Actually, they have taken care of that also. The option is up to the site owner who can allow/disallow remote viewing for most commonly used remote apps.
Within a corporate network or intranet remote viewing may not be an option at all… it depends on the network administrator.
Put it in a pdf and use lizardlock service to host it (their services are at least $2500 per year). Customer will have to download their viewer. It’s not valid for the original posting’s need since it’s such a pain for any customers, but for internal company uses may be a valid security option. Personally I hate paranoid security BS but if that’s our job we gotta do it.
For PDF documents, CopySafe PDF is the only solution that is safe from all copying and screen capture and it doesn’t involve a server and hosting… unless you want access rights assigned (to limit redistribution) in which case have a look at ArtistScope’s DRM options.
A VM is not a remote viewing application it is a virtual computer completely indistinguishable from the real thing. To disallow it you must disallow the entire browser!
Also the protection is easily spoiled by intercepting the HTTP packets with via third-party sniffing tools or from directly inside Firefox.
If it can display in a web browser as HTML then it is IMPOSSIBLE to protect it. The other methods of creating protected pages as PDFs or where you need a special application to view it can all work but where the final result displays in a web browser without requiring a plugin the browser has already decrypted the source for you by the time you view the page. If the encryption is such that you can’t decrypt it with just a web browser then you can’t view the page with just a web browser either. If a web browser can display the page without a plugin being required then there is already a decrypted copy of your content in the web browser where it can easily be extracted.
If you want something to be protected then you can’t produce the content as HTML - you need to select some other format that actually allows for protection (such as creating a PDF).
Not so. A remote connection has already been detected and you don’t get to view the content.
What are you hoping to trap with packet sniffing?
It’s not impossible with images. Encrypted images can stay in the browser’s cache forever but they cannot be used. So if it’s document storage you want then it can be scanned to image and safe from your own web master.
Imagine logging into a web page, uploading a Word document, PDF document or image from your computer, having it converted to image/resized and then encrypted for domain lock… a couple of clicks and you have the most secure solution imaginable.
The work is done server side and no software/skill is required.
See artisbiz dot com
How do you encrypt an image? Either it is in a format that can be viewed or it isn’t. If it isn’t a gif, jpeg, or png file then browsers can’t display it and if it is then simply copying it from the cache is all you need do to have a copy.
Even where an image isn’t cached it still needs to be linked into the page in order for the page to display it and that link is sufficient to allow you to request to download a copy of the image bypassing any hotlink protection since the page displaying the image has access to the image so a view source userscript that displays the filename of the image as a link to it gives you a one click download of the image.
The only way to prevent copying and using the image is to use a plugin to generate the image and that again means that people without the plugin don’t see the image.
That’s right Felgall. The CopySafe system depends on you installing an plugin that decrypts the image, and hammers down on the computers abilities while that plugin is in use.
That’s right. You have the choice of using a plugin to display an encrypted image or a Java applet. With either method the image is downloaded to the browser (client side) and is stored in the browser cache. But it’s an encrypted image and cannot be displayed or viewed in its original form except from the web site that it belongs to. This technology is quite sophisticated and has evolved from years of R&D and customer experience. As far as I know there has only ever been one solution that can do this and it’s been around for 10 years.
So what’s the drama with plugins? Plugins are an integral part of browser support and without them nothing will run. Don’t you need a plugin to view Flash?
The bottom line is if you want special effects at system level you need to use a plugin.
So does CopySafe Web disabled Windows Vista DWM effects like Live Thumbnails which is capable of being extracted? Don’t let the name full you, the thumbnails can be sized to anything.
So there is no disagreement as all I have been saying is that anything that can display in a browser without requiring a plugin cannot be encrypted without that encryption being a waste of time.
Whether using a plugin in order to make the encryption effective is a waste of time depends on whether you can convince people that it is worth their while to install the plugin. If you are competing against other web pages that are fully functional in a browser without a plugin then that immediately puts your site at a big disadvantage - particularly if the plugin is designed to interfere with your computer’s operation.
That explains why sites don’t use CopySafe - no one will install such a stupid plugin and any site that uses it is therefore completely unviewable and may as well not be on the web.
Interesting ! How to encrypt the html. Any tools available for that ?
None that work - since a web browser has to be able to decrypt it to display the page and your visitors can always see that version.
I suppose though that when you get right down to it, it’s like saying that door locks don’t work because you can get in through the windows, or use a crowbar.
At some point you have to admit that the protection is not perfect, but despite that it does help to provide a deterrant. Anyone getting through are serious players.
That’s where you are wrong. Sites do use it… those that need proper protection. And most of those that are using it are large corporations with inhouse development teams who have evaluated every other possible option… and they don’t call it “stupid”.
The choice of whether copy protection is employed and whether to use a plugin is not up to the visitor… and that’s what you are missing. The choice is up to the site owner who may have copyrighted or otherwise intellectual property, and unless it can be protected you don’t get to see it all.
It doesn’t have to… you can’t make a thumbnail from an encrypted image.
Clearly you never used Windows Vista. Every window in Vista creates a real-time image of itself to be displayed on screen. These images are accessible though a public API in DWM.
Flip 3D uses these images to create its effects, as does Live Thumbnails in the taskbar.
It doesn’t matter if the image is encrypted or not. In order for it to been seen it must be composed onto the window’s rendering.
