Joshua Leung wrote: > Human nature means that if we started actively setting up fortress-like > security "features", naturally some people will be drawn towards defeating > these measures ("the tougher the better!"). True - those that hack things for fun will be drawn to it as soon as we announce some form of security. That is the nature of the beast, but...
> However, I believe that due to this ease, it's really not that "fun" or > "attractive" for most crackers to bother. > This is a fallacy people need to rid themselves of. Cracking games and the latest anti-copying measures companies use IS fun for alot of these people. As is writing malware. The thing people forget though (or perhaps wishfully dismiss) is that malware is an *industry*. Those people funding the malware authors aren't in it because they think it is "fun", they are in it because they think it a business they can make money from it (i.e. criminal enterprise). Currently Blender is not worth the time of a commercial malware developer, I agree with that entirely. A person that writes one for fun might put one out to see how far it goes before being stopped, but that is a low risk I agree. The issue is being discussed because at sometime in the future Blender will be a viable vector for the commercial guys. Regardless of how fun or not it might be to write something that is launched via Blender - if there are enough people who will be infected by it, it will be done. I don't mind the core developers all coming out and stating "This cannot be done and as such, we're not going to bother". That is a reason I cannot argue with logically. When people claim that being cautious of malware vectors is "paranoia" or that Blender won't be hacked because it is "not fun" though - I will push back. Invalid reasoning should be rejected. -- Regards, Benjamin Tolputt Analyst Programmer _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers