Content Theft
![Hell Hound a.o.d. [AGQ2]'s profile photo](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/default-user=s40-c)
Hell Hound a.o.d. [AGQ2]
Art Sackett wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Greetings, All:
>
> I received a personal reply to a posting I made in reply to another who
> was (yet another) hoping to hide his HTML script from browsers and
> potential thieves. The author of this email was Kalev Leetaru who claims
> to represent something called "Gamacles Software".
>
> With a name like that, this moron would do well to read the story of
> Damocles and his sword.
>
> Kalev Leetaru and Gamacles Software are frauds. There is no way to hide
> HTML from a browser that you wish to display it in. I am taking the
> liberty of posting the lengthy HTML source of a "protected" page to
> debunk this crap and maybe save someone a few bucks. I'm not really
> interested in going after his "protected images" this evening, but if
> I'm looking for a way to kill a few minutes in the next few days, I'll
> go after that, too.
>
> I went to his demonstration page at http://www.gamacles.com/Protected/
> (where the source is so expertly protected that he'll sell us his
> _javascript_ (!) for $100) and here's what I found (note the comment
> that reads "The Hypertext Markup Language code in this document utilizes
> Document Protection Technology from Gamacles Software"):
[snip]
--
Hell Hound -aod- (E.G. Dodds)
BSBH...@aol.com
ICQ UIN: 8878412
http://www.geocities.com/timessquare/castle/2231/
just sitting there ->http://members.aol.com/bsbhhound/
"Though my eyes could see I still was a blind man
Though my mind could think I still was a mad man"
-Carry On Wayward Son; Kansas
William G. Schlake
wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Greetings, All:
>
>I received a personal reply to a posting I made in reply to another who
>was (yet another) hoping to hide his HTML script from browsers and
>potential thieves. The author of this email was Kalev Leetaru who claims
>to represent something called "Gamacles Software".
<huge snip of meaningless nonsense deleted>
Three words for you Art: GET A LIFE!
Earl W. Phillips, Jr.
demonstrating a point for the uninitiated. Bill - take your own advice!
--
Earl W. Phillips, Jr.
Phillips Design
Specializing in AFFORDABLE Internet-based business solutions!
www.pdesign.net
ICQ # = 14796946
Kevin Dickover
G. Schlake) wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Jul 1998 02:13:07 +0000, Art Sackett <inv...@see.sig>
>wrote:
>
>>x-no-archive: yes
>>
>>Greetings, All:
>>
>>I received a personal reply to a posting I made in reply to another who
>>was (yet another) hoping to hide his HTML script from browsers and
>>potential thieves. The author of this email was Kalev Leetaru who claims
>>to represent something called "Gamacles Software".
>
><huge snip of meaningless nonsense deleted>
>
>
>Three words for you Art: GET A LIFE!
>
Three different words for Art...
Hip Hip Horay!!!
I was waiting to see that post -does anyone think it will stop the
fellow from posting his ad's on a near daily basis? I, for one,
certainly hope so.
Solo Deo Favente,
Kevin Dickover
bartman
He had the balls to threaten me by email ...hey K..what ever
dude.
==============================================
The Bartman
I will not show off *100
http://www.seanet.com/~bartman/
==============================================
Jo Meder
Art Sackett <inv...@see.sig> writes:
> I went to his demonstration page at http://www.gamacles.com/Protected/
> (where the source is so expertly protected that he'll sell us his
> _javascript_ (!) for $100) and here's what I found (note the comment
> that reads "The Hypertext Markup Language code in this document utilizes
> Document Protection Technology from Gamacles Software"):
Not only that, the algorithm used to "protect" the content is
ridiculous. (This is the function "decoding" the "protected" content,
variable names substituted to enhance readability):
function a1(thecontent){
var result='';
for (var pos_in_code=thecontent.length;
pos_in_code>=0;
pos_in_code=pos_in_code-2)
{
result=result+thecontent.charAt(pos_in_code)
}
for (var pos_in_code2=thecontent.length-1;
pos_in_code2>=0;
pos_in_code2=pos_in_code2-2)
{
result=result+thecontent.charAt(pos_in_code2)
}
document.write(result);}
So what it essentially does is reading the content backwards, skipping
every other char on the first loop, then reading it backwards a second
time to fetch the remaining chars.
Position 0 1 2
0123456789012345678901234
Char <h1>It'll never work</h1>
will be "encoded" to
original Position 2 1 0 2 1 0
4208642086420319753197531
Char >h<rwrvnl'I201/ko ee lt>h
Writing a decoding filter should take .... 5 minutes :-))
Have fun,
Jo
--
j...@delorges.in-berlin.de --- Berlin, Germany
http://delorges.in-berlin.de/
Matthias Schmidt
At first, I don't think it's necessary to encode a HP, but I'm interrested in that
topic.
What if you use a much more powerfull algorithm?
Then it would be much much much harder to get the Source, wouldn't it??
CU
Matthias
Jo Meder
Matthias Schmidt <Matthias...@iname.com> writes:
> What if you use a much more powerfull algorithm?
> Then it would be much much much harder to get the Source, wouldn't it??
Definitely not. Since all information required to decode the content
has to be retrieved to the browser by definition (the information has
to be there in order to render the page), there's no way to stop
anyone from storing the decoded result. On the other hand more
sophisticated encoding such as powerful encryption would slow down the
browser considerably.
Not to mention the fact that whatever technique you use to decode the
thing, your visitor has to use a browser capable of running the code
and has to be willing to activate that "feature".
Darin McGrew
> Not only that, the algorithm used to "protect" the content is
> So what it essentially does is reading the content backwards, skipping
> every other char on the first loop, then reading it backwards a second
> time to fetch the remaining chars.
Hey, I remember being *very* impressed with this kind of cypher when I
first read about codes and cyphers (back in 4th or 5th grade :-).
--
Darin McGrew, mcg...@alumni.stanford.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
"A little neglect may breed great mischief." -- Benjamin Franklin
Arunas Salkauskas
neighbour down the street from learning HTML.
If you already understand HTML and javascript, then sure, you can decipher
his page in a few minutes. At this point, you don't really need to, since
you already know all the intricacies of HTML that anybody's going to employ!
If you're Joe six-pack trying to setup a web page, then you're never going
to figure it out.
But, much like if you understand the intricacies of pretty much any computer
system, you can break in and see and modify whatever you want to.
Basically: -- Nothing -- is 100% secure, except a windows NT system that is
unplugged from the network and has no floppy disk...during a power outage
(assuming no UPS).
So technically, he's no more misleading than M$ claiming to have a secure
OS, in claiming that he's offering a product to make it impossible for
someone to read your mark up. Before you start into a rant about Microsoft,
no UNIX system is 100% secure either.
His product certainly does make it more difficult to learn from others,
which is perhaps the more disturbing thing. Most people who know anything
about HTML learned a large portion of what they know from looking at other
people's work. This is sort of the spirit of the internet, unless I'm
completely mistaken. We wouldn't be reading these newsgroups if we weren't
interested in either learning from others or helping others.
That's the most disturbing thing I find about his 'software'. That the
attempts to hide information will only hide it from the casual viewer who
will be making their own little home page. Any real professional would have
no problem breaking in, but already knows how any effects in the page can be
achieved. This is also misleading to his customers, who probably be more
inclined to do the opposite, that is, help out the little guys but keep the
big fish away. Of course this may be a complete misinterpretation of
corporate North America....
Just my 2 cents.
- Arunas Salkauskas
High Point Designs
http://www.highpointdesigns.com/
Art Sackett wrote in message <35B681B2...@see.sig>...
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>It would have to be "much much much" harder, because I used nothing more
>than:
>
> 1. Netscape Navigator 4.05
> 2. A file browser
> 3. A text editor
>
>There are a few simple facts that, so long as they remain true, prove
>that anyone trying to sell HTML "hiding" tools is a snake-oil salesman:
>
>1. Web browsers interpret plain old ASCII text;
>2. Once the file is served, your absolute control over it is lost;
>3. The internet is inherently insecure, and anything you don't want
>stolen should not be on, or accessible to, an HTTP server connected to
>the internet.
