| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Zdenek Kotala" <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)sun(dot)com>, "Hans-Juergen Schoenig" <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: crypting prosrc in pg_proc |
| Date: | 2007-08-10 19:00:32 |
| Message-ID: | 87lkcj2p0v.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Jonah H. Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Obfuscation doesn't really work, it just makes big wigs in companies
> *think* it's not easily reversible.
>
> There is no real security. With enough time and experience, anything
> can be broken.
But that said, I wonder if having something may be useful legally for some
users.
If someone just went and did "select * from pg_proc" they could claim they
weren't violating their EULA or any protection you had put in place. If they
went through the trouble having to de-obfuscate it then you would have a
strong DMCA claim in the US.
But Jonah's entirely right that there's no way to make it technically
impossible to de-obfuscate. All you can do is make any casual observer pause
and decide to break your license agreement.
If you don't believe him, just as the DVDCCA...
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steve Atkins | 2007-08-10 19:11:01 | Re: crypting prosrc in pg_proc |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-08-10 18:53:06 | Re: Unexpected VACUUM FULL failure |