JavaScript in Password Protected Folder?

[xmp333]

Hi All,
I am trying to hide my JavaScript source. The method I chose was to
keep all the important source in a password protected folder, and then
use a SRC="folder/script.js" to include it in my code. This way, the
script will run, but the user will be unable to view the included
code. Or so I think :).

I have tried this method, and it seems to work. However, I would like
to know if you can see any problems with this. For instance, can you
think of a way to bypass this and get at script.js? Can you foresee
any problems that would arise as a result of keeping scripts behind
password protected folders? Any other security concerns?
Thanks in advance.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Richard Cornford wrote:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@we b.de> wrote [...]

If you don't believe that RFC 1036 (Standard for Interchange of
USENET Messages) is applicable to Usenet posts

I have never stated that.

You stated that the header I quoted was "perfectly OK according to
the standards" when it is structurally incorrect according to RFC
1036, which implied that you didn't believe that RFC 1036 was a
standard that should be applied to a Usenet post.

Misunderstandin g. I always referred to the
formatting, not the structure. See below.

But you have, again, nothing quoted that states that wrapped
References are not OK according to any standard.

Why would I want to quote anything that stated that wrapped
References headers are not OK? That would have no baring on
the number and sequence of message IDs in the References
header that I was criticising.

You didn't by any chance not bother to read what I had written
(twice) [...]

Oh, in fact I *did*. But sorry, you've lost me. Let us recapitulate:

We have an OP:

| From: xm****@yahoo.co m
| Message-ID: <4a************ **************@ posting.google. com>
(no References header)

According to the quotes, beside others, it was replied to with

| From: Randy Webb <hi************ @aol.com>
| Message-ID: <Ao************ ********@comcas t.com>
| References: <4a************ **************@ posting.google. com>

and

| From: "Richard Cornford" <Ri*****@litote s.demon.co.uk>
| Message-ID: <c0************ *******@news.de mon.co.uk>
| References: <4a************ **************@ posting.google. com>

and

| From: StanD <St**********@m ail.forum4desig ners.com>
| Message-ID: <St**********@m ail.forum4desig ners.com>
| References: <4a************ **************@ posting.google. com>
| <c0************ *******@news.de mon.co.uk>
| <40************ *********@news. xs4all.nl>
| <Ao************ ********@comcas t.com>
(no word-wrap!)

which you replied to with

| From: "Richard Cornford" <Ri*****@litote s.demon.co.uk>
| Message-ID: <c0************ *******@news.de mon.co.uk>
| References: <4a************ **************@ posting.google. com>
| <c0************ *******@news.de mon.co.uk>
| <40************ *********@news. xs4all.nl>
| <Ao************ ********@comcas t.com>
| <St**********@m ail.forum4desig ners.com>
(no word-wrap either)

In the above posting, you stated that

| [StanD's] posting software appears to exhibiting faulty behaviour in
| its handling of the "References " header in [StanD's] postings.

which I have come to recognize as truth, and

| It has sent (split across lines at the location of spaces to avoid
| uncontrolled wrapping):-

which is wrong anyway. Now, on closer inspection, I fail to observe
wrapped References here, so it is likely that your news client software
does this by default (which is perfectly OK, nevertheless it makes the
above statement wrong). See also Google Groups where there is no
wrapping either:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain

(But that is only for the records.)

| References: <4a************ **************@ posting.google. com>
| <c0************ *******@news.de mon.co.uk>
| <40************ *********@news. xs4all.nl>
| <Ao************ ********@comcas t.com>

And then you cited from the RFC (I think I already know pretty well).
So I, indeed, falsely assumed that with the RFC quote and your trailing
comments you only try to prove that it is not standards-compliant to
wrap References. Alas, I overlooked that you also wrote:

| And if intended to be a response to any of the other contributors to
| date would be only the References header from that "original message"
| (singular) followed with a space and the message ID of that message.

(please note that English is not my native tongue) and thus I correctly
argued (but there was nothing to argue for in this context, since there
was in fact no dissent about it) that wrapped References are in fact
standards-compliant. *I am sorry, my bad.*

So let us be this a draw, OK? If you would have argued more exactly for
what you were trying to prove (and, ex post facto, not assumed that your
client software leaves the References formatting unchanged) and if I
would have taken more care in reading your postings (and, ex post facto,
all headers involved), this misunderstandin g would most certainly not
have arised in the first place.

JFTR: The References header quoted above is in fact incorrect, but
not for its wrapped M-IDs (formatting) but for its wrong order and
occurrences of M-IDs (structure). The web interface used for posting
(www.Forum4designers.com gateway) is malfunctioning, I think neither
of our news client software is in this regard. (But note that my
software nevertheless displayed the forum4designers .com posting as
followup to the OP, as it was intended :-) Randy may find this
interesting, as he is also using a mozilla.org product, but of an
earlier release version.)
\V/ Live long and prosper

PointedEars

[Richard Cornford]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
<snip>

In the above posting, you stated that

| [StanD's] posting software appears to exhibiting faulty behaviour
| in its handling of the "References " header in [StanD's] postings.

which I have come to recognize as truth, and

| It has sent (split across lines at the location of spaces to avoid
| uncontrolled wrapping):-

which is wrong anyway. Now, on closer inspection, I fail to observe
wrapped References here, so it is likely that your news client
software does this by default (which is perfectly OK, nevertheless
it makes the above statement wrong). ... <snip>

That is probably the origin of your misconception. My statement was
intended to indicate that I had wrapped the reported header, and explain
how I had gone about it (replacing spaces with newlines). I wrapped it
myself because I knew that my newsreader would attempt to wrap it a 72
characters if I did not, and I did not want it splitting the message IDs
as they were important to the point I was attempting to make.

<snip> (please note that English is not my native tongue) ... <snip>

Fair enough. Though accompanying your assertion of nonsense with an
explanation of why you thought it nonsense would have allowed me to
explain that than wrapping of the header (or lack thereof) was not the
issue.
... . The web interface used for posting
(www.Forum4designers.com gateway) is malfunctioning,
They claim to have fixed it. Time will tell. But forum4designers are not
the only site out there using this software so it will be a recurring
problem for a while yet even if forum4designers ' version is now working
properly.
I think neither of our news client software is in this
regard. (But note that my software nevertheless displayed
the forum4designers .com posting as followup to the OP,
as it was intended :-) Randy may find this interesting, as
he is also using a mozilla.org product, but of an earlier
release version.)

Given the 4 possible places in the thread that the message could have
been inserted by a newsreader, I could see three likely possibilities:
Recognising that the header was meaningless and placing the response as
a reply to the OP. Recognising an initial sequence of OP then my reply,
then giving up when the chain came to an end and placing it as a reply
to me. Or, working back from the end and placing the message as a reply
to Randy. All seem reasonable ways of handling a header malformed in
that way.

It all goes to show what sort of wrong thinking there is in the minds of
the authors of the posting software, who seem to think that an
unthreaded web forum style interface can be sensibly integrated with
Usenet.

Richard.

[Robert]

> Java is the only other possibility that I can see, but I have no idea

of its future -- especially on the Windows platform.
You can download the Java runtime for free from Sun.

Furthermore,
since this application is targeted towards end users, I don't want
people to have to go through any hassle to run it -- and this includes
installing additional components.
This is true.

I read where Microsoft was planning in the future to ship the Sun
runtime library with some future version of Windows. I think I read it
in the papers. I couldn't find a reference to this on the Microsoft
web site. Could have been a legal dodge.

Oh well, if it weren't a challenge, it wouldn't be fun :D

You could patent anything new or somewhat new.

Brian

Thanks.