>
>Even passing your HTML through the cryptographically strong
>Diffie-Hellman algorithm will not alter the fact that it must be
>decrypted to ASCII text for the web browser to interpret it. Anyone with
>simple programming skills can perform an HTTP GET to request the service
>of a file, and it need not be a web browser doing it. All you need is a
>valid file name and the permission to retrieve it.
>
>It might not be long before the folks at M$ see this as a marketing tool
>and come up with additions to the FrontPage Extensions and Internet
>Exploder, but even then, their history in regards to security is so full
>of holes that I'd be looking for a crack to arrive on the net in less
>than a week. (Their implementation of PPTP and VPN is already wide open
>to attack!)
>
>-- Art
>
>Matthias Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> At first, I don't think it's necessary to encode a HP, but I'm
interrested in that
>> topic.
>> What if you use a much more powerfull algorithm?
>> Then it would be much much much harder to get the Source, wouldn't it??
>>
>> CU
>> Matthias
>
>--
>-----
>"When a stupid man does something he is ashamed of,
>he always declares that it is his duty."
>George Bernard Shaw
Hell Hound a.o.d. [AGQ2]
It doesn't do ANYTHING. I mean, it does less than I thought it would!
Art Sackett wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Hell Hound a.o.d. [AGQ2] wrote:
> >
> > looks like it didn't work. Well, now we know what we've been suspecting all along.
> >
>
> Have you ever known me to let one of these pukes steal from newbies? He
> might have gotten away with it, had he not emailed me personally. He
> invited the bear into the house, so he has no right to whine when the
> bear empties the fridge and shits on the carpet.
>
> Or crossposts for maximum exposure! (If you know of any newsgroups
> related to web design that I haven't hit, feel free to forward my
> original. That Kalev Leetaru clown needs to be shut down.)
>
> -- Art
> -----
> "When a stupid man does something he is ashamed of,
> he always declares that it is his duty."
> George Bernard Shaw
--
Hell Hound a.o.d. [AGQ2]
Arunas Salkauskas
http://www.gamacles.com/, that file is not 'encrypted'.
http://www.gamacles.com/Protected is apparently munged.
By just choosing save or save as, I have so far been unable to get this
thing to appear as expected! In neither Internet Explorer 4 nor NN 4.05!
View source in either browser also gives me mangled HTML.
In order to deobfuscate his code, I'd have to actually write some code to
change it back to normal. What are you guys using that you make it sound so
trivial?
It certainly will _not_ be compatible with any browser that doesn't have
JavaScript enabled...which would really suck for any company.
- Arunas Salkauskas
High Point Designs
http://www.highpointdesigns.com/
Hell Hound a.o.d. [AGQ2] wrote in message
<35B6AA9F...@geocities.com>...
Hell Hound a.o.d. [AGQ2]
Arunas Salkauskas wrote:
> Um... Golly which browser are you using? If you just go to
> http://www.gamacles.com/, that file is not 'encrypted'.
> http://www.gamacles.com/Protected is apparently munged.
>
> By just choosing save or save as, I have so far been unable to get this
> thing to appear as expected! In neither Internet Explorer 4 nor NN 4.05!
Works in NN4.05 fine. save the page, and the saved page isn't encrypted at all. maybe that's because the encryption is being
done client-side?
>
>
> View source in either browser also gives me mangled HTML.
But saving it should do fine.
Joshua Pruitt
browsing your cache. You'll find a fully decrypted version there.
I used Netscape 4.05 and Netscape 4.5 Beta, BTW.
-Josh
> Um... Golly which browser are you using? If you just go to
> http://www.gamacles.com/, that file is not 'encrypted'.
> http://www.gamacles.com/Protected is apparently munged.
>
> By just choosing save or save as, I have so far been unable to get this
> thing to appear as expected! In neither Internet Explorer 4 nor NN 4.05!
>
> View source in either browser also gives me mangled HTML.
>
Arunas Salkauskas
all. maybe that's because the encryption is being
>done client-side?
>
Still no such luck. Are you using some special version of the browser? I
just downloaded and installed NN 4.05, browser only. If I view
http://www.damachles.com/Protected/
I cannot, either by saving or by viewing the page source in Netscape, get an
unmagled version of the page. The fact that the decryption happens on the
client is fine, you still have to do the decryption - I still can't get it
to happen automagically.
Greg Berigan
>> Works in NN4.05 fine. save the page, and the saved page isn't encrypted at
>> all. maybe that's because the encryption is being done client-side?
> Still no such luck. Are you using some special version of the browser?
I haven't looked at the site yet, but I do know that document.write has
different side-effects depending on platform. Where on Windows 95 an
inlined Javascript employing document.write will disappear from source
viewing, replaced by what was written, on the Mac it is clearly visible.
So there are differences in platform implementations.
--
,=<#)-=# <http://incolor.inetnebr.com/wotw/> (The War of the Worlds)
,_--//--_,
_-~_-(####)-_~-_ Please pardon any typos. Bandwidth is often at a premium,
(#>_--'~--~`--_<#) with connection too sluggish to support post-editing.
Hell Hound a.o.d. [AGQ2]
much trouble.
Arunas Salkauskas wrote:
> >Works in NN4.05 fine. save the page, and the saved page isn't encrypted at
> all. maybe that's because the encryption is being
> >done client-side?
> >
>
> Still no such luck. Are you using some special version of the browser? I
> just downloaded and installed NN 4.05, browser only. If I view
>
> http://www.damachles.com/Protected/
>
> I cannot, either by saving or by viewing the page source in Netscape, get an
> unmagled version of the page. The fact that the decryption happens on the
> client is fine, you still have to do the decryption - I still can't get it
> to happen automagically.
>
> - Arunas Salkauskas
> High Point Designs
> http://www.highpointdesigns.com/
--
Arunas Salkauskas
systems. Interesting.
If I look in my cache (the file is only there in the NN cache while NN is
running, since the file 'expired' in 1982!) I still get only a mangled
version. Cool.
- Arunas Salkauskas
High Point Designs
http://www.highpointdesigns.com/
Hell Hound a.o.d. [AGQ2] wrote in message
<35B781A2...@geocities.com>...
Hell Hound a.o.d. [AGQ2]
Art Sackett wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Joshua Pruitt wrote:
> >
> > "Save as" didn't work for me either, but something else did: Try
> > browsing your cache. You'll find a fully decrypted version there.
> >
> > I used Netscape 4.05 and Netscape 4.5 Beta, BTW.
>
> There you go. Netscape 4.05 on Debian Linux 2.0, browsed the cache using
> TkDesk, opened the file in XEMacs... posted to usenet from Netscape Mail
> & Discussions. Nothing to it. Two minutes from page load to usenet post.
Interesting way to do it. I did a file find in the dir for files less than the saved one's size. I looked at them (IE3), and
after about 30 seconds, I found it. Of course I'm using Win95 (sux; need to put on NT), and am still a newbie to Linux (redhat
5.1 is on a machine here), but due to the speed increase, I think I need to start using it a little...
>
>
> Quoting that Kalev Leetaru bonehead again: "But, while a page protected
> with Page Protect may be decrypted by a determined hacker, doing so
> requires a fair amount of programming
> skill, and a working knowledge of JavaScript."
>
> Ignorance or fraud?
YES.
> Caveat Emptor!
>
> -- Art
> -----
> "When a stupid man does something he is ashamed of,
> he always declares that it is his duty."
> George Bernard Shaw
--
Hell Hound a.o.d. [AGQ2]
;)
Art Sackett wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Hell Hound a.o.d. [AGQ2] wrote:
> >
> > BTW, anobody know how to get this guy shut down? He needs to be.
