the difficulty of 'reversing' your code while shrinking your code's footprint (in some cases dramatically: a recent applet of mine went from about 600 KB down to about 50 KB). Like others are saying, you will never get 100% security of your algorithm's details while its implementation is being distributed to clients. For that, you'd need to keep the code on your servers alone. Attempts to near 100% percent security for client code effectively amount to DRM and can make your client code fragile in the face of network outages and just generally frustrate (legitimate) users. The Android developers blog has some useful articles on the matter of 'tamper resistant' Android apps (and they recommend the use of ProGuard as part of the overall approach). With regards to 'creative' approaches: some developers employ debugger detection techniques to prevent run-time analysis and combine this with encryption of portions of binary code (to deter static analysis), but to be honest, a determined enough attacker can circumvent these, while it can cause legitimate user frustration as illustrated by the Windows KB article Games: Error Message: A Debugger Has Been Detected: Unload the Debugger and Try Again. My girlfriend's 'Learn to drive' DVD software will not run under VirtualBox for this reason, but she blames Linux of course! OpenRCE and Wikipedia's article on obfuscated code may be good starting points if you want to look into this further. But be warned, you may lose more through over zealous use of these techniques frustrating your users than you would through loss of trade secrets by reverse engineering. Like Anton S says, maybe the most 'creative' approach lies with tweaking the business model rather than the technology. The latest Android SDK update on 6th Dec 2010 (co
JE ORFEVRE

android - How to avoid reverse engineering of an APK file? - Stack Overflow - 0 views

  • Consider the following scheme. The user enters their credentials for the app from memory into the device. You must, unfortunately, trust that the user's device is not already compromised by a keylogger or Trojan; the best you can do in this regard is to implement multi-factor security, by remembering hard-to-fake identifying information about the devices the user has used (MAC/IP, IMEI, etc), and providing at least one additional channel by which a login attempt on an unfamiliar device can be verified.
  •  
    "st rule of app security: Any machine to which an attacker gains unrestricted physical or electronic access now belongs to your attacker, regardless of where it actually is or what you paid for it. Second rule of app security: Any software that leaves the physical boundaries inside which an attacker cannot penetrate now belongs to your attacker, regardless of how much time you spent coding it. Third rule: Any information that leaves those same physical boundaries that an attacker cannot penetrate now belongs to your attacker, no matter how valuable it is to you. The foundations of information technology security are based on these three fundamental principles; the only truly secure computer is the one locked in a safe, inside a Farraday cage, inside a steel cage. There are computers that spend most of their service lives in just this state; once a year (or less), they generate the private keys for trusted root certification authorities (in front of a host of witnesses with cameras recording every inch of the room in which they are located). Now, most computers are not used under these types of environments; they're physically out in the open, connected to the Internet over a wireless radio channel. In short, they're vulnerable, as is their software. They are therefore not to be trusted. There are certain things that computers and their software must know or do in order to be useful, but care must be taken to ensure that they can never know or do enough to cause damage (at least not permanent damage outside the bounds of that single machine). You already knew all this; that's why you're trying to protect the code of your application. But, therein lies the first problem; obfuscation tools can make the code a mess for a human to try to dig through, but the program still has to run; that means the actual logic flow of the app and the data it uses are unaffected by obfuscation. Given a little tenacity, an attacker can simply un-obfuscate the code, and that's not even
JE ORFEVRE

JCS - JCS vs EHCache Performance - 0 views

  •  
    " less than 1% difference, but subsequent runs showed JCS as 20%"
1 - 20 of 112 Next › Last »
Showing 20 items per page