AFAIK that would be impossible because someone would just find away
around the protection. There has to be a way to unprotect the app
otherwise the file system would not be able to access the binary
file. If the file system has a way to access it, someone will figure
that out and then
Have you checked if the new Pages file format is now binary instead of a
package? That would be my guess. I don't see how you can stop anyone
from listing a directory structure.
Devon
Chunk 1978 wrote:
so i was a little put off after purchasing iWork '09, because i could
no longer access
On 12/01/2009 15:18, Chunk 1978 chunk1...@gmail.com wrote:
anyway, i started thinking about security of applications based on
showing package contents. as far as i know the only way for someone
to crack an application is to have access to the package contents
which lists the Unix Executable
New Pages format is the same but zipped.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Devon Ferns dfe...@devonferns.com wrote:
Have you checked if the new Pages file format is now binary instead of a
package? That would be my guess. I don't see how you can stop anyone from
listing a directory
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Chunk 1978 chunk1...@gmail.com wrote:
couldn't Apple implement
some sort of password protection or optional block on viewing package
contents with XCode so that apps are impossible to crack?
Impossible to crack? I totally agree - they should also make it
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:49 AM, I. Savant idiotsavant2...@gmail.com wrote:
The fact is, Apple ALREADY put a highly-effective* system into
place: Code signing.
A retraction: From the documentation (quoted below), the user can
apparently run modified code anyway ...
It is not a digital
Le 12 janv. 09 à 17:00, I. Savant a écrit :
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:49 AM, I. Savant
idiotsavant2...@gmail.com wrote:
The fact is, Apple ALREADY put a highly-effective* system into
place: Code signing.
A retraction: From the documentation (quoted below), the user can
apparently run
Note that there is a lots of app impossible to crack. We call them freeware
;-)
clever :p
___
Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com)
Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Jean-Daniel Dupas
devli...@shadowlab.org wrote:
The purpose of code sign is to prevent tempered code to be run inadvertently
by an user, not to protect the binary itself.
Agreed - see my retraction that immediately follows the message you
responded to. I
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:56 AM, I. Savant idiotsavant2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Jean-Daniel Dupas
devli...@shadowlab.org wrote:
The purpose of code sign is to prevent tempered code to be run inadvertently
by an user, not to protect the binary itself.
Agreed
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Michael Ash michael@gmail.com wrote:
And note that even when code signing *is* used as an anti-piracy
measure it doesn't really work. For evidence of this look at the
iPhone, whose ubiquitous code signing is used in a much more draconian
way on OS X, and
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Michael Ash michael@gmail.com wrote:
And note that even when code signing *is* used as an anti-piracy
measure it doesn't really work. For evidence of this look at the
iPhone, whose ubiquitous code signing is used in a much more draconian
way on OS X
On 12/01/2009 17:25, Michael Ash michael@gmail.com wrote:
On the Mac code signing is just a way for users to be able
to trust that an app is from who it says it's from.
I agree that it the underlying technology has the capability to provide
that, I'm not sure that code signing on the Mac
13 matches
Mail list logo