>
> I sent the following email to lee...@gamacles.com a moment ago:
>
> -----
> Greetings:
>
> As you might already be aware, there has been discussion in various
> usenet newsgroups regarding both the promotion of Page Protect and the
> serious shortcomings of the product itself. I initiated this discussion
> after receiving an unsolicited email from you.
> [snipped the stuff; read the previous post]
Hell Hound a.o.d. [AGQ2]
Arunas Salkauskas wrote:
--
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
<arunas@a!nm.org> uttered:
>I have to admit, though, that his 'encryption' will certainly stop my
>neighbour down the street from learning HTML.
Not only that, it will also make Mr. Corporate "We Don't Trust
Javascript" User not see the page... :-)
("For $100, we will reduce your audience while providing a false cover
of security through obscurity.")
--
WAR IS PEACE. to...@online.no
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. http://www.pvv.org/%7etoriver/
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
HTML IS LAYOUT. - With excuses to George Orwell (RIP)
Ian Davey
>On Wed, 22 Jul 1998 20:56:54 -0600, "Arunas Salkauskas"
><arunas@a!nm.org> uttered:
>
>>I have to admit, though, that his 'encryption' will certainly stop my
>>neighbour down the street from learning HTML.
>
>Not only that, it will also make Mr. Corporate "We Don't Trust
>Javascript" User not see the page... :-)
>
>("For $100, we will reduce your audience while providing a false cover
>of security through obscurity.")
And not only that, it offers a perfect way to hide your page from those pesky
search engines. So it's thumbs up all round.
ian.
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
uttered:
>And not only that, it offers a perfect way to hide your page from those pesky
>search engines. So it's thumbs up all round.
They should implement it in Javascript 1.2, thus limiting it to NSC
4.x - that would buy them monopoly. No other 'source hiding tool'
restricts the audience that much. :-)
Jo Meder
unape...@hotmail.com (Ian Davey) writes:
> And not only that, it offers a perfect way to hide your page from
> those pesky search engines. So it's thumbs up all round.
Why's that? Wouldn't you like your page to be found by the keyword
"gnafrq<y21wgrms"? ;-)))
Kalev Leetaru
Our software performs exactly as we stated. It is a DETERRENT to online theft.
We have tested our software on the following systems:
Windows NT 4.0 with Netscape Navigator 4.04
Windows 95 with Netscape Navigator 3.01
Windows 95 with Netscape Navigator 4.02
Windows 95 with Netscape Navigator 4.03
Windows 95 with Netscape Navigator 4.04
Windows 95 with Netscape Navigator 4.05 preview 1 (alpha)
Windows 95 with Netscape Navigator 4.05 beta
Windows 95 with Netscape Navigator 4.05 final
Windows 95 with Explorer 3.0
Windows 95 with Explorer 3.1
Windows 95 with Explorer 3.2
Windows 95 with Explorer 4.0
Windows 95 with AOL 3.0
PowerPC with Netscape Navigator 3.01
PowerPC with Netscape Navigator 4.03
PowerPC with with Netscape Navigator 4.04
PowerPC with Netscape Navigator 4.05 final
PowerPC with Explorer 3.2
Macintosh with Netscape Navigator 3.01
Solaris with Netscape Navigator 4.04
Solaris with Netscape Navigator 4.05
Solaris with Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0
We have not been able to duplicate your cache read on any of these systems. We
were not aware that Internet browsers on Lynux operating systems have that
loophole because we do not have access to that operating system. We designed
our software for Windows NT and 95 which combined have 95% of the new computer
market.
A creative unique design of a page can take days to weeks. Our software makes
it more difficult and in many cases should prevent beginners from directly
copying a page. Much of the copyright infringement on the web is done by new
web users who do not know that designed pages are not supposed to be copied.
We also did not send you a an unscolicited email. You responded to a request
for more information by a fellow Usenet member which was directly related to
our product. Your response to this member was that there was absolutely no
software which could prevent content theft. Do to this response, we felt that
you would find knowledge of our software directly benefitial.
Tero Paananen
>Dear Mr. Sackett:
Uh, you forgot something:
Solaris with telnet
Win95 with telnet
NT 4.0 with telnet
NT 3.0 with telnet
Win 3.1 with telnet
Linux with telnet
PowerPC with telnet
And *ANY* platform with JavaScript disabled.
> A creative unique design of a page can take days to weeks.
Really? I'm sure if you say so.
> Our software makes
>it more difficult and in many cases should prevent beginners from directly
>copying a page.
*ANYTHING* makes it more difficult for newbies to do shit.
Newbies are not the ones posing as a threat for online copyright
violations. Who cares if a Joe Six-Pack from AOL copies a site,
even a commercial one.
-TPP
Greg Berigan
> Dear Mr. Sackett:
>
> Our software performs exactly as we stated. It is a DETERRENT to
> online theft.
:
> Your response to this member was that there was absolutely no
> software which could prevent content theft. Do to this response, we
> felt that you would find knowledge of our software directly benefitial.
So your "DETERRENT" was put up by you as an example of software that
"could prevent content theft".
If it couldn't prevent it, it shouldn't have been put forth as a
preventer.
Hell Hound a.o.d. [AGQ2]
Tero Paananen wrote:
> In <6pac3j$5nt$1...@news13.ispnews.com> lee...@gamacles.com (Kalev Leetaru) writes:
>
> >Dear Mr. Sackett:
>
> >Our software performs exactly as we stated. It is a DETERRENT to online theft.
I think he's speaking of using paint for the images, and some clunky conversion program...amd maybe a WYSIWYG that crashes every
ten minutes too.once you get the design you like, It _may_ take a few days, but a week?! I'd agree that that's pushing it a
little
>
>
> > Our software makes
> >it more difficult and in many cases should prevent beginners from directly
> >copying a page.
>
> *ANYTHING* makes it more difficult for newbies to do shit.
>
> Newbies are not the ones posing as a threat for online copyright
> violations. Who cares if a Joe Six-Pack from AOL copies a site,
> even a commercial one.
>
> -TPP
--
Hell Hound a.o.d. [AGQ2]
Kalev Leetaru wrote:
> We have not been able to duplicate your cache read on any of these systems. We
> were not aware that Internet browsers on Lynux operating systems have that
> loophole because we do not have access to that operating system. We designed
> our software for Windows NT and 95 which combined have 95% of the new computer
> market.
>
> A creative unique design of a page can take days to weeks. Our software makes
> it more difficult and in many cases should prevent beginners from directly
> copying a page. Much of the copyright infringement on the web is done by new
> web users who do not know that designed pages are not supposed to be copied.
>
> We also did not send you a an unscolicited email. You responded to a request
> for more information by a fellow Usenet member which was directly related to
> our product. Your response to this member was that there was absolutely no
> software which could prevent content theft. Do to this response, we felt that
> you would find knowledge of our software directly benefitial.
--
Art Sackett
reply as it was emailed to Kalev Leetaru earlier today:
-----
Greetings:
Your website plainly states "you can prevent visitors to your site
from being able to view the HTML source of your web pages, and stop
them from stealing your copyrighted site."
This is an untrue statement, as I have demonstrated by posting the
HTML source of your demonstration page into usenet newsgroups.
I was able to view your HTML using the following steps in Debian Linux
2.0:
1. View "protected" page in Netscape 4.05;
2. Browse the directories located in /home/user/.netscape/cache/* to
locate the appropriate timestamp and approximate file size;
3. Open this file using XEmacs.
No other actions were taken.
I suspect that this same sequence would work in Solaris. Other users
have reported success doing the analogue of this in other OSes,
including Windows95. Again, see usenet in the alt.html.* hierarchy.
I remain firm in my committment to notify the appropriate legal
authorities if this product is still offered for sale on August 3, 1998.
-- Art Sackett
-----
Kalev Leetaru wrote:
>
> Dear Mr. Sackett:
>
> Our software performs exactly as we stated. It is a DETERRENT to online theft.
