Re: Saving a standalone
In deference to Shari, I think she's talking about protecting the *data* in the stack, not the scripts. Even a password protected and cantModify-ed stack can still be opened in MetaCard and the cards freely viewed. Shari, if this is your concern, my suggestion would be to keep card 1 of your data stack empty, and keep your data on cards 2+. Then, set the script of all cards to go to card 1 on preOpenCard. Since they can't view the scripts, this will keep most people from viewing the cards that contain the data, and only the most determined hackers will be able to figure out what's going on and get around it. Ken Ray Sons of Thunder Software Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web Site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/ Another alternative would be to use custom properties to store data. If I am not mistaken, they are password-protected with the scripts. Robert ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Saving a standalone
Recently, Simon Lord wrote: Is it possible to have a standalone make changes to itself and actually save those changes? Nope. You can only edit/save (non-standalone) stacks. You can get close to what you ask by keeping the bulk of your scripts in a stack and using a small standalone engine to run the stack -- changes are save by the engine to the stack. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of using a standalone? Anything in the stack, can't it be opened etc. by anyone with Metacard? The purpose of using a standalone besides convenience, is to protect the data, scripts, imports, etc. from anyone with prying eyes. Yes you can script some protective things into a stack, but the whole purpose of having a standalone is for the extra protection it offers. -- --Shareware Games for the Mac-- http://www.gypsyware.com ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Saving a standalone
Shari, Actually, you can protect a stack as well as a standalone. Set the cantModify to true, give it a password and save it. The only thing someone with MC will be able to do is open your stack and view the cards - they won't be able to view or change scripts, and even if they move objects around, it won't be saved due to the cantModify. The scripts are also encrypted so that text editors won't be able to see anything but garbage. The only additional protection a standalone offers is that someone with MC can't just open a standalone and view the cards. Ken Ray Sons of Thunder Software Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web Site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/ - Original Message - From: Shari [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 9:49 AM Subject: Re: Saving a standalone Recently, Simon Lord wrote: Is it possible to have a standalone make changes to itself and actually save those changes? Nope. You can only edit/save (non-standalone) stacks. You can get close to what you ask by keeping the bulk of your scripts in a stack and using a small standalone engine to run the stack -- changes are save by the engine to the stack. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of using a standalone? Anything in the stack, can't it be opened etc. by anyone with Metacard? The purpose of using a standalone besides convenience, is to protect the data, scripts, imports, etc. from anyone with prying eyes. Yes you can script some protective things into a stack, but the whole purpose of having a standalone is for the extra protection it offers. -- --Shareware Games for the Mac-- http://www.gypsyware.com ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Saving a standalone
Actually, you can protect a stack as well as a standalone. Set the cantModify to true, give it a password and save it. The only thing someone with MC will be able to do is open your stack and view the cards - they won't be able to view or change scripts, and even if they move objects around, it won't be saved due to the cantModify. The scripts are also encrypted so that text editors won't be able to see anything but garbage. Ah but herein lies the dilemma... the reason for having an external stack in addition to the standalone, is to save data into since you can't save it in the standalone. In other words, it's a dump file of sorts. With a goal of making absolutely sure that nobody can view the data, but the standalone can get the data, save to it, read from it, etc. I remember from years of working with Hypercard, many discussions on how easy it was to break into a stack, even with protections. I do not know if this holds true for a Metacard stack. But I prefer to err on the side of caution. -- --Shareware Games for the Mac-- http://www.gypsyware.com ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Saving a standalone
Shari wrote: Recently, Simon Lord wrote: Is it possible to have a standalone make changes to itself and actually save those changes? Nope. You can only edit/save (non-standalone) stacks. You can get close to what you ask by keeping the bulk of your scripts in a stack and using a small standalone engine to run the stack -- changes are save by the engine to the stack. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of using a standalone? Anything in the stack, can't it be opened etc. by anyone with Metacard? The purpose of using a standalone besides convenience, is to protect the data, scripts, imports, etc. from anyone with prying eyes. Yes you can script some protective things into a stack, but the whole purpose of having a standalone is for the extra protection it offers. Such protections are afforded all password-protected stacks, standalone or not. Standalones not password protected can, with some work, still be edited with MetaCard. -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation Custom Software and Web Development for All Major Platforms Developer of WebMerge 2.0: Publish any Database on Any Site ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com Tel: 323-225-3717 AIM: FourthWorldInc ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Saving a standalone
