Microsoft Dynamics NAV Source Protection Demo

Administrator

Microsoft Dynamics NAV Source Protection Demo
Microsoft Dynamics NAV Source Protection demonstration movie.

See Product Directory section for product description: http://www.mibuso.com/pdinfo.asp?FileID=150

Window Media (wmv) [5:23]

http://www.mibuso.com/dlinfo.asp?FileID=861

Discuss this download here.

ajhvdb

They already explain this in the manual. But how do they do this :? is it all NAV or do they use some program or dll.

ajhvdb

So they created 1 one empty sourcecode object. This empty object is then saved on the source code location of the object to protect? No need to hack then, or is this to simple?

RomariO

BlackTiger wrote:

Tool is great, but... extremely dangerous...
I strongly recommend to include internal backup functionality.
Just save objects before "protection" in some blob as password protected zip/rar. So customer will have source objects in own database, and NSC don't need to care about objects loss (too much).

I think that internal backup functionality will reduce the strength of protection...
Of course, in case of password protection the technique of changeable password must be realized. But in this case you will take a chance to forget the password

RomariO

ajhvdb wrote:

But how do they do this :? is it all NAV or do they use some program or dll.

The functionality of protection is realized only in Ñ\AL.

RomariO

ajhvdb wrote:

So they created 1 one empty sourcecode object. This empty object is then saved on the source code location of the object to protect? No need to hack then, or is this to simple?

Generally it's looks like to protection But it's not simple.

tajahamed

Hi All,

Have any one used NAV Source protectionADD-ON? The demo looks great. I would like to know how secured and reliable it is? please post your experiences

Thnx
Taj

vytjak

Looks impressive, the question is whether this is officially approved by Microsoft?

David_Singleton

Of course a hack like this is NOT supported.

You leave your client in a disastrous situation. If you need to use stuff like this then you should get out of this business and do something else.

:thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

All Navision end users should check to make sure that their partners are not hacking their system like this. They need to be aware that if anything goes wrong with their partner, they basically can throw away all the work they paid for, since the partner can just black mail them for any amount of money they want for support.

The partner can write one line of code, then hack 50 objects, and charge for a months work and no one can ever know what was done.

This hack will ONLY EVER be used by unscrupulous and incompetent partners that need to hide what they are doing, and are not able to keep customers so they have to black mail them not to switch.

OldSchool

If one is really concerned with reliability of relationship with partner (as most of us do) - he should take in account legal means - i.e. contract terms, descibing what he is paying for.

If he permits himself to be careless - nothing would save him in unfortunate ocasion of picking uncompetent/unfair partner - whether he has all source code on hand, or not: it is not the matter of programming - it is pure management 8)

DenSter

Taking away the ability to switch partners to handle the source code that you legally are the steward of (MSFT actually owns all custom code, read your license), by means of an illegal hack, is NOT management.

OldSchool

DenSter wrote:

MSFT actually owns all custom code, read your license

Could You, please, cite appropriate fragment of EULA (with MS ownership of all custom code)?
I didn't find anything of the kind in my copy. It could be amusing - to buy programming system with "restriction" of such kind - "we own all code you will create or somebody would create in your favor"

And once again: if I really concerned with that issues, I put it in my contract with partner I choose for my system development - and this is management.

DenSter

You can say what you want, but ultimately, hacking the system to scramble the code is illegal.

kapamarou

DenSter wrote:

MSFT actually owns all custom code, read your license

It makes sense. Otherwise, no partner should be able to support a Customer that wasn't their's from the beginning. What would happen if a partner closed?

Maybe it could be that the Customer owns the custom code... :-k

OldSchool

DenSter wrote:

You can say what you want

Oh, yeah - that's my native habit - to say what I want

DenSter wrote:

ultimately, hacking the system to scramble the code is illegal.

Of course!
And there is another point (for me, at least): professionals should be careful and responsible for their words. And if You are the one - then why make sound statements without arguments? You are sure that they "hacked" the system - it is very hard accusation, isn't it? Then give reasons - why post labels? Hackers would be condemned after that...

And by the way - You recently gave me a hint:

DenSter wrote:

MSFT actually owns all custom code, read your license

I've read it once again, found nothing of the kind You are stating here and asked You to cite appropriate EULA text (this issue is of real interest for me as solution user and owner) - could You, please, answer? Just cite EULA - without addressing to "what I can say"...
// "You can say..." - that was little bit personal, wasn't it? You really don't respect those, who have points of view, different from Yours? Strange habit for the professional...

www.risplus.com wrote:

We believe in straight talk, even though that may not always be comfortable

Those were Your words?

Regards

OldSchool

kapamarou wrote:

DenSter wrote:

MSFT actually owns all custom code, read your license

It makes sense. Otherwise, no partner should be able to support a Customer that wasn't their's from the beginning. What would happen if a partner closed?

