http://www.artfulbits.com/Android/antipiracy.aspx
If your a Dev please support them, if you need assistance msg me i can send u code that will allow your app to automatically send a message to this company with a users information that has stolen your app or tried to steal it.
pentace said:
http://www.artfulbits.com/Android/antipiracy.aspx
If your a Dev please support them, if you need assistance msg me i can send u code that will allow your app to automatically send a message to this company with a users information that has stolen your app or tried to steal it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm all for cracking down hard on piracy, but there are three big flaws with this solution:
1) How would Artfulbits verify that an app reporting a device is a "dark" device is making that report in good faith? If a bunch of pirates wanted to render this service pointless, they could just create apps that flood the service with false positives.
2) It is possible (although difficult) to link IMEI to a user/owner. This makes a publicly accessible database of "dark" IMEIs somewhat shady in terms of being a breach of privacy.
3) Finally, if this service is to be useful, apps have to have some way of acting on the information in the database. That is just going to lead to folks "cracking" apks to remove the IMEI-checking routines, or simply using leakproof firewalls to prevent the app from accessin the IMEI database.
Thoughts?
There is not going to be a way to completely stop piracy. Google just needs to step up the way the market works to prevent some of the piracy.
I understand devs deserve money for their hard work (and the log of my google checkout shows I support them) but I personally dont want any app reporting any information about myself or my phone. If there is a list of which apps do I will find an alternative for better or worse and not use the app. Not to knock on those who support this method, I just personally dont like it.
rondey- said:
There is not going to be a way to completely stop piracy. Google just needs to step up the way the market works to prevent some of the piracy.
I understand devs deserve money for their hard work (and the log of my google checkout shows I support them) but I personally dont want any app reporting any information about myself or my phone. If there is a list of which apps do I will find an alternative for better or worse and not use the app. Not to knock on those who support this method, I just personally dont like it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well considering my app has been pirated 3x as much as it has been downloaded legally i would be willing to let go of the few that are not comfortable with their imei being registered on a website which only happens if u are stealing an app, most apps out there gather more information from you than that without you even knowing.
I don't get why people would install this program. If it detects pirated software on your phone then who the hell are you letting you use your phone? Lets say you know you have pirated software well then of course you wont install this program. If you know your running a clean rom and have no reason to suspect pirated software your giving up a lot of information for a false sense of security. So unless this is forcibly installed on everyone's phone I don't see what's the point.
psychoace said:
I don't get why people would install this program. If it detects pirated software on your phone then who the hell are you letting you use your phone? Lets say you know you have pirated software well then of course you wont install this program. If you know your running a clean rom and have no reason to suspect pirated software your giving up a lot of information for a false sense of security. So unless this is forcibly installed on everyone's phone I don't see what's the point.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not a program you install. It is a database. App developers write routines into their programs which access the database. If an application suspects that it was illegally pirated, then it will send the user's IMEI to the database.
This is stupid idea. Go to the source of piracy if you want to fight it.
Give people access to paid apps on market and they won't download illegal copies form rapidshare...
su27 said:
Give people access to paid apps on market and they won't download illegal copies form rapidshare...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Riiiight... because if you give pirates the option to pay they'll definitely all pay right?
This database thing bothers me.
Not because I might be stealing programs..
but because I might find one and not know its "dark"
Suddenly I'm on some blacklist because I thought an app was cool?
I just did a search on one of the torrent sites, and found a file to DL.
It has 231 apk files and 2 .bak files. (I'm assuming the bak files are for a cracked version of the paid apk) but many of these files are a)old versions or b) free already.
Normally I would say SCORE! I don't have to DL to the g1, then back up, uninstall, transfer to the pc, and store.
Last time I tried a file like that, more than half were for cupcake, and would not work on my donut. Recycle bin.
With this Database I would get tagged as a cheater the first time I tried to install any of those files that were marked. But I have no idea they are "dark" before hand.
While I thank the Dev's for the work they do.
{Seriously, Thank you Developers!}
I'm a student, and I'm poor, which means I'm cheap.
