[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software

Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.javascript

how is this page rendered?

Mike Scirocco

3/28/2016 4:10:00 AM

A friend of mine wants to make a site that is as difficult as possible
to download, he came across *this site and was unable to download it,
and wants to read about this approach to see if he can implement it. Is
this Wix site using a "render" server to render the site content saved
in the javascript sections?

The head section contains these meta tags, where I saw the
"Renderer-Server".

<meta http-equiv="X-Wix-Renderer-Server" content="app204.vac.aws"/>
<meta http-equiv="X-Wix-Meta-Site-Id"
content="4064cb6f-8a8c-4be8-8f7a-73c108ce8c95"/>
<meta http-equiv="X-Wix-Application-Instance-Id"
content="2a210615-a2c7-4c18-8312-c5ac277fbbeb"/>
<meta http-equiv="X-Wix-Published-Version" content="1242"/>

Does anyone recognize this approach? Is this some server side js like
node? I have never used node so I'm just guession.

*http://www.theartloun...!mira-corbova---smith-abstract-energy-art/c10g7

Note: I know that highlighting the content I want to download and
Viewing Selection Source will give me the source that I can save myself,
I know there's always a way, but my buddy just wants to make it as
difficult as possible to discourage collectors who aren't too
technically savvy.

Thanks in Advance,
Mike
13 Answers

Evertjan.

3/28/2016 9:00:00 AM

0

Mike S <mscir@yahoo.com> wrote on 28 Mar 2016 in comp.lang.javascript:

> A friend of mine wants to make a site that is as difficult as possible
> to download,

everything that can be seen on a browser can be downloaded,
because without downloding, there is nothing to be seen.

If you want to keep some code secret, run it on the server.

> I know there's always a way, but my buddy just wants to make it as
> difficult as possible to discourage collectors who aren't too
> technically savvy.

Tell your buddy, his idea is nonsense and his selfesteem as a programmer is
overrated.

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

Stefan Weiss

3/28/2016 9:03:00 AM

0

Mike S wrote:
> A friend of mine wants to make a site that is as difficult as possible
> to download, he came across *this site and was unable to download it,
> and wants to read about this approach to see if he can implement it. Is
> this Wix site using a "render" server to render the site content saved
> in the javascript sections?

No, it just serves a (mostly) blank document and relies on scripts to
fetch and insert the actual content. Bad style, but unfortunately not
uncommon, and hardly an obstacle to anybody who wants to download and
store the content locally.

> The head section contains these meta tags, where I saw the
> "Renderer-Server".
>
> <meta http-equiv="X-Wix-Renderer-Server" content="app204.vac.aws"/>
> <meta http-equiv="X-Wix-Meta-Site-Id"
> content="4064cb6f-8a8c-4be8-8f7a-73c108ce8c95"/>
> <meta http-equiv="X-Wix-Application-Instance-Id"
> content="2a210615-a2c7-4c18-8312-c5ac277fbbeb"/>
> <meta http-equiv="X-Wix-Published-Version" content="1242"/>
>
> Does anyone recognize this approach? Is this some server side js like
> node? I have never used node so I'm just guession.

Have you tried Google? Searching for "X-Wix" shows the tool used to
create the site as the first result.

> *http://www.theartloun...!mira-corbova---smith-abstract-energy-art/c10g7

> Note: I know that highlighting the content I want to download and
> Viewing Selection Source will give me the source that I can save myself,
> I know there's always a way, but my buddy just wants to make it as
> difficult as possible to discourage collectors who aren't too
> technically savvy.

In general, serving typical web content (text and images) and at the
same time expecting visitors to be unable to download it is pointless.
If you don't want your content to be available on the Web, don't publish
it there. Otherwise, "collectors" will find a way to get what they want.

Out of curiosity, I tried copy/pasting, saving the HTML (with and
without assets) locally, saving individual images, and printing the
whole page. Everything worked just as expected, which leads me to
suspect that your friend may not be very technically savvy himself.

What will not work anymore is using a simple crawler program to mirror
the complete site. This tool would have to be able to execute
JavaScript. I know at least one "collector" who uses just such a
program, and who has already pretty much copied the whole website. They
are currently serving smaller versions of the artwork on their own site:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Brian+M+Smith+scenic&am...

For the big guns in copy protection on the web, you should look into
Encrypted Media Extensions. Complete overkill for a small gallery site,
but at least it will keep that pesky GoogleBot away.


- stefan

Aleksandro

3/28/2016 2:00:00 PM

0

On 28/03/16 01:10, Mike S wrote:
> Note: I know that highlighting the content I want to download and
> Viewing Selection Source will give me the source that I can save myself,
> I know there's always a way, but my buddy just wants to make it as
> difficult as possible to discourage collectors who aren't too
> technically savvy.

Not contributing an answer to the original question but I'd like to note
that if the content is worth saving, the non tech-savvy would hire a
tech-savvy for that job.