Maybe it could be that the Customer owns the custom code... :-k

If I read EULA correctly - then Microsoft Corp. clearly defines, that software ("The software may include server software; client software that can be installed on devices and used with the server software; additional components that may be separately licensed; and any fixes, patches or updates for the software") is what it gives to end-user with certain permissions ("The software is licensed, not sold"). But there's nothing about third-party customised solutions - therefore, if my partner developed smth for me, the owner of the product is indicated in contract between partner and myself (in my case - I own exceptionally all the code, and partner posseses only author rights)

By the way:

MICROSOFT SOFTWARE LICENSE TERMS wrote:

g. Modification. You may modify the software only as necessary to use it for your internal business purposes if you received it in source code form or you have licensed tools from Microsoft that allow you to modify the object code form. You agree that Microsoft is not responsible for any problems that result from modifications made by you or a third party or that are caused by third party hardware or software.

DenSter

<removed> not worth it </removed>

OldSchool

Yeah, indeed :P

rdebath

DenSter wrote:

You can say what you want, but ultimately, hacking the system to scramble the code is illegal.

As I've said before use of this source deletion code is NOT a breach of a partners contract with Microsoft.

It is also a very reasonable position to take that creation of this code is NOT a breach of any reverse engineering clause that may be in effect in your juristiction. Because you are not using it to reveal hidden code you are using it to provide a compatible object complied in a different way.

However, with Navision is it normal to expect that a customer will move between partners at some point, this ability is now well known but can be prevented by use of this program. Because of this if the contract between a customer and a partner does not include specific terms related to this the partner may find that use of this code is a violation of their own contract with their customer!

But, whatever the legal situation is use of source code deletion is a very strong sign of an inferior partner and, in addition to other protections, the customer should ensure that the contract has very favourable escrow terms.

One last point, if a partner is using source code deletion they are placing a greater cost on themselves in terms of management of the process, but worse they are killing the possibility of an "upsell" of the, very expensive, development granules and the maintenance revenue that comes with them. If they manage to sell the development granules despite this the partner is probably stepping into the grounds of misrepresentation (aka bait and swap).

DenSter

<removed> actually, it's still not worth it </removed>

OldSchool

To Robert:

Almost fully agree with You, except, maybe

rdebath wrote:

use of source code deletion is a very strong sign of an inferior partner

I personally do not think, that I'm protected enough with all that source code in hand

Of course, if partner wishes to delete all source code in solution he plan to make for me - I wouldn't agree to work with such partner - it's that simple. If he "closes" some specific module (e.g. security or copyright protected etc.) and gives me reasons - why should I object? If I feel concerned with that - I'll include appropriate points in contract - that is not a problem for me.

And what is a problem for me - is that all code, produced by my own programmers for me - including very important one (presumably giving me some kind of competitive advantage in my own industry) - and this code automatically available to my honest partner, I obtain a headache: would it be possible, that my honest partner decide to make happy one (or more) of my worst competitors with that code? I would rather delete that code and continue our happy partnership...

Another example (not from my industry this time): imagine, that customer is stock market operator, which suddenly gone crazy and decided to incorporate all his business processes in his NAV-based ERP :shock: How do You think he will feel about those total source code openness - applied to his custom technical analysis routines and other sensitive know-how?

rdebath wrote:

...if a partner is using source code deletion they are placing a greater cost on themselves in terms of management of the process, but worse they are killing the possibility of an "upsell" of the, very expensive, development granules and the maintenance revenue that comes with them.

I think You're right again - that's why I doubt that those code deletion tools would be widely applied to large systems and solutions - they will rather use such tools for small, but sensitive code, including know how or something of the kind... but in such context tools discussed seem to be irreplaceable :-k

Regards

rdebath

I was scanning down my egosearch and noticed your note ...

OldSchool wrote:

If he "closes" some specific module (e.g. security or copyright protected etc.) and gives me reasons - why should I object? If I feel concerned with that - I'll include appropriate points in contract - that is not a problem for me.

I would say because it's pointless, he's wasting your time and money. These code deletion tools don't provide any protection that's worth a damn. NAV code with the source deleted still isn't like binary compiled code. You can still single step through it and see what it's doing to the variables. If you were really, really interested (ie: your code is really valuable ...) the compiled code is a 'P-Code' decompiling it should be pretty easy, there will be no optimisations so the reversal should generate text that needs just a pretty print to be 99% of the original code (less comments).

OldSchool wrote:

they will rather use such tools for small, but sensitive code, including know how or something of the kind... but in such context tools discussed seem to be irreplaceable :-k

Small, sensitive, code ... The anti-virus vendors will have something to tell you, if a virus is 'protected' to the level that NAV compiled code is there is no barrier.

One last thing; one of our upstream partners recently started using a code deletion tool like this for licensing; it annoyed me once too often, I "broke" it in about 10 minutes. The most recent version has a really bad mistake in it, it can be defeated with just one line of code.

A different provider has some code that does exactly the same job, nagging the client that they're in breach of their license and have to go pay up on Monday. Except this one can be bypassed by changing one value in an unprotected table. ... Not so different after all.

Quite frankly, if you're writing this sort of code you have to make NO mistakes, (blueray disks?) and even then the development tools built into Navision and SQL will probably make it easy to break you.