On 24/07/2014 12:14, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> But hey, you try explaining that to the PHB. All he wants to hear is "we
> spent 8 years developing this stuff, I don't want somebody to press one
> button, and be able to steal all our hard work". Not, of course, that an
> obfuscater necessarily does that; I hear there are 1-click deobfustation
> tools out there...

Changing requirement at the end... a classical of bad management (hence
PHB :-). It's not about "the code should not be stolen", but "how much
are we willing to invest in to deter people from stealing it."

If really worth it, smart part of the code is inside a dongle, whose
chip is kept alive by a small battery, with decryption keys in the ram
part of the chip only, the whole thing in resin block. And the chip is
made by your company and never sold to third-party.

Unplugged dongle for too long: death of battery, ram content is lost, no
more decryption, so program is dead.
Trying to extract the components... it requires a lot of caution to not
open the circuit with the battery.

Short of that, you are just following the same path as Bluray's DRM:
making life of honest customer painful, while adding nearly nothing
against pirates. That's why I won't buy or even use a Bluray.

-- 
IQ of crossposters with FU: 100 / (number of groups)
IQ of crossposters without FU: 100 / (1 + number of groups)
IQ of multiposters: 100 / ( (number of groups) * (number of groups))

Post a reply to this message