Protection a js file

[Kerberos]

Is it possible to prevent a javascript file from being stolen on a web
site?
I mean, not protecting 100% is ok, as long as trying to steal it takes
more time than coding it (took an afternoon).
Thanks,

--
K.

http://www.osresources.com/

[Randy Webb]

Kerberos wrote:

Is it possible to prevent a javascript file from being stolen on a web
site?
No.
I mean, not protecting 100% is ok, as long as trying to steal it takes
more time than coding it (took an afternoon).

It is trivial to steal a script. IE will, generally, give it to you in
way less time than it took you to write it.
--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq

[Lee]

Kerberos said:

Is it possible to prevent a javascript file from being stolen on a web
site?
I mean, not protecting 100% is ok, as long as trying to steal it takes
more time than coding it (took an afternoon).
Thanks,

You seem to have posted this from an "Open Source" forum. Irony?

[Hywel]

In article <op**************@cinza.mshome.net>, Kerberos says...

Is it possible to prevent a javascript file from being stolen on a web
site?
Yes. Don't link to it and put it in a directory structure that no one
will ever guess.
I mean, not protecting 100% is ok, as long as trying to steal it takes
more time than coding it (took an afternoon).

A whole afternoon? Wow! That must be an amazing piece of coding.
--
Hywel

http://sponsorhywel.org.uk/

[Kerberos]

Em 23 Oct 2004 18:50:23 -0700, Lee <RE**************@cox.net> escreveu:

You seem to have posted this from an "Open Source" forum. Irony?

Actually this is not a script I'm going to give away, and it wouldn't be
useful anyway, but I found a trade off to make it very difficult to grab.

--
K.

http://www.osresources.com/

[Douglas Crockford]

> Actually this is not a script I'm going to give away, and it wouldn't

be useful anyway, but I found a trade off to make it very difficult to
grab.

That seems unlikely. How difficult? Would you care to place a wager on
how long it takes any of us to grab it?

[George Hester]

"Douglas Crockford" <no****@covad.net> wrote in message news:17***************************@msgid.meganewss ervers.com...

Actually this is not a script I'm going to give away, and it wouldn't
be useful anyway, but I found a trade off to make it very difficult to
grab.

That seems unlikely. How difficult? Would you care to place a wager on
how long it takes any of us to grab it?

I'd sure like to take a stab at it. Never know we might learn something.

--
George Hester
__________________________________

[Michael Winter]

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:40:04 -0200, Kerberos <no*****@please.com> wrote:

[snip]

Actually this is not a script I'm going to give away, and it wouldn't be
useful anyway, [...]

Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but if the script wouldn't be useful to
other people, why try to hide it? Any "protection" you apply will do
nothing but add overheads to the script.

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.

[Kerberos]

Em Sun, 24 Oct 2004 22:26:39 GMT, George Hester <he********@hotmail.com>
escreveu:

"Douglas Crockford" <no****@covad.net> wrote in message
news:17***************************@msgid.meganewss ervers.com...

> Actually this is not a script I'm going to give away, and it wouldn't
> be useful anyway, but I found a trade off to make it very difficult

to

> grab.

That seems unlikely. How difficult? Would you care to place a wager on
how long it takes any of us to grab it?

I'd sure like to take a stab at it. Never know we might learn something.

I'm using an encryption system that converts all code into weird
characters.
http://www.encrypt-html.com/encrypt_javascript.htm
Ok, you guys can reverse-engeneer it, but still, small players will just
give up.

--
K.

http://www.osresources.com/

[Lee]

Kerberos said:

Em Sun, 24 Oct 2004 22:26:39 GMT, George Hester <he********@hotmail.com>
escreveu:

"Douglas Crockford" <no****@covad.net> wrote in message
news:17***************************@msgid.meganewss ervers.com...

> Actually this is not a script I'm going to give away, and it wouldn't
> be useful anyway, but I found a trade off to make it very difficult
to
> grab.

That seems unlikely. How difficult? Would you care to place a wager on
how long it takes any of us to grab it?

I'd sure like to take a stab at it. Never know we might learn something.

I'm using an encryption system that converts all code into weird
characters.

But that means that you've also got to be sending a function that
decrypts it. That's leaving the key in the lock. All we have to
do is turn it.

[Duncan Booth]

Kerberos wrote:

I'm using an encryption system that converts all code into weird
characters.
http://www.encrypt-html.com/encrypt_javascript.htm
Ok, you guys can reverse-engeneer it, but still, small players will
just give up.

I hope you didn't pay money for it: so far as I can see it just uses
Microsoft's free script encoder. The obfuscated javascript at the top of
the sample file simply evaluates to:

document.write('<' + 'script language = JScript.Encode>')

Needless to say, the encoded sample page doesn't display anything when
loaded into a non-Microsoft browser such as Mozilla.

It took me longer to find the sample page
(http://www.protware.com/demo_e.htm) than it did to determine that it is
using Microsoft script encoder.

If anyone actually wants to read the decoded page then googling for
"jscript.encode break" should throw up some ideas pretty quickly (e.g.
http://www.klaphek.nl/nr6/scrdec.html).