> We have tested our software on the following systems:
<snip to end>
Art Sackett
> Interesting way to do it. I did a file find in the dir for files less than the saved one's size. I looked at them (IE3), and
> after about 30 seconds, I found it. Of course I'm using Win95 (sux; need to put on NT), and am still a newbie to Linux (redhat
> 5.1 is on a machine here), but due to the speed increase, I think I need to start using it a little...
I'd like to make sure that I understand you correctly. You were, in
fact, able to view the HTML source using a text editor such as Notepad?
If so, Kalev Leetaru's problems are even greater than I suspected. If
you can perform just those steps to retrieve decyphered (I won't call
his simple little alogorithm encryption) source on the platform upon
which the script was developed, then the competence of the vendor in all
other areas is suspect, as well.
I'll bet you already know my thoughts on the Linux OS. One day, the
computing world will be ruled by a penguin, and we'll look back on M$ as
just a phase in the process of the technology's maturation. "Remember
when computers were mostly just cool toys?", we'll say :D
Joshua Pruitt
> We have tested our software on the following systems:
<RANT>
That *sounds* reasonable enough. A lock isn't unbreakable, it's just
more hassle than most people wanna mess with. The thing is, though, this
Javascript is SO much easier to crack than a physical lock, that anyone
who half knows what they're doing and has the inclination to do so can
crack it. It gives clients a false sense of security (against a merely
perceived "threat", I might add.) It's capitalizing on fear caused by
ignorance. (not to be confused with "stupidity"...)
> Windows NT 4.0 with Netscape Navigator 4.04
> Windows 95 with Netscape Navigator 3.01
> Windows 95 with Netscape Navigator 4.02
> Windows 95 with Netscape Navigator 4.03
> Windows 95 with Netscape Navigator 4.04
> Windows 95 with Netscape Navigator 4.05 preview 1 (alpha)
> Windows 95 with Netscape Navigator 4.05 beta
> Windows 95 with Netscape Navigator 4.05 final
> Windows 95 with Explorer 3.0
> Windows 95 with Explorer 3.1
> Windows 95 with Explorer 3.2
> Windows 95 with Explorer 4.0
> Windows 95 with AOL 3.0
> PowerPC with Netscape Navigator 3.01
> PowerPC with Netscape Navigator 4.03
> PowerPC with with Netscape Navigator 4.04
> PowerPC with Netscape Navigator 4.05 final
> PowerPC with Explorer 3.2
> Macintosh with Netscape Navigator 3.01
> Solaris with Netscape Navigator 4.04
> Solaris with Netscape Navigator 4.05
> Solaris with Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0
You actually got IE to run on Slowaris?... First of all, "Wow"! Second
of all, "Why"?
> We have not been able to duplicate your cache read on any of these systems. We
> were not aware that Internet browsers on Lynux operating systems have that
> loophole because we do not have access to that operating system.
Right. That darned "Lynux cache loophole"! Ha. Damn those hippie
hackers! They should take their commie pinko software back to Finland
and let good honest hardworking Americans like Gates and co. make a
living in software the good ol' fashioned way dammit! hehehe.
The cache-read trick works on my borg box as well as in Linux
(pronounced "lih-nuks" and spelled with an "i"). Easily reproducible.
Either MS NotePad or GNU Emacs work just fine.
> A creative unique design of a page can take days to weeks. Our software makes
> it more difficult and in many cases should prevent beginners from directly
> copying a page.
Yeah man! It took me a MONTH to do a good framed site! And now that I
finally learned that trade secret, I'll never share it with ANYBODY!
You see, HTML is very limited and easily reproducible. Fact is, there is
not *one* HTML **trick** out there that I can't find a tuturial or
example for somewhere, either online or in a book. So go ahead and
"protect" your site with your petty little "technique". Now that it took
you a month to figger out your Javascript mouseover trick and you now
"guard" that secret, I can just go to somewhere like ProjectCool and do
the same thing myself. And does me having mouseovers too make your site
less valuable? Heck no. Mouseovers, for example, can look **totally
different** on every page, although the technique is the same.
And besides, if I do happen to see something abnormally cool, yeah, I'll
take a look at the source and learn from it. This is a far cry from
"copywrite infringement". You cannot copywrite technique, I don't care
what anyone says. Same thing as this: I might emulate another's "writing
style" and augment my own with it in my own book. But they're still my
words; no ideas are "stolen".
> Much of the copyright infringement on the web is done by new web users who do
> not know that designed pages are not supposed to be copied.
It is NOT copyright infringement (nor morally wrong) for a newbie to
copy a page's source, look at it, change things, change all graphics and
all words and style to their liking and publish it online. This is
similar to painting in the "Van Gogh style". While it may be wrong to
*repaint* his painting or photocopy it and put your name on it, it is in
no way wrong for a painting newbie with an as-of-yet undeveloped style
who admires Van Gogh to study his painting, and then inspired paint a
brand new unique picture with Van Gogh style colors and brush strokes.
This is how any craft is learned, then built upon by every successive
generation. While a blacksmith's product is his, his style can be
reproduced and embellished upon. Embellishing previous styles is how art
evolves and refines. "Endeavor to surpass your master" as the Japanese
would say. Each generation gets better.
"Emulation, but not duplication." You learn from watching others in any
craft-like endeavor.
And finally, not that I really want to be the insulting type and get
into this, but for guys who sell "HTML protection"... thier page is
nothing to write home about.
"But those guys copied what I did!!! It looks so similar!!!" Cry babies.
Deal. That's the price of doing something real cool and being a **trend
setter**. Emulating trends and technique, and plagiarism are totally
unrelated. (And plagiarism can happen with *no* HTML source visible
anyway. It's called "Copy-Paste then put my name on it".)
The rampant emulation of CNET's former "side bars" style did not lessen
the value of that site one bit. The **content** made that site. Now
someone reposting their stories and putting themselves down as the
author... That would be wrong as well as true copywrite infringement.
"He infringed on my copywrite!"
:: "Did he misrepresent himself as the author of your material? Did he
take what you said and distort it to use against you?" ::
"No... but he used the English language in a way similar to me. He used
some of my expressions and idioms. He had the same accent. He spelled
'color' with a 'u' like I do. Newbies to English should NOT be allowed
to blatantly copy the linguistic techniques of others!"
</RANT>
*whew*
-Josh
Joshua Pruitt
HTML is NOT A PRODUCT. If I design a site for a fee I am not selling the
HTML nor the ascii text file in which it resides. You cannot sell it or
copyright it. It's just a language. A way to transport information. HTML
is instead a MEANS TO AN END. It is what HTML helps us *do* that is
important. The services it helps us provide, the things it helps us
sell, and the service of wielding the HTML tool itself ARE sellable
products. To protect HTML source itself is just plain silly. Not to
mention a waste of time and resources. HTML source is NOT content.
Content is content. Source is method.
As long as peeking at HTML source helps people to learn how to better
understand and use HTML effectively, I endorse it. It's better than that
made with FrontPage mangled garbage so rampant on the web today.
Learning to better speak a language by listening to others is not
plaigerism. It is not the (alone - meaningless) words themselves, but
the ideas those words transport and they're precise aestheic arrangement
that are important and can be plaigerized. I hate to see people do that.
Can you honestly call an impessionist who is *not* Monet a "plagerist"?
Should Monet have copyrighted his special shade of "Ochre Gold" and his
highlighted and smudged wide-brushed sidestrokes so that noone else
could ever use and expand upon them in their own paintings? Am I not
allowed to look **real close** at his canvas so I can gain more insight
into how exactly he did it? Or should those subtler details be hidden?
-Josh
Martyn Humphreys
deter - not protect! Is this an update? Also, when viewing it form offline,
it says it is not valid domain, and closes the browser. Is tihs new too?
==============
Martyn Humphreys
____________________________________________________
Martyn Humphreys: martyn.h...@virgin.net
Home Page: http://freespace.virgin.net/david.humphreys2/martyn
Remove NOSPAM to reply.