I have several free apks stored away. Hell, I still used youtube downloader 1.2...until it quit working last week. Why, because I don't want to spend money just to have a cool phone.
If you really want to make it hard on the thieves... someone make a program that cripples another program, until the user requests the full version. Then it reads the Imei number from the phone and sends an upgrade request to a server. The server requests payment. Server verifies payment. The server issues a hashed password based on the Imei, which is then sent back to the phone as a password. Customer never sees the password.
This is what Doc to go appears to do. I could be wrong.
Now make it so that program can be imbedded in any other program.
Now thieves need a whole crap load of hacking to find enough hashed passwords to find the hash.
If the hash is added to at random intervals, or a different hash is used based on the Imei number, they might never find the hash.
Besides that, how the heck does a program know if it has been stolen?
How can it tell between a stolen program and a wiped phone that is getting reinstalled with backed up apk's?
jashsu said:
I'm all for cracking down hard on piracy, but there are three big flaws with this solution:
1) How would Artfulbits verify that an app reporting a device is a "dark" device is making that report in good faith? If a bunch of pirates wanted to render this service pointless, they could just create apps that flood the service with false positives.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exists several strategies, for example the most popular is "honey pot" strategy. When vendor especially making leak of software or prepare specially application to track piracy.
jashsu said:
2) It is possible (although difficult) to link IMEI to a user/owner. This makes a publicly accessible database of "dark" IMEIs somewhat shady in terms of being a breach of privacy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For example in our country sufficient IMEI of the phone to find it owner and it location, of course if you have police under your shelders. That is why I am thinking that IMEI is a good identifier.
jashsu said:
3) Finally, if this service is to be useful, apps have to have some way of acting on the information in the database. That is just going to lead to folks "cracking" apks to remove the IMEI-checking routines, or simply using leakproof firewalls to prevent the app from accessin the IMEI database.
Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Solution is not perfect, but can be easily enhanced. HTTPS protocol with certificate checks will make firewalls and redirections useless.
What functionality exactly you have in mind?
[email protected] said:
While I thank the Dev's for the work they do.
{Seriously, Thank you Developers!}
I'm a student, and I'm poor, which means I'm cheap.
I have several free apks stored away. Hell, I still used youtube downloader 1.2...until it quit working last week. Why, because I don't want to spend money just to have a cool phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Leave according to your money. what can I say... spend less, work more.
[email protected] said:
Besides that, how the heck does a program know if it has been stolen?
How can it tell between a stolen program and a wiped phone that is getting reinstalled with backed up apk's?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Several simple steps:
- install software only from well known web sites, Android Market, Handagoo, SlideMe, etc.
- try to use trials and if it does not exists but you want to try, contact with developers. In most cases developer will provide you version for testing.
- if your phone is placed into black list, then you can contact "blacklist" vendor for explanation and fixing.
jashsu said:
Riiiight... because if you give pirates the option to pay they'll definitely all pay right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You see - that's your problem - you want to fight the enemy instead of prevent war.
In my country there are many people who would pay for android programs because they are quite cheap. But we have no access to paid market. That is why we download apps illegaly.
Now, what do you think will faster stop us from stealing apps:
A. Calling us pirates and thieves
B. Giving us access to paid apps
su27 said:
Now, what do you think will faster stop us from stealing apps:
A. Calling us pirates and thieves
B. Giving us access to paid apps
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are making the incredibly flawed assumption that piracy only happens because people have no access to the paid market. Are some people put in this situation? Yes, probably. But the majority of pirates likely DO have access to the paid market and simply don't want to pay.
I am a bit confused, what does this ban people from? The market in it's entirety?
If that is the case, I would think you'd see an outburst of pirating once people couldn't access the market anymore. And that would also prevent people who may not feel like dishing out $100 for a navigation solution from purchasing numerous $1-10 programs that they would actually use on a daily basis. I think this methodology is flawed.