Recently, Shari wrote: Such protections are afforded all password-protected stacks, standalone or not. But if you are creating a standalone to distribute, a password is a bad thing. The objective is to create a program, to distribute, but have whatever data you want hidden to remain that way even if someone tries to get into it. It is easier to break into a stack than a standalone, at least in Hypercard. So I'm assuming that MC is similar. That's why I prefer data not to be in a stack. But since that is not an option, how would one best protect the stack? So that the standalone can store and retrieve data from it, but people can't get into it. Setting the password of a stack does not simply prevent access to editing the scripts in MC/Rev -- it tokenizes the scripts so they are unreadable. Other folks have pointed out that one can open the scripts of a stack in a text editor; the same can be done with a standalone. However, if the stack (or standalone) is given a password, the scripts are not readable. Try this and see for yourself. Regards, Scott Rossi Creative Director Tactile Media, Multimedia Design - E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] W: http://www.tactilemedia.com ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Saving a standalone
On 6/27/02 7:02 PM, Shari wrote: But if you are creating a standalone to distribute, a password is a bad thing. The objective is to create a program, to distribute, but have whatever data you want hidden to remain that way even if someone tries to get into it. It is easier to break into a stack than a standalone, at least in Hypercard. So I'm assuming that MC is similar. Nope. :) When you password protect a stack in HyperCard, all access is denied to everybody; the stack (or at least the scripts, depending on what you've protected) won't open without the password. But even then, scripts are still visible in a text editor. But when you password protect a stack in MC, the scripts and all the hidden parts you describe are tokenized, i.e., scrambled. The stack is still usable by anybody, runs normally, looks the same, acts the same, you'd never know -- unless you try to look at the scripts. Within MC, access to scripts is simply denied with an error message. If you look at the stack in a text editor, all you see is the tokenized gobbledegook. Password protection is just what you want. You as the author can enter the passkey phrase and the scripts are opened up for editing in MC. Your users, however, don't need a password to run the stack. It will run just fine and they'll never know. -- Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED] HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Saving a standalone
In deference to Shari, I think she's talking about protecting the *data* in the stack, not the scripts. Even a password protected and cantModify-ed stack can still be opened in MetaCard and the cards freely viewed. Shari, if this is your concern, my suggestion would be to keep card 1 of your data stack empty, and keep your data on cards 2+. Then, set the script of all cards to go to card 1 on preOpenCard. Since they can't view the scripts, this will keep most people from viewing the cards that contain the data, and only the most determined hackers will be able to figure out what's going on and get around it. Ken Ray Sons of Thunder Software Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web Site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/ - Original Message - From: J. Landman Gay [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 9:25 PM Subject: Re: Saving a standalone On 6/27/02 7:02 PM, Shari wrote: But if you are creating a standalone to distribute, a password is a bad thing. The objective is to create a program, to distribute, but have whatever data you want hidden to remain that way even if someone tries to get into it. It is easier to break into a stack than a standalone, at least in Hypercard. So I'm assuming that MC is similar. Nope. :) When you password protect a stack in HyperCard, all access is denied to everybody; the stack (or at least the scripts, depending on what you've protected) won't open without the password. But even then, scripts are still visible in a text editor. But when you password protect a stack in MC, the scripts and all the hidden parts you describe are tokenized, i.e., scrambled. The stack is still usable by anybody, runs normally, looks the same, acts the same, you'd never know -- unless you try to look at the scripts. Within MC, access to scripts is simply denied with an error message. If you look at the stack in a text editor, all you see is the tokenized gobbledegook. Password protection is just what you want. You as the author can enter the passkey phrase and the scripts are opened up for editing in MC. Your users, however, don't need a password to run the stack. It will run just fine and they'll never know. -- Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED] HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Saving a standalone
Recently, Simon Lord wrote: Is it possible to have a standalone make changes to itself and actually save those changes? Nope. You can only edit/save (non-standalone) stacks. You can get close to what you ask by keeping the bulk of your scripts in a stack and using a small standalone engine to run the stack -- changes are save by the engine to the stack. Regards, Scott Rossi Creative Director Tactile Media, Multimedia Design Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: www.tactilemedia.com ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
