| MHenke on Nov 11, 2003 at 2:43:03 AM (# 850) And, Terry > It's easy to get in, just say biggie-boogie-yiddie-yada-spooky-whoopie-yucky-yay... Nope, utterly wrong. There are strict selection criteria. Almost vicious. Pitiless. Sometimes demeaning... saintjude on Nov 11, 2003 at 7:47:25 AM (# 851) This message has been edited.Blah blah "is it possible ?" blah blah blah initial state blah blahblah blah. Blah question blah algorithm blahblah endless blah. Blah 42 ba-blah final state blah, blah monks with time on their hands ? Blah blah utterly pointless blah blah blah we all know the bleedin' answer blah blah, blah blah constant state of becoming.Blah baaalaaah nuggets of wisdom blahblah mantra blah blah state of bliss. chisholmd on Nov 11, 2003 at 7:57:16 AM (# 852)Well this is a long thread but perhaps people are still following it. I was wondering if anyone knew a way around this method of hiding client side code.
-Open your page in a new window without the menu bar.
-Highjack the right click event for the document to prevent right clicking on the page.
-Build your page as a frame page <frame src=header.asp> <frame src=page.asp>
-Have your client side code in page.asp
-Have page.asp force itself into frames if someoen tries to load it directly.
Since you have taken away the menu there is no view source available there. Since you have taken away the right-click they can't get to the view source there.
So, I guess the question is...does anyone know how the client can get their menu bar back if it has been disabled during the window.load?
The part about forcing page.asp into a frame would preferably be handled by server side code so that a client couldn't simply disable javascript.
I have a site where I have implented these types of controls (not for hidding code but other content) and so far seems to work well enough. (Probably not 100% but good enough for my purposes)
I am also reminded of something a friend of mine in security use to say: "15% of people will steal from you no matter what you do. 15% of people will never steal from you. 70% of people will steal from you if you make it easy."
So I suppose the lesson there is that you do not need a foolproof solution only good enough to deter the 70%.
MHenke on Nov 11, 2003 at 8:53:13 AM (# 853)Welcome, chisholmd,
> Well this is a long thread but perhaps people are still following it. YAITM. People do. But in a completely different direction. To be in-topic in this thread is utterly off-topic...
> I was wondering if anyone knew a way around this method of hiding client side code. Yep. E.g. the client side cache. ChrisRickard on Nov 11, 2003 at 9:07:05 AM (# 854) This message has been edited.>>I guess I should have posted more... I didn't make it into the history books :)
I know how you feel... I didn't either. We should start our own club with a spiffy new acronym: I nominate SELOOMHH/S...ITIIPHR. (Site Experts Left out of MHenke's Hiding HTML/SCRIPT... I think it IS possible history recap)
Oops, I just noticed you made it in the history. I can't let you be in SELOOMHH/S...ITIIPHR anymore. Too bad... Terry Young on Nov 11, 2003 at 9:29:25 AM (# 855) This message has been edited."To be in-topic in this thread is utterly off-topic..." So since we have been being off-topic in this thread then we are utterly in-topic.
"But in a completely different direction." Actually, in all directions except the topic of this thread, which is, by the way, utterly off-topic.
The Evil Twin of Terry Young on Jun 6, 666 at 6:06:06 PM (# 666)
Now, to stay away from the topic...
"Nope, utterly wrong. There are strict selection criteria. Almost vicious. Pitiless. Sometimes demeaning..." ~burp~ MHenke on Nov 11, 2003 at 9:36:48 AM (# 856) This message has been edited.Oh, Chris, that's an faux pas. You aren't cookiemonster ? Due to the proverbial affectation of cookiemonsters for hammered whici i'd thought...
|