Piracy will never be completely stopped. However, making it harder for people to pirate your software is the best prevention. Instead of saying "Oh, you might have installed a pirated copy of XXX on your device, so now you can't purchase any more programs legitimately, so keep on stealing!". Due diligence falls on the hands of the software creators. If piracy is something you want to prevent (or at least inhibit) for your software, create an IMEI checking device key required to be granted after receipt (and clearance) of payment. Similar to CoPilot, granted it still gets cracked - it is much harder and much less widespread, and a simple update renders it useless to those who used the cracked version (check all over these forums for people complaining about it).
Also, implement trials that don't require the user to pay for them, giving them only 24 hours to try something out before they decide they need their money back. Even Microsoft lets users go 30 days without activation (last I checked) to try out Windows. They do not (to the best of my knowledge) make great attempts to prevent their software from being copied, but instead make it harder on those who do pirate it. Blocking system updates (of course everything has a workaround or crack, but making it harder on someone is oftentimes a great deterrent), preventing new feature installation, etc.
I am not condoning piracy, nor am I condemning software publishers. Just trying to make a point, which is this:
If you take someone who has stolen a program (for whatever reason/justification they may think of) and punish them by revoking their access to purchase said program (or any other program), you have thus reinforced their reason/justification to not purchase any programs.
Now, i may be wrong here, but looking at their source code to integrate into applications, there seem to be 2 things: 1) the device has to have a data connection, otherwise the code doesnt know whether the device is blacklisted or not, at which point it defaults to assuming it isnt, which overall is a good thing for users who have paid but for whatever reason dont have network at that time, however it is easy enough to stop an application from accessing the network, or even a specific site (ie the site for your imei number on their page).
secondly, is this meant to run on the first run of an app, or every run? if it is every run then i can see people getting annoyed by the unnecessary data usage, whereas if it is only on the first run then someone still has access to all their pirated apps from before they were on the database.
please note the only coding i have done is some fairly simple C, so i could be wrong, but anyone can check this if they want: http://www.artfulbits.com/Articles/Samples/Piracy/Integration.aspx
I think that by now most people know that I don't honeycoat things, so I'll just say it... this idea is RETARDED.
1) The application needs to use the API to get the IMEI. If you start using the IMEI to blacklist phones, a minor modification to the API causes the application to always read a string of 0's. Defeated.
2) The application needs PERMISSION to read the IMEI (android.permission.READ_PHONE_STATE). If you start requiring programs to have this permission, people will simply DENY it this permission (yes, it IS possible to block a permission)... this is ESPECIALLY the case when the application has *no good reason* to read the phone state.
3) As has been mentioned before in this thread, HOW DO YOU KNOW that an application you are downloading is pirated? Many applications are FREE to download, and virtually NONE of the pirated apps are labeled as "THIS IS PIRATED".
4) Connection to the internet can be EASILY blocked. Lots of ways... firewall, hosts, permissions, etc. Again, defeated.
Oh, and to those saying crap like access to paid market won't stop piracy, NOBODY SAID IT WOULD!!! It *WILL* reduce it though, since there ARE people out there who WOULD buy apps *IF THEY COULD*.
daveid said:
I am a bit confused, what does this ban people from? The market in it's entirety?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Read the description again more carefully. This does not impact a user's ability to access the Market, as it is not a Google product. In case your comprehension is lacking, i'll explain it very simply:
1. A developer decides to use the Artfulbits Anti Piracy Database (shortened AAPD) with its app.
2. A user downloads this AAPD-enabled app from the market.
3. When said app is run, it sends the IMEI of the device to the Artfulbits server. The server returns a color code corresponding to the number of times that IMEI has been reported by other AAPD-enabled apps for piracy. The app can then do whatever it wants with that information. This can be anything from deleting itself to crippling its own functionality.
4. App can also detect if has been pirated (by checking to see if the app has an entry in the user's personal Market account or some other method). If the app detects it is pirated, it will send a report to AAPD.
Another point Artfulbits failed to consider is that not all Android devices will have IMEIs to report.
Is piracy really that much of a problem? I mean most apps cost <3€ and I don't think I am the only one who values his time higher than saving 3€. I rather pay once and get updates via Market than check warez-sites for updates, and I think that most think that way?