Hell Hound a.o.d. [AGQ2]
And I can see the second part of your message happenning, BTW. All we need are more ppl who are comp-literate, and Linux needs a
little more publicity. those two things would help that part along quite nicely (The only reason everybody use windoze XX now is
that everything is made for it, really).
Art Sackett wrote:
--
Hell Hound a.o.d. [AGQ2]
1601!
Abyway, it's still faudulent since it has features of:
Protect page layouts from theft
^^^^^^^
Protect JavaScript programs from theft
Protect HTML and DHTML code from theft
Layouts cannot be copyrighted. Layouts can also only be kept from theft by not putting the page on the web.
Now though, it seems to be better as far as the encrypting part goes. I can't see it from a NN save anymore,and it was never
saved into my IE cache.
Martyn Humphreys wrote:
> Martyn Humphreys <martyn.h...@virgin.net>
>
> Martyn Humphreys
> <martyn.h...@virgin.net>
> Southampton
> Hampshire
> So16 3PQ
> UK
> Additional Information:
> Version 2.1
> Last Name Humphreys
> First NameMartyn
> Label HomeSouthampton, Hampshire So16 3PQ UK
> Revision 19980725T170241Z
Dan Evans
Kalev Leetaru <lee...@gamacles.com> wrote in message
6pac3j$5nt$1...@news13.ispnews.com...
>Dear Mr. Sackett:
-----snip out the waffle-------
>were not aware that Internet browsers on Lynux operating systems have that
Any one else think this guy should learn to spell `Linux` before he goes
spouting ot us?
Just a thought.
Dan
Kalev Leetaru
We stand by our statement that the average user would not be able to recover
the HTML source of a document protected by Page Protect. The software is a
good deterrent to content theft for many users. We have made a few slight
modifications to the code. Please go to our site at [http://www.gamacles.com]
and go to the encryption example.
We have been unable to obtain a decrypted version of the HTML source using
either the "Save As" command under the "File" menu, or the "Save As" command
available on the right-click menu. We have also been unable to obtain the
source using the "View Source" command, or by browsing our cache directory.
Besides writing a complex decryption program, what other method would an
individual have of retrieving the HTML source of a protected document?
However, Mr Sackett has stated, "this product only keeps the ignorant from
liberating HTML source", that any NEWBIE could see the HTML with minimal
effort. We have already had numerous comments from individuals stating that
they can no longer obtain the source of our protected page. We do admit that
the code can be decrypted by a knowledgeable programmer, but doing so requires
the programming of a complete decryption filter, far beyond the capabilities of
the average user.
We welcome all readers to follow Mr. Sackett's instructions on how to bypass
Page Protect's security, and see for yourself how easy or hard it is to obtain
the HTML source of our protected page. Our server logs indicate that only a
few readers have actually gone to our site. Look for yourself at our example
and be the judge of whether our software would deter the average visitor from
directly stealing your code.
Our web site is located at [http://www.gamacles.com]
We look forward to hearing your comments on the ease or difficulty of getting
at the HTML code. We acknowledge that someone with good programming skills can
break the encryption, however content thieves are not usually programmers.
Ken
the source....but that doesn't mean everything was fine...see I use
Opera, which along with MANY other browsers doesn't support
JavaScript...so all i got when i viewed your page was a message saying
"Please wait while the document decodes..." ... now i would never use
this program to protect pages, because i for one want the majority of
internet users to be able to view my site. And thats just the people
who CAN'T use javascript...theres even more that just WON'T. many
people turn their java/javascript off for security reasons... so now
even more people are locked out of your site..
overall i think this is a no go....sorry guys..
ken
Blackdeath
[...]
>1. Web browsers interpret plain old ASCII text;
That's the main thing that people must understand. For a browser to
display the page, it must be retreived as plain ASCII text. Browsers
don't decrypt/decipher the pages, they interpret the HTML text as-is.
If an HTML file WERE decrypted, and the browser COULDN'T decrypt it, it
would be displayed as gibberish.
Obviously, if the browser can decrypt the text, so can Joe User.
- Blackdeath - s_hons...@13usa.net
-- Web: http://tinys.oix.com/blackdeath
--- ICQ UIN # 3484915
---- Remove 'thirteen' to reply
Greg Berigan
> We have been unable to obtain a decrypted version of the HTML source using
> either the "Save As" command under the "File" menu, or the "Save As" command
> available on the right-click menu. We have also been unable to obtain the
> source using the "View Source" command, or by browsing our cache directory.
> Besides writing a complex decryption program, what other method would an
> individual have of retrieving the HTML source of a protected document?
If you want to press the issue, I could put up a web page that would
accept a URL and spit out the decrypted page for everyone to see, but
then I don't care that much about it (yet).
It wouldn't even have to employ a direct method, just behave exactly
like a browser and spit out the decoded markup. The HTML and Javascript
engines out of the Netscape 5.0 public source would be sufficient to do
the decoding. Being free to use by anyone with a web browser would
eliminate the advanced knowledge requirement.
> We do admit that
> the code can be decrypted by a knowledgeable programmer, but doing so
> requires the programming of a complete decryption filter, far beyond
> the capabilities of the average user.
A decryption filter you provide with the page at that.
Jo Meder
lee...@gamacles.com (Kalev Leetaru) writes:
> Besides writing a complex decryption program
[...]
> We do admit that the code can be decrypted by a knowledgeable
> programmer, but doing so requires the programming of a complete
> decryption filter,
Oh, come on, this is not to hard to do. Since you insist in stating
that this task was "complex" and needed a "knowledgeable programmer" I
finally gave it a try.
So there you are, 67 lines (many blank or comments) of quickly hacked
together Python-Code completely decoding your "encrypted" page,
including your "second stage" with the swapped around bytes. This
script is available upon request to anyone interested, just send me a
mail. It is neither beautiful nor bugfree, but it proves my point.
The problem with your aproach is that you have to give away all
information needed to decode the page to enable the browser to decode
it. You cannot make the coding overly complex, since this would slow
down the whole thing. So what stops me from decoding it myself,
especially when standalone Javascript-Implementations become
available?
> far beyond the capabilities of the average user.
Depends on what you expect to be the "average user".
> We acknowledge that someone with good programming skills can break
> the encryption, however content thieves are not usually programmers.
Do you have any facts to prove this assertion?
Dan Evans
6pac3j$5nt$1...@news13.ispnews.com...
>Dear Mr. Sackett:
-----snip out the waffle-------
>were not aware that Internet browsers on Lynux operating systems have that
-----snip out a load of old bollocks written by a drivleing madman----
Or does he mean `Lynx`
Just a thought.
Dan
Hell Hound a.o.d. [AGQ2]
Kalev Leetaru wrote:
> You be the Judge
>
> We stand by our statement that the
>
Define:
> average user
> would not be able to recover
> the HTML source of a document protected by Page Protect. The software is a
> good deterrent to content theft for many users.
And a good way to keep ppl from learning how HTML behaves too. I learned html by using WYSIWYG, text editors, and using source
from ppl's sites. The code can also be reproduced more often than not, with very sinple HTML knowledge, so why try to sell
something no one really needs?
> We have made a few slight
> modifications to the code.
Yeah. What I could do so easily before has become harder. your page protect, however I would dispise anyone using it, is better
now, and would require simple JS knowledge to undo. Since I'm learning Visual Basic, I have no such knowledge, and cannot get
the code.
> Please go to our site at [http://www.gamacles.com]
> and go to the encryption example.
>
> We have been unable to obtain a decrypted version of the HTML source using
> either the "Save As" command under the "File" menu, or the "Save As" command
> available on the right-click menu. We have also been unable to obtain the
> source using the "View Source" command, or by browsing our cache directory.
> Besides writing a complex decryption program, what other method would an
> individual have of retrieving the HTML source of a protected document?
>
> However, Mr Sackett has stated, "this product only keeps the ignorant from
> liberating HTML source", that any NEWBIE could see the HTML with minimal
> effort. We have already had numerous comments from individuals stating that
> they can no longer obtain the source of our protected page. We do admit that
> the code can be decrypted by a knowledgeable programmer, but doing so requires
> the programming of a complete decryption filter, far beyond the capabilities of
> the average user.
