On Mar 1, 9:17 am, Al Sutton <a...@funkyandroid.com> wrote: > I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. > > As I see it you're not willing to factor in the difficulty level in > cracking the system and implementing a generic method as a > differentiating factor between the protection methods, whereas my > viewpoint is based on the level of effort needed to break the > AndAppStore licensing system being sufficiently high to ensure that it's > not worth doing (part of the reason the source code for licensing checks > is available > fromhttp://andappstore.com/AndroidPhoneApplications/licensing.jspis so that > developers can vary how it's included in their code and thus eliminate > the possibility of attackers scanning for a constant class name or byte > code pattern).
That's a fair summary of my position. I still don't think that the AndAppStore system would be particularly difficult to break, and I've e-mailed you off-list about the specifics. > Thanks for putting the effort in to continue the conversation to this point. Yes, you too. It was an interesting debate. -- Jon --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
