On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 2:06 PM, PhistucK<[email protected]> wrote: > Wow, wow, wow. > Chill. > Not every single computer user can reverse engineer a binary. > It is harder than simply checking out a source code. > Some people do not go that far. > Some people just want their extension not to be copied and re-published that > easily. Or can you not understand that?
It is easy to understand, it is still stupid and pointless. And making chrome extensions into platform specific binaries is not going to stop anyone from copying your extension. uriel > ☆PhistucK > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 14:33, Uriel <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Aaron Boodman<[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 2:13 PM, >> > If you really do want this, you have the option to include NPAPI >> > plugins in your extension written in native code. Those are a lot >> > harder to reverse engineer. >> >> They still can be reverse engineered easily enough, and anyone that >> relies on this for security, or for anything else, deserves to be >> fired on the spot for being totally incompetent. >> >> uriel >> >> >> > >> > But the JavaScript, HTML, and CSS in Chromium extensions will never be >> > obfuscated. Any compilation will just be an optimization, and >> > transparent to the developer. >> > >> > - a >> > >> > > >> > >> >> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-extensions" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-extensions?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