OK, you made it better. I really hope no one falls for it though, even tho it now works. Once again, I dislike the idea of
keeping someone from learning how some 'neat trick' on the page was accomplished, since that (and playing around with that
source once you get it) is prolly the most effective way of learning much of HTML.
>
>
> We welcome all readers to follow Mr. Sackett's instructions on how to bypass
> Page Protect's security, and see for yourself how easy or hard it is to obtain
> the HTML source of our protected page. Our server logs indicate that only a
> few readers have actually gone to our site. Look for yourself at our example
> and be the judge of whether our software would deter the average visitor from
> directly stealing your code.
>
> Our web site is located at [http://www.gamacles.com]
>
> We look forward to hearing your comments on the ease or difficulty of getting
> at the HTML code. We acknowledge that someone with good programming skills can
> break the encryption, however content thieves are not usually programmers.
Not usually, but I must say, plenty of ppl who know HTML may be. I must say that learning HTML has helped A _lot_ with VB, since
most of the things, I just see: OK, so this is how it's done...; where-as many would be: Huh? How's that?; and play around for
hours figuring it out. So expect quite a few good Web Designers to be programmers, at least to some extent.and your image
protect is still utterly useless, because I can copy an image using these two things:
1. The printscreen key
2. MS Paint (although better resluts come from PSP)
Kalev Leetaru
designs. Many people have done the same thing in the past and it has been an
invaluable tool. We do not necessarily endorse the encryption of HTML. We
just want to offer a tool that would give a designer a method of deterring the
direct theft of his work and possibly setting up a mirror site. You yourself
have a copyright statement on your homepage. If your page was a commercial
site and your company had paid 100’s of dollars to design a unique look,
wouldn’t you want your company’s interest protected. The Page Protect page, at
minimum, serves as a warning that this page is copyrighted.
While Print Screen will yield an acceptable facsimile of a protected
image, the copy is by no means an exact duplicate of the original. Since both
Netscape Navigator and Microsoft Internet Explorer display images at below 72
dpi, a significant amount of resolution is lost. The finer details of the
image become less pronounced, and the image’s global palette is severely
reduced. Even with a state-of-the-art machine, with ALL graphics settings at
their maximum values, the image will still suffer from degradation, while on
lesser machines the deterioration is much more noticeable.
In article <35BBDE48...@geocities.com>, reape...@geocities.com says...
Hell Hound a.o.d. [AGQ2]
onto a page. I used MSIE, and after printscreening it and saving it as something else (it was a 1% compression jpg), it could
see no difference with them side-by-side, at any zoom level. NN and AOL do this horribly to an image tho. But that goes for any
image, and if you do it right, no one will ever notice.
my screen:
800x600
24bit color
60hz refresh
Normally I use 16bit color at 70hz though.
Hell Hound a.o.d. [AGQ2]
Because good images are far harder to create than html, and require more steps to them. When masks and layers are involved, this
becomes even harder. as an example of an image that isn't that difficult to create, I have a post (header: AGQ2 pic) at
alt.binaries.games.quake and alt.binaries.comp-graphics, that is fairly simle, but took 20 minutes, 30 steps
_once_I_know_exactly_how_to_do_it_, it actually was a trial and error process with knowledge of the effects I wanted, and perfect
knowledge of what I wanted the end product to be. So if you ever get the imageprotect to work fully and somehow nullify
printscreen, that would make it worth while for a corporate site. (I know screen captures can be used, but the number of ppl
greatly decreases just with the printcreen)
Hell Hound a.o.d. [AGQ2] wrote:
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
uttered:
>So there you are, 67 lines (many blank or comments) of quickly hacked
>together Python-Code
Um, where? :-)
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
uttered:
>I use
>Opera, which along with MANY other browsers doesn't support
>JavaScript...
It does support Javascript, but apparently the code used in that page
was not something Opera likes... We'll have to wait to see if 3.5 has
a better engine.
Or we could go on telling people not to use that "security through
obscurity"-hack. :-)
Bill James
problem with their web page, and it turns out to be encrypted to keep all us
bogey(people) from looking at the precious source code.
Bill James
william...@mci2000.com
Jo Meder <j...@delorges.in-berlin.de> wrote in message
6ph9g2$o3m$1...@delorges.in-berlin.de...
|
|
|lee...@gamacles.com (Kalev Leetaru) writes:
|> Besides writing a complex decryption program
|[...]
|> We do admit that the code can be decrypted by a knowledgeable
|> programmer, but doing so requires the programming of a complete
|> decryption filter,
|
|Oh, come on, this is not to hard to do. Since you insist in stating
|that this task was "complex" and needed a "knowledgeable programmer" I
|finally gave it a try.
|
|So there you are, 67 lines (many blank or comments) of quickly hacked
|together Python-Code completely decoding your "encrypted" page,
|including your "second stage" with the swapped around bytes. This
|script is available upon request to anyone interested, just send me a
|mail. It is neither beautiful nor bugfree, but it proves my point.
|
|The problem with your aproach is that you have to give away all
|information needed to decode the page to enable the browser to decode
|it. You cannot make the coding overly complex, since this would slow
|down the whole thing. So what stops me from decoding it myself,
|especially when standalone Javascript-Implementations become
|available?
|
|
|> far beyond the capabilities of the average user.
|
|Depends on what you expect to be the "average user".
|
|
|> We acknowledge that someone with good programming skills can break
|> the encryption, however content thieves are not usually programmers.
|
Shannon
similar
resource file as does "Visual Applet Configurator v1.1". It creates a *.vac
file
that contains all info on the applet. It cannot be changed directly. It
must be recompiled
if changes are to be made and re-uploaded.
The files can be copied, but the information cannot be changed by simply
changing
the params of the applet.
Art Sackett wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Hell Hound a.o.d. [AGQ2] wrote:
> >
> > BTW, anobody know how to get this guy shut down? He needs to be.
>
> I sent the following email to lee...@gamacles.com a moment ago:
>
> -----
> Greetings:
>
> As you might already be aware, there has been discussion in various
> usenet newsgroups regarding both the promotion of Page Protect and the
> serious shortcomings of the product itself. I initiated this discussion
> after receiving an unsolicited email from you.
>
> I was able to view the HTML source of your demonstration "protected"
> page using nothing more than Netscape Navigator 4.05, a file browser,
> and a text editor. The skills I employed were very basic and widely
> known by most computer users. I used no other software.
>
> Having proven that your Page Protect product fails completely to live up
> to the claims presented both on your web site and in your email to me, I
> request that you withdraw the product from the market immediately and do
> not rerelease a similar product until it has been proven to meet it's
> stated purpose.
>
> If Page Protect is still offered for sale on your web site on August 3,
> 1998 (ten days from the date of this contact), I will contact the
> appropriate authorities in Urbana, Illinois regarding your intentionally
> deceptive advertising and possible attempt to commit fraud. I may also
> contact the appropriate federal authorities, as internet business is
> also interstate business.
>
> Please wihthraw Page Protect from the market.
>
> Regards,
>
> Art Sackett
> -----
>
> I fully intend to follow through if this product is not withdrawn, and I
> urge others to join me in this effort if the product is still advertised
> on August 3, 1998. Any of you who have received email from this guy that
> might prove interesting, I'd appreciate it if you'd hang on to it until
> some time after the 3rd if you'd like to help shut this guy down.
>
> If any who happens across this post is in or near Urbana (or even in the
> State of Illinois) and knows or can easily find out how to contact the
> appropriate consumer advocacy agency, please let us all know by posting.
