users
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [cinjug-users] Product Keys

To: users@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [cinjug-users] Product Keys
From: <deshmol-lists@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 08:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
Delivered-to: mailing list users@cinjug.org
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=sDCEaCC/+WrD1Wtl5C2W3TZmfhNBfHZtTXDhp21zU0NnXO9Wx49NgHs4pz84/JnuMPSzZyYIkBKE51psUdrqWFrFxMQuhkMFlehll3ObpvQQ1qBn1OF5ygwpe83Ew27egYIfK6vnW3PS/VaGdZ13CsJb8ZoI9R5m9+cDLMm+22w= ;
In-reply-to: <016e01c6bd37$5ee49f10$6401a8c0@CARMANI9300>
Mailing-list: contact users-help@cinjug.org; run by ezmlm
Reply-to: deshmol-lists@xxxxxxxxx
since part of the problem is that java can be
decompiled so easily, i wonder if using jni for the
licensing code could help.

~ amol

--- James Carman <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> This is somewhat dated, but I found it a very
> interesting read when I was
> considering how to write a licensing service for my
> Java code.  It's
> somewhat depressing:
> 
>  
> 
> http://www.cigital.com/hostile-applets/maginot.html
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: Scott Hofmann [mailto:shofmann@xxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 7:06 AM
> To: users@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [cinjug-users] Product Keys
> 
>  
> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> I'm involved in a software product being developed
> in Java and wondered if
> anyone here has had any experience with product keys
> and registrations?  I'm
> hearing from the developer that to do registration:
> 
>  
> 
> "From my research online, it looks like the only
> truly secure way is to have
> a license server.  The software would then connect
> to the license server to
> ensure that it is legitimate.  However, this seems
> like an expensive
> solution as it requires *much* more development work
> in addition to having
> another server to maintain."
> 
>  
> 
> Sooo... I'm trying to identify ways others are doing
> their product keys or
> have heard of doing them. We really do not need a
> truly secure key. The
> product will sell for under $50. What we need we
> think is just a simple
> solution that help to: 
> 
>  
> 
> - Keep people honest and not feeling to free about
> passing along copies to
> other.
> 
> - Being able to provide support to those who truly
> purchased the product.
> 
> - Most likely we would not trouble ourselves with
> those people who are
> dishonest and feel the need to find loop hole in
> software product keys in
> order to use it anyway.
> 
>  
> 
> Any advice or thoughts on this topic would be
> helpful.
> 
>  
> 
> - Scott Hofmann
> 
>  
> 
> 


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>