[frl]myke 14 Posted November 13, 2010 (edited) binarizing is not a protection. Binarizing wasn't meant to be a protection, nevertheless it fulfilled this task aswell. How do you define "a good protection", i mean just because your not seeing tools in the public doesn't mean it's not broken, all it takes to break a protection is interest. A good protection will raise the required amount of time and effort to break through the protection to get a usable result. So instead of using tool A and just drag & drop a p3d file on it to get a more or less usable result, one would have to spend more time and effort to get the tool and a usable result. There are a lot people out there that do bad things just because its easy to do. It wont stop all of the "bad guys" but most of the "casual bad guys". I know pretty well there is no way to stop all of them but this doesn't mean we should let pass all of them. defeat what can be defeated. And finally, again people are just complaining instead of trying to understand the other side and try to propose solutions. This all-time-repeating "i don't want it" will bring us nowhere. Myke, I like your work, but encrypted I would not be interested anymore -- that would be a dead end for the modding scene, quite surely. Thats your free will to decide that way. See, it's about respecting each others will. But i still fail to see why you wouldn't use (play ingame with) any addon that has encrypted p3d files in it. Edited November 13, 2010 by [FRL]Myke Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jw custom 56 Posted November 13, 2010 Myke;1787641']nevertheless it fulfilled this task aswell. No it did not' date=' it's like using UPX to protect a program you coded(UPX is a PE compressor). Myke;1787641']A good protection will raise the required amount of time and effort to break through the protection to get a usable result. So instead of using tool A and just drag & drop a p3d file on it to get a more or less usable result, one would have to spend more time and effort to get the tool and a usable result. There are a lot people out there that do bad things just because its easy to do. It wont stop all of the "bad guys" but most of the "casual bad guys". I know pretty well there is no way to stop all of them but this doesn't mean we should let pass all of them. defeat what can be defeated. So if the protection bought you a few months if that much you would be a happy camper? Once a tool is out it's point and click. Myke;1787641']And finally' date=' again people are just complaining instead of trying to understand the other side and try to propose solutions. This all-time-repeating "i don't want it" will bring us nowhere. [/quote'] Likewise, i really can't see why bis should spend their time and money on making a protection. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[frl]myke 14 Posted November 13, 2010 No it did not, it's like using UPX to protect a program you coded(UPX is a PE compressor). So you're saying before a certain tool was available, there was a way to directly open (debinarize) a p3d file? Sorry, seems that i've missed that. Likewise, i really can't see why bis should spend their time and money on making a protection. This is not up to you to decide (nor me for that matter) but to BIS. At least Dwarden already stepped in this thread so i guess BIS is following this discussion. So i think it's more productive to put some more effort into finding a consens both side could live with. For me, this would look like this: Should there be a option to encrypt 3D data? - Yes Should there be a option to encrypt config files? - No Should there be a option to encrypt scripts? - No Should there be a option to encrypt missions.sqm? - No Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jw custom 56 Posted November 13, 2010 Myke;1787670']So you're saying before a certain tool was available' date=' there was a way to directly open (debinarize) a p3d file? Sorry, seems that i've missed that.[/quote'] I dunno i have no interest in models and the like, i'm saying it's being proven constantly through time that people with the right interest will break it. It's not like there's only 1 person in the community with skills to do so if they had the interest. Even of the hardest protections for games and programs are being broken, so implenting a protection that will actually work for a decent amount of time is VERY hard. Myke;1787670']This is not up to you to decide (nor me for that matter) but to BIS. At least Dwarden already stepped in this thread so i guess BIS is following this discussion. So i think it's more productive to put some more effort into finding a consens both side could live with. For me' date=' this would look like this: Should there be a option to encrypt 3D data? - Yes Should there be a option to encrypt config files? - No Should there be a option to encrypt scripts? - No Should there be a option to encrypt missions.sqm? - No[/quote'] Did i say it was up to me to decide? So i shouldn't be able to protect my missions, isn't that unfair? I mean i don't want to protect my missions but maybe theres somebody who would like to. There's also people in this thread(DM) who don't want anybody to snoop in his pbo's at all, what about him? or is it just about you and your p3d files? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dwarden 1125 Posted November 13, 2010 and then there will be demand to encrypt also texture and audio / music and video file format then there will be hit in performance for de-cryption of encryption then after 2 weeks when someone crack it there will be demand to create 'stronger' encryption ... infinite loop ... so i'm closing this thread because most of posters constantly repeat what they already wrote and all what was needed to be said was said ... i might be re-opened later when there is point to ... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
