Deactivate browser's print function

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Re: Deactivate browser's print function

Neredbojias wrote:

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 29 Jul 2007 01:06:42
GMT Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:

>view-source:http://www.aw-soft.com/htmlguard-sample.html

>
I just got a blank screen with the above (-yes, in Moz/ff.)

You have to scroll down. There are many linefeeds preceding the source,
another amateur way to "conceal source".

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

[rf]

Re: Deactivate browser's print function


"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@ex ample.invalidwr ote in message
news:CKRqi.8100 $ax1.2049@bgtns c05-news.ops.worldn et.att.net...

rf wrote:
>

>"Stan Brown" wrote:

>>Sat, 28 Jul 2007 14:19:28 GMT from rf <rf@invalid.com >:
>>>Use another browser or type view:http://url into your address bar.
>>>
>>Huh? What's that supposed to do?
>>>
>>In Mozilla, I get "view is not a registered protocol".

>>
>view-source:

>
..and that just displays the encrypted source (in Firefox and
SeaMonkey). <g>
>
view-source:http://www.aw-soft.com/htmlguard-sample.html

<looks at sampleInteresti ng.

You are correct. view-source is not the right tool here. <tinkers>

Click the little firebug tick, click html, click edit, copy/past HTML to my
editor. Tidy up with tidy. Save. Elapsed time fourteen seconds.

That is shocking code. HTML 3, font elements everywhere, javascipt for
simple hover effects, javascript for navigation - search engine invisible. A
laugh really, who in their right mind would want to protect *that* rubbish?
:-)

--
Richard.

[Neredbojias]

Re: Deactivate browser's print function

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 29 Jul 2007 04:44:10 GMT
Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:

Neredbojias wrote:
>

>Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 29 Jul 2007 01:06:42
>GMT Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:

>>view-source:http://www.aw-soft.com/htmlguard-sample.html

>>
>I just got a blank screen with the above (-yes, in Moz/ff.)

>
You have to scroll down. There are many linefeeds preceding the source,
another amateur way to "conceal source".

Ah, I might have missed that. The glaring white screen gave me vertigo.
:)

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

[Neredbojias]

Re: Deactivate browser's print function

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 28 Jul 2007 17:16:37
GMT Cartoper scribed:

On Jul 28, 10:45 am, Sherm Pendley <spamt...@dot-app.orgwrote:
>

>I completely agree. In my opinion, such products aren't far short of
>out- right fraud - they're making claims about capabilities which
>they simply cannot deliver. Their business model is based on the fact
>that most people do not realize this, and believe the claims.
>>
>Sadly, there's a sucker born every minute, so these frauds manage to
>stay in business.

>
First off, I don't disagree that all these types of things are easy to
get around, IF YOU KNOW HOW. Being a professional software developer
I understand that it isn't a matter of if your code is stolen, but
when is it stolen.
>
On the other hand I think it is foolish not to put basic measures in
place to "keep the honest people honest". I am putting together my
photography studio web site and I want to at least let folks know that
I don't want them taking my images. In the end I will leave it to
their congest (how do you spell this work? I spend 10 minutes trying
to figure it out and I cannot, please enlighten this poor fool that
cannot smell!) as to go around my basic measures or not;)
>
Cartoper
>
>

Here's the definitive way to protect source code. Yes, it can be done.
Many an aspiring hacker has left pages like this a lesser person than he or
she was before.

http://tinyurl.com/2vwa7k

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

[Ben C]

Re: Deactivate browser's print function

On 2007-07-29, rf <rf@invalid.com wrote:

>
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@ex ample.invalidwr ote in message
news:CKRqi.8100 $ax1.2049@bgtns c05-news.ops.worldn et.att.net...

[...]

>view-source:http://www.aw-soft.com/htmlguard-sample.html

>
><looks at sampleInteresti ng.
>
You are correct. view-source is not the right tool here. <tinkers>
>
Click the little firebug tick, click html, click edit, copy/past HTML to my
editor. Tidy up with tidy. Save. Elapsed time fourteen seconds.

Yes it took me about that long as well.

That is shocking code. HTML 3, font elements everywhere, javascipt for
simple hover effects, javascript for navigation - search engine
invisible. [...]

