Ehm... another doubt... I have felt to say that with Telnet it is possible take the images from the web site... what does mean, it is true? Should need username and password to do that?
Printable View
Ehm... another doubt... I have felt to say that with Telnet it is possible take the images from the web site... what does mean, it is true? Should need username and password to do that?
While you're at it, why don't you just remove the image entirely? You seem to be heading this way anyway, and it's the only real way to stop people getting hold of it.Quote:
All right djr33 I think you let me make a jump...because now the checks are:
- user is not using I.E.? --> do not display image
- user is not using Java Script? --> do not display image
Rubbish. Firstly, cache disabling is a request, not a command; the browser could easily be configured to ignore it. Secondly, the data still has to be downloaded at some point. This means that somebody could still just grab the URL from your webpage and go and download the ruddy thing.Quote:
by the way I have always known that swf file can be decompiled, but I repeat that in this case the user can only display the swf file, not save either the browser can't cache somewhere on user's computer (remember?...disable the cache directly from IIS).
Well, to any sane person, who wants to uphold the standards of platform compatibility and general decency on the Web, cutting out all (not just some, but *all*) of your potential users not running a specific browser and operating system, with a particular setting enabled and a particular plugin installed, is far from fine. If you were running a service purely for Windows users, that's acceptable (Windows Update, for example); however, when you're trying to create a webpage with information that is useful to everyone, that's a very stupid idea.Quote:
About Mac... I could check no print-screen Java Script function (that it is write only for windows system), if it fails do not display image. So now I have another limitation... and to me it is still fine:
I can download Windows Updates using Firefox on Linux. You think you're better at this than Microsoft?Quote:
The Image Copyright Solution can works 100% only under I.E. browser+Windows Operating System (doesn't mean that it can be tricked with different Browser or O.S.)
Tell us when you have, so we can get past whatever you've done in thirty seconds and then laugh at it.Quote:
P.S.: for now I can't punt the link to the application
Yes, but all telnet would be doing in this case is acting as a primitive HTTP client. Anything that could be done with it acting in such a capacity could be done with any other HTTP client as well, such as a web browser. Username and password are not necessary, unless they are necessary to view the image normally.Quote:
Ehm... another doubt... I have felt to say that with Telnet it is possible take the images from the web site... what does mean, it is true? Should need username and password to do that?
I agree with Twey.
I think the biggest falacy here is this:
You have to think about "the enemy".Quote:
(doesn't mean that it can be tricked with different Browser or O.S.)
You are trying to protect your images... from who?
You have a ton of advanced coding stopping -- let's call them for lack of a better term: -- hackers.
And yet, you have a security hole here.
What you are doing is causing an incredible number of incompatibility issues and difficulties for the users who just want to do what you want... preview the image, then buy it, or whatever.
And, you are admitting that hackers can still get around your protection.
Meaning:
1. Hard for the "good" people.
2. Still not secure for the "bad" people.
How does this help anything?
No offense... it just isn't gonna work. You obviously feel like there's something incredibly important about your images... but you need to decide.
Why can't you just do what I suggested and display a watermark or a thumbnail instead of the actual image?
Wonderful point. Obviously companies that have more resources than you have tried this. They don't want their content stolen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Twey
Why don't they have protection? ...'cause it can't exist... just the way the web works.
The closest example to a protected file I can think of is google video. It's its own format... not compatible. Good for security, bad for compatibility.
AND if you know what you're doing, it's still possible to extract it, with a system sound recording application and a video screen capture utility, if nothing else.
If they can't do it, why do you think you can?
Don't get me wrong... if you could do it, that would be cool (though bad for the users, it's a good/bad thing.. depending on what position you are in), but it just can't work.
As Twey said, please link to something. Think of it this way... we get around it, tell you how we did and you can know what you need to "fix". Right?Quote:
P.S.: for now I can't punt the link to the application
Umm... sure, you could use username and password, but isn't this against the point of giving a free preview?
What's your goal? Do you have secret images you don't want public?
Or do you have images you're trying to sell and want to give previews of?
I think it's the second one... that's what I've been assuming for a while.. tell me if I'm wrong.
As for the first.... then JUST DON'T PUT THEM ON YOUR SITE.
That's like asking how to put your password on your website so that no one can see it... just asking for trouble.
Guys I'm sorry maybe I had an energetic tone to expose my ideas, but please don't get me wrong, here we are all competent people speaking about a supposed solution to help each other. I accept your precious suggestions and I'm glad to know that there are friends like you with the same passion.
But the solution is impossible, and this has been argued to death in many other threads on this forum, always with the same result. It's a costly and pointless venture.
I'm curious. But it's just funny that people seem to think they can stop people from saving an image.
you GIVE them the image so they can see it. You can't take it back.
Yet another example of:
1. Confusing the "good" viewers.
2. Not hindering the "bad" viewers (hackers, etc.).
But... sure, carry on.
Just... please link to the site and we can show you what's wrong that you should fix.
If you don't believe us know, you will later...
I am going to do this. I am going to have a photo on my site and make it impossible to get. The image will be full size, and stored locally on my server and I will make it impossible to capture. Then I will patent my methods and sell them for BILLIONS!
I will be the smartest man alive!!!!!!!!
Cause let's face it.. that is what all of this is really about. It is NOT about having YOUR photos unattainable, its the idea of being the one that finds out HOW and selling it to MS so they can protect THEIR content meanwhile you go to the bank with a smile and a wet spot in your pants.
http://www.cleverwasteoftime.com/for...les/lmmfao.gif
Haha, indeed. I've had the same impulse, but I can't come up with any way to stop people from using prnt scrn.
EVEN if you could stop use of the key, a video capture utility running in the background would get around any setup you could possibly have, short of one that was actually so powerful it would invade your computer and shut down all other tasks. Nice site, eh? :p
The only thing i've ever found to work like this is some QT movies (and some wmv ones too) go directly to video memory or some such. Then you can't do a screen capture... just a black hole where the image was.
you can, however, get the image by opening it in QT and copying the frame from there.
As such, that's not a perfect solution, but at least approaches something...
You know, I was joking, but semi-serious at the same time. I mean I won't be able to do it (Twey could attest, I can't even get a time script to work right, LOL)
But SOMEONE will be able to one day, and I just hope against hope they are an Open Source user, and have the heart to SHARE instead of SELL, I mean, sure, make your fortune, but others will pay too, keep it away from M$ at first, that would be grand!
Not unless they quite drastically redesign the Web :) The very nature of the WWW makes this impossible.Quote:
But SOMEONE will be able to one day
Doesn't work on anything except Windows. Shouldn't even work on Windows, but it seems Microsoft designed their screen-capture utility with customary incompetence.Quote:
The only thing i've ever found to work like this is some QT movies (and some wmv ones too) go directly to video memory or some such. Then you can't do a screen capture... just a black hole where the image was.
Besides, everyone's forgetting that one can just intercept the packets before they even reach the browser...