There are just two apps that I ever considered to pirate. One was a dictionary for 20$ but I ended up buying it. The other is CoPilot which I would never buy since I don't own a car, but since it is not cracked anyway, I was not forced to really think about it.
I don't see anything good coming from that database. I.e. if my phone would be entered by mistake, you can imagine what problems that would cause for devs whose apps I bought, which I assume would suddenly stop working then.
You really need to think about whether the negative side-effects of such measures like this database are worth the (presumably very small) benefit.
1.9 Are there things I can’t do on the Services? You must not use the Services to harm others or the Services. For example, you must not:
•Use unauthorized software or hardware to access the Services or modify an Authorized Device in any unauthorized way (e.g., through unauthorized repairs, unauthorized upgrades, or unauthorized downloads). You agree that we have the right to send data, applications or other content to any software or hardware that you are using to access the Services for the purpose of detecting an unauthorized modification and/or disabling the modified device; or
•Attempt to disassemble, decompile, create derivative works of, reverse engineer, modify, further sublicense, distribute, or use for other purposes the Services, any game, application, or other content available or accessible through the Services, or any hardware associated with the Services or with an Authorized Device. If you do, we may cancel your account and your ability to access the Services, and pursue other legal remedies. We may take any legal action we deem appropriate against users who violate our systems or network security, this Agreement or any additional terms incorporated or referenced in it. Such users may also incur criminal or civil liability.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Source : Xbox Live Terms of Usage
I'm getting a popup that I should accept the new end users agreement when trying to install a new app or check my Xbox Achievements, I have however a few questions about this paragraph above (I have honestly never seen this before) :
- Is it safe to accept if I have interop-unlocked my Samsung Ativ S, installed the BootStrapper.xap and EnableAllSideLoading.xap, WP8Tools and WP Tweaks from -W_O_L_F- and GoodDayToDie and jessenic.
- I'd used proxies provided by reker and others on XDA-Developers to access some manufacturing exclusive apps (like Nokia apps)
- Should I be worried if I accept that they can block and/or delete my Xbox account, I have saved a fair amount of temporally free store apps and I don't want to lose them.
If so, should I be better off to switch back to Android because they "allow" (turning a blind eye to) rooting your phone or tablet?
Please help me guys, I'm starting to freak out (I haven't accepted the new version of the EULA yet).
Terms like that have traditionally been part of the XBL EULA, but in the past they've always related to cheating or piracy on the console itself. People certainly have gotten their accounts banned for that, which is part of why I have nothing to do with such things. As for whether it's "safe" to accept... eh. If they want to, they can easily argue that you broke the EULA (and forfeited your account) when you interop-unlocked your phone, but they haven't - so far as I know - ever tried to attack individuals or their devices. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't do anything so foolish, either. Both Google and Apple have disabled peoples' accounts in the past for EULA/TOS violations - Apple for iOS hacks, Google for incredibly stupid <REDACTED> like breaking the Real Name Policy on G+ - and so for that matter has Microsoft, for something almost as idiotic (if you want to take risqué photos with your phone, make damn sure auto-upload is off even if your SkyDrive profile is set to private; they've called it a TOS violation and suspended, though not quite completely disabled, peoples' accounts for that). Every single one I've heard of resulted in a flood of bad PR, and not in the "all PR is good PR" sort of way... more like calls for lawsuits, and accusing anybody who uses that platform of being an idiot.
If there's one thing Microsoft cannot afford to do with regard to Windows Phone right now, it's give people another reason *not* to buy it. We are probably safe.
Yes, but WP8 is gaining popularity so maybe they won't do it now but in the future they probably will. Was this clause also present at the time of the interop-unlocking of WP7? If so, you are probably right. But as a precaution is it possible to lock out Microsoft from checking if modifications are made to the system (like you did with the relock solution redirect the data to a different proxy)?
GoodDayToDie said:
if you want to take risqué photos with your phone, make damn sure auto-upload is off even if your SkyDrive profile is set to private; they've called it a TOS violation and suspended, though not quite completely disabled, peoples' accounts for that
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you sure of that? It means they watch the photos we take? I don't think so... maybe they used it as an image hosting and shared the link everywhere in the internet...