>
> According to the Internic, Gamacles is:
>
> Gamacles (GAMACLES-DOM)
> 2504 Boudreau
> Urbana, IL 61801
> USA
>
> Domain Name: GAMACLES.COM
>
> Administrative Contact:
> Hannes Leetaru (HL146-ORG) ord...@NET66.COM
> 217 328 4654
> Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
> Toeppen, Dennis (DT233) big...@KICKSON66.COM
> 217 344 6700
> Billing Contact:
> Hannes Leetaru (HL146-ORG) ord...@NET66.COM
> 217 328 4654
>
> This will come in handy if formal complaints need to be registered.
Dan Evans
PTBL
sorry, its 05:00 am (local) and I am easily amused at such times though i
probably wont upload this until tommorrow afternoon/evening
Dan
>And not only that, it offers a perfect way to hide your page from those
pesky
>search engines. So it's thumbs up all round.
>ian.
Dan Evans
strongly about this.
Just who are the professionals worried about theft that he is talking about?
No one I have spoken to is the slightest bit worried about it , isn`t
immitation the sincerest form of flattery?
I learnt most of my (modest in my opinion, but I get paid for what I do)
skills from others work, see a good page, view the source, how did they do
it? cut out the bits you dont want, change bits, add bits, put three good
ideas together, build on what others have done, as others will build on what
I have done.
The fact that so many questions from newbies here are answered with a `try
this, it should help`, and a wodge of code simply goes to prove that we
arn`t worried about an, as far as I can see, imagined `threat`.
Any one is welcome to use my code, I feel quite chuffed that someone else
wants something that I have created. Go ahead, take it, its meant to be
downloaded anyway.
Just a thought
Dan
Martyn Humphreys
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen wrote in message <35bd212...@news1.telia.com>...
>>together Python-Code
>
Read the whole message- said him,/her a mail and you'll get it. Thankyou Jo,
for not reposting it, in the two threads devoted to this, i must have
downloaded the code fifty times!
Mark Evans
> Just so we're all on the same page in this continuing saga, here is my
> reply as it was emailed to Kalev Leetaru earlier today:
>
> from being able to view the HTML source of your web pages, and stop
> them from stealing your copyrighted site."
An utterly daft claim. In order for people to view the web page you
*HAVE* to send HTML back to their browser. It's utterly trivial for
a competant person to write a program which will download HTML from
a website. It's quite possible that someone could do this using
programs such as "netcat" too.
--
Mark Evans
St. Peter's CofE High School
Phone: +44 1392 204764 X109
Fax: +44 1392 204763
Mark Evans
Or a Lynx running on a Linux machine... Anyway claiming not to have access
to freely available software dosn't help the posters credibility.
dope...@wellofwishes.org
On 27 Jul 1998 02:50:47 GMT, lee...@gamacles.com (Kalev Leetaru)
wrote:
> While Print Screen will yield an acceptable facsimile of a protected
>image, the copy is by no means an exact duplicate of the original. Since both
>Netscape Navigator and Microsoft Internet Explorer display images at below 72
>dpi, a significant amount of resolution is lost. The finer details of the
>image become less pronounced, and the image’s global palette is severely
>reduced. Even with a state-of-the-art machine, with ALL graphics settings at
>their maximum values, the image will still suffer from degradation, while on
>lesser machines the deterioration is much more noticeable.
I went to your webpage where you show off the Image Protection, and I
couldn't save the protected image by clicking on it (no context menu
appeared). However, when I took a look in my browser's cache folder (I
had cleared the cache before going to your site) I noticed 2 files w/o
the extension. Norton Commander's file view revealed a HTML file and
something with a header that looked remarkably like it could be a JPG
image. I gave that file the correct extension and my image viewer
happily displayed your protected picture. So, there is no need to do
the screen capture/print screen, because the original image is already
on your HDD.
Blackdeath
>We stand by our statement that the average user would not be able to recover
>the HTML source of a document protected by Page Protect. The software is a
>good deterrent to content theft for many users. We have made a few slight
>modifications to the code. Please go to our site at [http://www.gamacles.com]
>and go to the encryption example.
Hmm.. One question, does this look familiar?
<SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript">
function a2(fdk39eu58)
{
if(wiu54==0)
{
document.write(fdk39eu58);
}
else
{
var dk29w="";
for (var o02kd=fdk39eu58.length-1;o02kd>=0;o02kd=o02kd-2)
{
dk29w=dk29w+fdk39eu58.charAt(o02kd)
}
for (var o02kde=fdk39eu58.length-2;o02kde>=0;o02kde=o02kde-2)
{
dk29w=dk29w+fdk39eu58.charAt(o02kde)
}
document.write(dk29w.substring(1));
}
}
if(location.hostname.indexOf(".gamacles.com")==-1)
{
alert("This page is not authorized to load under this domain!");
document.close();
wiu54=0;
close();
}
else
{
wiu54=1;
}
</SCRIPT>
I found that in your "encrypted" page.
If that does, indeed, look like your work, I'll post
A) The entire page, in it's true HTML form.
B) The program I've written that will decode ANY page created with your
program.
Have a nice day!
Art Sackett
> Just who are the professionals worried about theft that he is talking about?
I don't know of one professional web developer who is concerned in the
least about someone liberating HTML. The key here is "professional".
No one is going to steal the efforts of a newbie crufting together eye
nausea in FrontPage. But then, those newbies crufting together eye
nausea are the people most likely to think that Page Protect is a way
kewl idea.
Image theft is another issue entirely -- one that may or may not be
addressed by Image Protect. Making it hard for a newbie to download an
image might seem like a good idea, and maybe it is, but that Winderz
user with QuickRes and a long-since expired demo copy of PaintShop Pro
isn't going to be too concerned about image degradation, anyway.
The more I think about it, the more I regret being so kind to Gamacles
Leetaruware. None of the sh_tuff he's peddling has a legitimate need to
fill, even if it works. Used to be that folks like him were labeled
Snake Oil salesmen.
I'll probably get some of my past comments flung back in my face over
this, but my give-a-sh_tuff factor is about zero, anyway.
-- Art
-----
Welcome to Planet Earth. Enter at your own risk.
This product comes with absolutely no warranty!
----
Art Sackett
> Hmm.. One question, does this look familiar?
>
> I found that in your "encrypted" page.
>
> If that does, indeed, look like your work, I'll post
>
> A) The entire page, in it's true HTML form.
>
> B) The program I've written that will decode ANY page created with your
> program.
I don't see any shaky ground here, legally, as long as your intent is
only to help those who've lost the original markup to recover their
investment of time from the impenetrable depths of Page Protect's world
class encryption algorithm.
"Have you spent weeks creating the perfect site, or spent thousands of
dollars having a web design firm create it for you, and paid out the
money to Page Protect it, only to find a few days later that your
unreliable micro$oft operating system was attacked by a virus that
deleted the contents of your file system? With BlackDeath Decryptor
9000, you can quickly and easily recover that expensive HTML source from
the copy that is maintained on your webserver. Best of all, in the
spirit of the Linux movement and free, open source software, BlackDeath
Decryptor 9000 is available for download right here in this newsgroup!"
Hmmmm... your heart is kind for making such a selfless offer to freely
distribute such a fine piece of work. ;) Doing a grave disservice to his
hundreds of satisfied customers, Leetaru will probably rev the code some
more.
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
>I went to your webpage where you show off the Image Protection, and I
>couldn't save the protected image by clicking on it (no context menu
>appeared).
People using non-Java browsers or with Java turned off will not load
anything at all, thus protecting it even further. :-)
REBUS
Kalev Leetaru wrote in message <6pgpu7$f6p$1...@news12.ispnews.com>...
> You yourself
>have a copyright statement on your homepage.
Which is the only way to legally protect what it copyrightable....
>The Page Protect page, at
>minimum, serves as a warning that this page is copyrighted.
Does no such thing in any legal sense....
> While Print Screen will yield an acceptable facsimile of a protected
>image, the copy is by no means an exact duplicate of the original.
Bullshit....If I copy an image at 72 dpi...and then display that image at 72
dpi, what have I lost?
You'd do a better service to those who wish to afford some copyright
protection by offering to do a persistent text search on key word
combinations through-out the web...