Every time I am asked to hack a site to make it non-downloadable I say
that, luckily people understand that.

By the way, what do you mean by â??downloadâ? exactly? I just downloaded
that site with no problems.

Aleksandro

3/28/2016 2:02:00 PM

0

On 28/03/16 01:10, Mike S wrote:
> A friend of mine wants to make a site that is as difficult as possible
> to download, he came across *this site and was unable to download it,
> and wants to read about this approach to see if he can implement it.

What do you mean by â??downloadâ? exactly? I just downloaded
that site without any issues.

> Is this Wix site using a "render" server to render the site content saved
> in the javascript sections?
>
> The head section contains these meta tags, where I saw the
> "Renderer-Server".
>
> <meta http-equiv="X-Wix-Renderer-Server" content="app204.vac.aws"/>
> <meta http-equiv="X-Wix-Meta-Site-Id"
> content="4064cb6f-8a8c-4be8-8f7a-73c108ce8c95"/>
> <meta http-equiv="X-Wix-Application-Instance-Id"
> content="2a210615-a2c7-4c18-8312-c5ac277fbbeb"/>
> <meta http-equiv="X-Wix-Published-Version" content="1242"/>
>
> Does anyone recognize this approach? Is this some server side js like
> node? I have never used node so I'm just guession.
>
> *http://www.theartloun...!mira-corbova---smith-abstract-energy-art/c10g7
>
>
> Note: I know that highlighting the content I want to download and
> Viewing Selection Source will give me the source that I can save myself,
> I know there's always a way, but my buddy just wants to make it as
> difficult as possible to discourage collectors who aren't too
> technically savvy.

Not contributing an answer to the original question but I'd like to note
that if the content is worth saving, the non tech-savvy would hire a
tech-savvy for that job.

Every time I am asked to hack a site to make it non-downloadable I say
that, luckily people understand that.

Mike Scirocco

3/28/2016 9:19:00 PM

0

On 3/28/2016 2:03 AM, Stefan Weiss wrote:
> Mike S wrote:
>> A friend of mine wants to make a site that is as difficult as possible
>> to download, he came across *this site and was unable to download it,
>> and wants to read about this approach to see if he can implement it. Is
>> this Wix site using a "render" server to render the site content saved
>> in the javascript sections?
>
> No, it just serves a (mostly) blank document and relies on scripts to
> fetch and insert the actual content. Bad style, but unfortunately not
> uncommon, and hardly an obstacle to anybody who wants to download and
> store the content locally.
>
>> The head section contains these meta tags, where I saw the
>> "Renderer-Server".
>>
>> <meta http-equiv="X-Wix-Renderer-Server" content="app204.vac.aws"/>
>> <meta http-equiv="X-Wix-Meta-Site-Id"
>> content="4064cb6f-8a8c-4be8-8f7a-73c108ce8c95"/>
>> <meta http-equiv="X-Wix-Application-Instance-Id"
>> content="2a210615-a2c7-4c18-8312-c5ac277fbbeb"/>
>> <meta http-equiv="X-Wix-Published-Version" content="1242"/>
>>
>> Does anyone recognize this approach? Is this some server side js like
>> node? I have never used node so I'm just guession.
>
> Have you tried Google? Searching for "X-Wix" shows the tool used to
> create the site as the first result.
>
>> *http://www.theartloun...!mira-corbova---smith-abstract-energy-art/c10g7
>
>> Note: I know that highlighting the content I want to download and
>> Viewing Selection Source will give me the source that I can save myself,
>> I know there's always a way, but my buddy just wants to make it as
>> difficult as possible to discourage collectors who aren't too
>> technically savvy.
>
> In general, serving typical web content (text and images) and at the
> same time expecting visitors to be unable to download it is pointless.
> If you don't want your content to be available on the Web, don't publish
> it there. Otherwise, "collectors" will find a way to get what they want.
>
> Out of curiosity, I tried copy/pasting, saving the HTML (with and
> without assets) locally, saving individual images, and printing the
> whole page. Everything worked just as expected, which leads me to
> suspect that your friend may not be very technically savvy himself.
>
> What will not work anymore is using a simple crawler program to mirror
> the complete site. This tool would have to be able to execute
> JavaScript. I know at least one "collector" who uses just such a
> program, and who has already pretty much copied the whole website. They
> are currently serving smaller versions of the artwork on their own site:
> https://www.google.com/search?q=Brian+M+Smith+scenic&am...
>
> For the big guns in copy protection on the web, you should look into
> Encrypted Media Extensions. Complete overkill for a small gallery site,
> but at least it will keep that pesky GoogleBot away.
>
>
> - stefan
>

Thank you stefan for the detailed explanation. I appreciate it.

