On Thursday, 12 April 2012 16:26:37 UTC+1, latimerius wrote: > > I too consider not protecting the app at all a valid option. However, > ideally I would like to have something to deter the more simple-minded > cracking attacks. Anti-copying protection seems to follow the 80/20 > rule quite often - confusing and annoying the army of script kiddies > or attackers who are not very knowledgeable or motivated doesn't cost > you all that much. The rest you'll have to bow to anyway. > > And I too agree that user convenience weighs more than good > anti-copying measures. Which is why I'm considering, if I can't do > LVL under the free/paid app scheme properly, it might be better to > avoid it altogether. Because pretty much anytime you use a protection > scheme, you run a risk of annoying legitimate users - and running that > risk doesn't seem to be worth it for a protection that doesn't even > protect very much. > > Not being able to obfuscate and hide LVL code in other code is quite a > big deal here - under the particular circumstances (all of your code > and assets live in untrusted environment) obfuscation is your > front-line security measure. Without it, your security core (the LVL > check itself) becomes exposed and vulnerable. > > I'll have to think about this some more and weigh carefully pros and cons. > > > You've pretty much summed up what I was thinking.
Iain -- 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
