> LVL is flawed in the same ways that AAL (and other similar approaches) > is flawed. Google could do better, and I hope that they will.
I think it's wrong to focus on what Google could or could not do here. Did you read my reply to your original mail? If so what did you think of it? All copy protection systems have two parts - something they bind to, and the obfuscation that makes it harder to rip that binding out. Most video games bind to a genuine DVD. Some games, like those distributed via Xbox Live Arcade, bind to licensing data from an online market, which is closer to what Android apps are doing. So there are obviously two ways copy protection schemes get cracked. One is that the binding is removed - the obfuscation wasn't good enough. That's what was being done in the recently published tutorial. In that case there was no obfuscation at all! Another way is that the thing the program binds to is swapped out for a duplicate, eg in the PC world DVD emulation drivers are often used. For Android this approach means getting a valid license the app accepts in some non- valid manner. > Obfuscation isn't really going to do much to improve the situation. Obfuscation is the only thing that will improve this situation! The two pronged attack is split down the middle - LVL makes obfuscation your problem and preventing illegitimate licenses being vended Googles problem. Fortunately there's lots of room for creative people to create interesting obfuscations, either custom for their own product or as a third party developer who sells copy protection solutions. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