Mike Scirocco

3/28/2016 9:25:00 PM

0

On 3/28/2016 7:00 AM, Aleksandro wrote:
> On 28/03/16 01:10, Mike S wrote:
>> Note: I know that highlighting the content I want to download and
>> Viewing Selection Source will give me the source that I can save myself,
>> I know there's always a way, but my buddy just wants to make it as
>> difficult as possible to discourage collectors who aren't too
>> technically savvy.
>
> Not contributing an answer to the original question but I'd like to note
> that if the content is worth saving, the non tech-savvy would hire a
> tech-savvy for that job.
>
> Every time I am asked to hack a site to make it non-downloadable I say
> that, luckily people understand that.
>
> By the way, what do you mean by â??downloadâ? exactly? I just downloaded
> that site with no problems.
>

Sorry I wasn't clear Aleksandro, he uses different programs to download
entire sites so he can view them later. He has a physics degree and math
degree, and has done some programming (HP Basic, DB stuff) but never
learned HTML, CSS, or any scripting. So he is thinking about studying
how sites are made and curious to know how secure then can be in every
way. He's very thorough so if he decides to learn this stuff he'll do
well, but he hasn't committed to that yet. He fires me off questions now
and then and when I can't answer I come to knowledgeable forums like
this one.
He uses different windows programs to download sites, and he just
discovered curl and is learning how to use it.

Thanks,
mike

Aleksandro

3/28/2016 9:31:00 PM

0

On 28/03/16 06:03, Stefan Weiss wrote:
> What will not work anymore is using a simple crawler program to mirror
> the complete site. This tool would have to be able to execute
> JavaScript. I know at least one "collector" who uses just such a
> program, and who has already pretty much copied the whole website. They
> are currently serving smaller versions of the artwork on their own site:
> https://www.google.com/search?q=Brian+M+Smith+scenic&am...

Some HTTrack that saving pages in MAFF format would render all those
attempts useless now that I think.

Mike Scirocco

3/28/2016 9:36:00 PM

0

On 3/28/2016 1:59 AM, Evertjan. wrote:
> Mike S <mscir@yahoo.com> wrote on 28 Mar 2016 in comp.lang.javascript:
>
>> A friend of mine wants to make a site that is as difficult as possible
>> to download,
>
> everything that can be seen on a browser can be downloaded,
> because without downloding, there is nothing to be seen.
>
> If you want to keep some code secret, run it on the server.
>
>> I know there's always a way, but my buddy just wants to make it as
>> difficult as possible to discourage collectors who aren't too
>> technically savvy.
>
> Tell your buddy, his idea is nonsense and his selfesteem as a programmer is
> overrated.

Thanks Evertjan, sorry if I gave you the wrong impression, he's slowly
looking into web site 'security' and learning as he goes, he never
learned any web scripting of any sort. I'm sorry I wasn't clear, he
likes to download sites with various windows programs like httrack, and
he just started using curl. Maybe I should have said 'copy' instead of
'download', sorry for the confusion.


Evertjan.

3/28/2016 11:02:00 PM

0

Mike S <mscir@yahoo.com> wrote on 28 Mar 2016 in comp.lang.javascript:

>> Tell your buddy, his idea is nonsense and his selfesteem as a
>> programmer is overrated.
>
> Thanks Evertjan, sorry if I gave you the wrong impression, he's slowly
> looking into web site 'security' and learning as he goes, he never
> learned any web scripting of any sort. I'm sorry I wasn't clear, he
> likes to download sites with various windows programs like httrack, and
> he just started using curl. Maybe I should have said 'copy' instead of
> 'download', sorry for the confusion.

No, you did not give me the wrong impression, **copying** some page to your
browser from the web is called **downloading**, there is no difference in
stream. The content of what is put om your browser is what is send to you by
the server.

So I repeat:
>> Tell your buddy, [..] his selfesteem as a programmer is overrated.

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

Aleksandro

3/29/2016 12:12:00 AM

0

On 28/03/16 20:01, Evertjan. wrote:
> Mike S <mscir@yahoo.com> wrote on 28 Mar 2016 in comp.lang.javascript:
>
>>> Tell your buddy, his idea is nonsense and his selfesteem as a
>>> programmer is overrated.
>>
>> Thanks Evertjan, sorry if I gave you the wrong impression, he's slowly
>> looking into web site 'security' and learning as he goes, he never
>> learned any web scripting of any sort. I'm sorry I wasn't clear, he
>> likes to download sites with various windows programs like httrack, and
>> he just started using curl. Maybe I should have said 'copy' instead of
>> 'download', sorry for the confusion.
>
> No, you did not give me the wrong impression, **copying** some page to your
> browser from the web is called **downloading**, there is no difference in
> stream. The content of what is put om your browser is what is send to you by
> the server.
>
> So I repeat:
>>> Tell your buddy, [..] his selfesteem as a programmer is overrated.

What if he simply wants to see what is possible?