No wonder they "encrypted" it.

[Stan Brown]

Re: Deactivate browser's print function

29 Jul 2007 04:19:11 GMT from Neredbojias
<monstersquashe r@yahoo.com>:

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 29 Jul 2007 01:06:42
GMT Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:

view-source:http://www.aw-soft.com/htmlguard-sample.html

>
I just got a blank screen with the above (-yes, in Moz/ff.)

Look again -- check the scroll bars.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA

http://OakRoadSystems.com/

HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:

http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you

[Stan Brown]

Re: Deactivate browser's print function

Sun, 29 Jul 2007 05:47:29 GMT from rf <rf@invalid.com >:

That is shocking code. HTML 3, font elements everywhere, javascipt for
simple hover effects, javascript for navigation - search engine invisible. A
laugh really, who in their right mind would want to protect *that* rubbish?

This was Brown's Corollary to Flavell's Law: the people who are most
concerned with protecting "source code" in HTML have the "code" least
worth protecting.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA

http://OakRoadSystems.com/

HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:

http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you

[rf]

Re: Deactivate browser's print function


"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown @fastmail.fmwro te in message
news:MPG.211632 a0211dc8c398af0 7@news.individu al.net...

Sun, 29 Jul 2007 05:47:29 GMT from rf <rf@invalid.com >:

>That is shocking code. HTML 3, font elements everywhere, javascipt for
>simple hover effects, javascript for navigation - search engine
>invisible. A
>laugh really, who in their right mind would want to protect *that*
>rubbish?

>
This was Brown's Corollary to Flavell's Law: the people who are most
concerned with protecting "source code" in HTML have the "code" least
worth protecting.

Yep. That was in one of my prior posts. Didn't know it was a corollary to a
law from Mr Flavell (RIP).

I think Ben has it right. Best hidden in a deep hole out in the backyard.
Along with the snake oil :-)

http://OakRoadSystems.com/

Hmm. Upstate NY, nice part of the planet. Visited there a few years ago,
friends in Utica. Went for a ski on the surrounding hills, Finger lakes
area, Lake Placid (two feet of champagne powder each day) and all between,
before proceeding over to Vermont. Like the beer they make in Utica :-)

--
Richard.

[Neredbojias]

Re: Deactivate browser's print function

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 29 Jul 2007 10:13:22 GMT
Stan Brown scribed:

Look again -- check the scroll bars.

Yep, -must be the encoded stuff as somebody said.

I did the web-developer thing.

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

[Dr J R Stockton]

Re: Deactivate browser's print function

In comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html message <MPG.211632a021 1dc8c398af
07@news.individ ual.net>, Sun, 29 Jul 2007 06:14:43, Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown @fastmail.fmpos ted:

>Sun, 29 Jul 2007 05:47:29 GMT from rf <rf@invalid.com >:

>That is shocking code. HTML 3, font elements everywhere, javascipt for
>simple hover effects, javascript for navigation - search engine invisible. A
>laugh really, who in their right mind would want to protect *that* rubbish?

>
>This was Brown's Corollary to Flavell's Law: the people who are most
>concerned with protecting "source code" in HTML have the "code" least
>worth protecting.

But that depends on the purpose of attempted protection. Much code is
so bad that its authors really should protect the public from seeing it,
if only to protect their own jobs.

I've recently noted on a site closely associated with current US space
work some code in which months...second s are obtained by UTC methods,
but year is obtained by getYear. Granted, that does not matter *at
present*; but one can expect it to do so at the turn of the year. And,
for the purpose in question, none of that is needed anyway; the code is
far longer than needed.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon. co.uk Turnpike v6.05 IE 6.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/- w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/programs/- see 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.

[Neredbojias]

Re: Deactivate browser's print function

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 29 Jul 2007 21:14:48
GMT Dr J R Stockton scribed:

I've recently noted on a site closely associated with current US space
work some code in which months...second s are obtained by UTC methods,
but year is obtained by getYear.