It's supposedly automated scanning that recognizes anything that looks like it needs to be flagged for human review...
http://wmpoweruser.com/microsoft-monitoring-censoring-skydrive-uploads/
http://wmpoweruser.com/watch-what-you-store-on-skydriveyou-may-lose-your-microsoft-life/
http://www.neowin.net/news/microsofts-ban-of-nudity-on-skydrive-questioned
etc...
When developing an application for desktop windows, there's always a way to access functionality - sometimes through back doors like the registry, etc... I'm developing an application for Windows Phone 8.1, but there are certain pieces of functionality that aren't exposed in the PRT APIset that is available to me. For example, we want to ensure that the user has password protection on the lock screen when using the application. There doesn't seem to be any associated APIs to readily use. So my question is, are there back door ways to do such things? How? Is there a way to access ALL system settings - like a registry or something of the like?
proch said:
When developing an application for desktop windows, there's always a way to access functionality - sometimes through back doors like the registry, etc... I'm developing an application for Windows Phone 8.1, but there are certain pieces of functionality that aren't exposed in the PRT APIset that is available to me. For example, we want to ensure that the user has password protection on the lock screen when using the application. There doesn't seem to be any associated APIs to readily use. So my question is, are there back door ways to do such things? How? Is there a way to access ALL system settings - like a registry or something of the like?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Another question would be - if something like intune can enforce lock screen password policies, shouldn't I be able to do it the same way that intune does it? If so, how? If not - why not?
It's not possible to check if user enabled lock screen password or not as far as I know
but if you want to made your app secure (because it may include important data)
you can create a password for your own application !
I did it in a little notepad app my password page allow user to set a password with all English and Persian Characters , numbers and special Chars like [email protected]#$ and etc.
Sent from my RM-994_eu_poland_1183 using Tapatalk
It's pretty easy to check, using the registry, but at least in 8.0 that's not allowed at all for store apps (your app would get rejected). I don't know if the rules changed for 8.1. There are ways to sneak past the store checks, but they could pull your app from the store if they ever found out. I know of at least three ways to access the registry APIs (4 in WP8.1) and two of them are pretty hard to detect unless somebody checks for them specifically... but they're the kind of technique that malware uses, so such checks may be in place.
I don't know what InTune is doing, specifically - I'd need to pull the app apart to see - but there are special application capabilities (not normally available to third-party developers) that can query and even set policies. Apps without those capabilities will get Access Denied if they try to use the same methods though, and normally you can't add those capabilities to your app.
GoodDayToDie said:
It's pretty easy to check, using the registry, but at least in 8.0 that's not allowed at all for store apps (your app would get rejected). I don't know if the rules changed for 8.1. There are ways to sneak past the store checks, but they could pull your app from the store if they ever found out. I know of at least three ways to access the registry APIs (4 in WP8.1) and two of them are pretty hard to detect unless somebody checks for them specifically... but they're the kind of technique that malware uses, so such checks may be in place.
I don't know what InTune is doing, specifically - I'd need to pull the app apart to see - but there are special application capabilities (not normally available to third-party developers) that can query and even set policies. Apps without those capabilities will get Access Denied if they try to use the same methods though, and normally you can't add those capabilities to your app.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for this great and detailed information. See, that's exactly what I'd do if I were developing a desktop app - since i know that intune does it, I'd figure out how intune does it and voila. I'm finally getting over the idea that the same methodologies apply to windows phone development.
For my own educational purposes (since I want to understand this platform better), I would really like to know specifically how you go about accessing the registry APIs (for example). If there's any way for you to describe any number of these methods, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks again!
My NativeAccess libraries (check my signature, or search on the forum or on Codeplex) contain an example of one way to access the registry. The code is open-source; you may use the libraries as-is (don't expect to get them into the store, though I won't stop you from trying), use the source code as a reference, or modify/build them yourself; the license is very liberal (MS Permissive). The functions I use are generally documented on MSDN, in the desktop APIs section; the phone has the same functions, although the DLL names are changed and the header files hide them.