khartley:
I'm protecting the products in this way at the request of the authors of the materials.
<snip>
- and I am not of a mind to argue with them.
I guess this is where you and I differ greatly. I never have any problems with arguing with clients (obviously). I consider this as part of my job. Clients ask/request many things for all sorts of reasons, but very few of them understand the technicalities behind their requests, which is why they employ people like us in the first place. It is up to us to explain any issues or concerns that may arise from their requests.
In this case, my main concern (other than a lot of relatively useless work) would be to ensure that the client is made fully aware that this 'protection' really doesn't offer them any protection at all. To blindly go ahead with their request (undoubtedly at their expense) without telling them this, is not only unethical, but also leads them into a false sense of security.
No, I'm not suggesting that you are an unethical person, but if you, like your customers, are also unaware of this lack of protection, then it would be amiss of me to not also inform you of the situation.
khartley:
I got it working with no grief or compliants, and plenty of sales,
OK, so you have the skills to perform the changes needed, but why would the customers complain if it works as advertised. As for the plenty of sales, I don't see how this would have any real affect. I'll wager the sales would be the same regardless of whether the files were uniquely encrypted or not.
khartley:
And RodG, I thought that by keeping the question simple and just asking which pages were involved, I'd be pointing out that I knew I'd be making custom modifications to those pages.
Even if I were able to read this into your original posting, it doesn't in any way imply that you actually have the skills to perform the task. Of course, it doesn't mean that you don't have the skills either, BUT, what you were asking really doesn't have a simple answer (as you are hopefully aware by now), so on what grounds would any of us have of giving you a detailed response to a difficult question without first trying to determine if we are going to be wasting our time or not?
khartley:
I didn't expect to be grilled on the whys of the situation - no offense,
Again, you were asking a question that didn't have the 'simple' answer that you wanted. I think 'being grilled' is somewhat of an overstatement.
khartley:
but let me take on the dangers, risks, trials and tiribulations without policing!
I/we are more than happy to let you take on 'the dangers', as long as we know that you know what those dangers are, if any.
It would be amiss of us to let you accept this responsibility if your weren't aware of them.
khartley:
For my part I promise not to bug you with any more questions on the topic.
So now I know where to start with the mods - thank you both again!
You really have taken us the wrong way. You are more than welcome to 'bug us' with questions. In fact we'll even encourage you to do so.
Although you don't see it this way, but I/we don't sit here all day waiting to give people a hard time. Many of my replies in particular may come across that way, but that is simply because I don't believe sugar coating things or stating things that people want to hear. I really have no problems at all in stating cold hard facts, and/or asking further questions in order to be able to give a useful response.
In your case, the original questions were enough to let me know two things for sure.
-
You are/were planning some serious code modifications.
-
The end result of said modifications were probably not going to offer you the kind of protection that you actually needed.
Seriously, answer me this, before having this discussion were you really aware of how little protection the 'unique encryption' idea actually offers, or, have you gained a little insight as to the flawed logic in using this method?
Can you now explain why you believe a unique encryption is going to offer any more benefit over a single encryption, knowing that a software thief isn't even going to know that their encrypted file has a different key than the next customers encryption key?
Have you explained to your client(s) the flaw in this logic? (if not, why not?)
By all means, you do what you feel you need to do to keep your clients happy, this is entirely up to you, but please don't expect me to lead you blindly down a path to nowhere (or let others lead you down the same path), without at least turning on a light or two so that you can see exactly where you are headed.
If you still wish to follow the path, I'll help where I can - or in this case, perhaps not (depends on the question), because I firmly believe that this is giving your clients a false sense of security, and in my world (network security) a false sense of security is worse than no security at all.
Cheers
Rod
NOTE: We are sorry that Rod is no longer with us.
We are grateful for all his contributions to the Zen Cart community.
Ozpost - The Ultimate Shipping module for Australian Merchants. Click these links for its Homepage, or Download from Zen-Cart.com.