John Markor
using noting more than a simple copy and past (Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V.)
I took the liberty of leaving all the hard breaks in place, even the
misspelling of the word "Thieves", but simply stated, how hard would it be
to add the HTML code to this - maybe a five minute job at the most.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
Please wait while the document decodes...
Welcome to the Page Protect
Protected Demonstration Site
NOTE: This site is no longer a mirror of our corporate home, as that was
confusing many visitors.
Welcome! This page was protected using Page Protect 1.0 by Gamacles
Software. Page Protect is a revolutionary product that
promises to reduce the epidemic of content theft which is rampaging across
the Internet. Most content theives are new to the
Internet, and do not realize that stealing someone else's work is not
permitted. They simply figure that copyright laws do not
apply on the Internet, otherwise why would the browser companies have made
it so easy for them to copy content?
The modern Internet was spawned as a global forum for the free exchange of
academic knowledge. The first wide-spread
popular browser was Mosaic, which implemented features to promote this
basic underpinning. As Mosaic was replaced by first
Netscape Navigator 2.0, then 3.0, and finally 4.0, each
increasingly-sophisticated version still retained its original heritage from
Mosaic. Thus, as the web has become more and more commercialized, and the
concern for copyright control has increased, the
underlying technology still operates on the principle of freedom-of-theft.
It must be realized that almost 95% of content theives have only a
rudimentary knowledge of HTML. Frequently, these individuals
use the built-in features of their browser to save a page and its
associated files to their harddrive. Then, they use their
WYSIWYG editor to change the page slightly to fit their own needs, and
finally post it on their server. The utter ease at which
these actions are performed only serves to escalate the number of cases of
content theft out of control.
Page Protect answers this call for help with a powerful content protection
system. Protected pages are encrypted using a
batch-conversion utility, and decrypted in the browser using a proprietary
JavaScript program. The results? A powerful message
to would-be theives that your content is not for the taking.
It is still possible for an expert hacker to decrypt a protected document,
however, doing so requires a substantial amount of
skill and effort, conveying to the thief the message that you intend to
keep your work safe from theft.
Back to our Corporate Home Page.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
Art Sackett <asac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
35BE70EF...@yahoo.com...
Art Sackett
It's one of those things that many of us have maintained all along --
even if Leetaru succeeds in obscuring the markup, it's still a trivial
function. Not to mention that markup theft isn't "running rampant"
anywhere except in Leetaru's promotional assertions.
It's odd that we haven't been hearing much from Leetaru lately. As of
this writing, it's been a week with not one byte in the stream. He's
still peddling the crap on the web, but he's not been promoting it in
usenet for at least that long.
It might be only a partial success, but we seem to have accomplished at
least shutting down one marketing channel for that clown.
John Markor wrote:
>
> Well - so much for encrypting sites - I took this off the "protected site"
> using noting more than a simple copy and past (Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V.)
>
> I took the liberty of leaving all the hard breaks in place, even the
> misspelling of the word "Thieves", but simply stated, how hard would it be
> to add the HTML code to this - maybe a five minute job at the most.
Earl W. Phillips, Jr.
>
> Kalev Leetaru <lee...@gamacles.com> wrote in message
> 6pac3j$5nt$1...@news13.ispnews.com...
> >Dear Mr. Sackett:
> -----snip out the waffle-------
> >were not aware that Internet browsers on Lynux operating systems have that
> -----snip out a load of old bollocks written by a drivleing madman----
>
> spouting ot us?
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Dan
Any one else think this guy should learn to spell `driveling` and 'at'
before he goes
spouting at us?
jason newcomb
Earl W. Phillips, Jr. wrote in message <35C5F57A...@pdesign.net>...
>Dan Evans wrote:
>>
>> Kalev Leetaru <lee...@gamacles.com> wrote in message
>> 6pac3j$5nt$1...@news13.ispnews.com...
>> >Dear Mr. Sackett:
>>
Earl W. Phillips, Jr.
--
Earl W. Phillips, Jr.
Phillips Design
Specializing in AFFORDABLE Internet-based business solutions!
www.pdesign.net
ICQ # = 14796946
Art Sackett
It seems that the question of obscuring HTML is becoming popular again,
but we're seeing neither hide nor hair of Kalev Leetaru/Gamacles
Software.
I'm wondering if he's still promoting those products of his, but has
resorted to lurking and emailing would-be victims outside of the public
view. I've also noticed that he's still dorking around with his website
and is now bundling all of Protect garbage and has reduced the price to
$30USD for personal use, $50USD for commercial. Guess they weren't
selling like hotcakes...
If anyone who frequents these parts is hearing from this guy via email,
I'd appreciate a copy of his claims so I can determine if he's being as
forthright in his personal contacts as he is trying to be on his website
("Although it is possible to obtain the source of a protected
document..."
Vendetta? No. Matter of principle.
Dan Evans
money for a load of crap, am I?
--
Dan
remove `REMOVETHIS` to reply
Dave Lowe
Is Kalev Leetaru the guy peddling the "My software can hide your
source"? If so, I answered that question maybe a month ago, got a letter
in my mail box telling me I was wrong (Lots of exclamation points and
caps for effect). Didn't save it, but it wasn't beating around the bush,
just told me I was dead wrong. Return address bounced, but as I
remember, he did have a URL (I believe).
Later,
Dave
--
=======================================================
Home Page: { http://www.foxberry.net/mozilla/ }
"If at first you don't succeed, it's probably someone
else's fault." -- Unknown Paranoid
=======================================================
Kevin Dickover
wrote:
>Greetings, all:
>
>It seems that the question of obscuring HTML is becoming popular again,
>but we're seeing neither hide nor hair of Kalev Leetaru/Gamacles
>Software.
>
After asking me how i got his source (and getting an answer form me)
I haven't heard a peep from him. I guess he gave up and is slapping
it up there and calling it good. I can still find source using
copy&paste (as anyone else who downloads IE 4 and gets frontpage
express).
Solo Deo Favente,
Kevin Dickover
Dan Evans
seem to be appearing about obscuring code and protecting pictures, I think
he just changed his name.
Out of interest, did he ever say anything about his protected picture? I
sent him a grab and told him it was exactly like the one the browser
displayed, and he wrote back telling me how you couldnt read the text and
there was speckling on the image.
My only reply to this was that as that was how the browser displayed the
image, and the one on his server was perfect, what was his applet doing to
the image, or was it just that he had reduced the image dimensions in the
browser.
Still no reply, 2 weeks and waiting
--
Dan
remove `REMOVETHIS` to reply
Art Sackett <asac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
35CCD428...@yahoo.com...
>Greetings, all:
--snip--
Art Sackett
>
> Well, I havnt heard from him as such, but judging by all the messages that
> seem to be appearing about obscuring code and protecting pictures, I think
> he just changed his name.
I've wondered about that, too. That's exactly why I was asking.
Before he came under heavy fire, he apparently was emailing people
directly. It seems possible that he's lurking about and could be
emailing, or might be trolling in the hope that at least one positive
review will appear. Like that's gonna happen!
Time will tell, huh?
bartman
Art thanks for your efforts to expose Kalev. I knew that he
was a fake but........I heard a rumor he started his own cult.
The Church of the Lost Left Sock.
==============================================
The Bartman
I will not send lard through the mail *100
http://www.seanet.com/~bartman/
==============================================
Dan Evans
>review will appear. Like that's gonna happen!
>
To be honest with you, I think he is a v.good programmer to come up with
what he has, the problem is that it doesnt do what he (originally) claimed
it would.
Speaking for myself, and I know I am repeating myself here, if someone wants
to copy what I have done, its fine by me, and in a way its a nice feeling
knowing that something I have created, is something that someone else wants.
As for the pictures, its a good idea, but I cant see it working, though I
wish him the best of luck (and a few lessons in designing a web page, awful
isnt it?)
>Time will tell, huh?
Yep, wait and see