Granted, that does not matter *at

present*; but one can expect it to do so at the turn of the year.
And, for the purpose in question, none of that is needed anyway; the
code is far longer than needed.
>

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

[Neredbojias]

Re: Deactivate browser's print function

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 29 Jul 2007 21:14:48
GMT Dr J R Stockton scribed:

I've recently noted on a site closely associated with current US space
work some code in which months...second s are obtained by UTC methods,
but year is obtained by getYear. Granted, that does not matter *at
present*; but one can expect it to do so at the turn of the year.

Well, what is the source of the variablized date that getYear is appled to?
You sure it's not "worked" on the UTC date?

And, for the purpose in question, none of that is needed anyway; the
code is far longer than needed.

NASA has to protect their budget.

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

[Andy Dingley]

Re: Deactivate browser's print function

On 28 Jul, 14:16, Cartoper <carto...@gmail .comwrote:

I hear it is possible to disable the web browsers print function, does
anyone know how to do that?

If you apply snake oil techniques to a web page, then you can prevent
the ignorant from reading or printing your source, you can annoy the
semi-skilled who want to but no longer can, and you can give a
valuable coffee-sipping break to those skilled enough to walk straight
through your protection in a few moments. You're a speedbump, not a
wall.

source: http://www.aw-soft.com/htmlguard-security.html

Where would you like us to mail the printouts of any of their
protected pages?

The web isn't designed around DRM, for either source protection or
print denial. If you try to bolt such things on top of it, then
they're unreliable and fragile. The worst case is if you try to limit
access to _some_ users, because you're likely to have more false
negatives (where it just breaks and goes wrong) than valid positives
(of people who were locked out when they ought to have been).

All such measures are fragile. They're trivially easily defeated by
those who want to and have moderate skills. _All_ of them.

If you want a crude (but reliable) prevention of printing, then place
this in your CSS.

@print { body, * { display: none; } }

It's not robust to stop anyone who wants to bypass it, but at least
it's most unlikely to go wrong and lock someone out unintentionally .

If you want robust protection of content, then don't use HTML. PDF has
good features for limiting access, although even those aren't
especially strong.

[Andy Dingley]

Re: Deactivate browser's print function

On 28 Jul, 18:16, Cartoper <carto...@gmail .comwrote:

I am putting together my
photography studio web site and I want to at least let folks know that
I don't want them taking my images.

Personally (having built very high-ticket photography sites) I'd
suggest that you _encourage_ them to take your images away. You can't
stop them, so encourage them instead -- and make your images into
something else that it's benefical for them to distribute for you.

Have three images:

* Originals. Top resolution, top quality. These don't even go on the
web server! If they do (maybe there's an upload facility), then
they're kept separate from the "published" images and security is kept
tight.

* Comping images. These are small ("big web" size, but not good enough
for print) and they're visibly watermarked. Licensing of these is a CC-
by-sa, CC-by-nc-sa, CC-by-nd-sa or the like. You _want_ these
distributed as far as possible, they're your advertising fliers.

No-one spends money on buying web quality images ( read this <http://
adverlab.blogsp ot.com/2007/07/can-you-use-flickr-pics-in-ads.html),
so making them freely available isn't losing you any business.

Invisible watermarking too, with a static ownership identifier.

That visible watermark needs to be non-removable, yet not totally
annoying. Lots of techniques for this, mainly you need to position it
carefully so it's not too easy to crop off. Also semi-transparency is
hard to do, without making something that's maskable and reversible
(make it transparent if you want, but also flatten the colours beneath
in a non-reversible way)

* Images for sale (print quality). These are the valuable ones you
need to protect!

Invisible watermarking, with a dynamically generated sales or customer
identifier embedded.

Don't let them on the web in general. Unless you've paid, you don't
even get to see them at this quality.

You're still exposed to theft here, but only by your identified
customers. That's a _lot_ simpler problem then an open shop window
with the goodies on display.

[mbstevens]

Re: Deactivate browser's print function

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 05:19:04 -0700, Andy Dingley wrote:

All such measures are fragile. They're trivially easily defeated by
those who want to and have moderate skills. _All_ of them.

For instance, with
web developer toolbar/
view/generated source/print

Those kinds of hiding tools are getting easier and easier to break.