 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Java Forum / General / September 2005Help if you can?
Hi, I am trying to disable the print feature and the print screen feature while viewers are visiting certain areas of my site. I understand this is not 100 percent secure, I just would like to make it a little more difficult. Are there any scripts I could put into the website that would disable this? Again...I understand there are plenty of ways around this. Thanks for any help. > Hi, I am trying to disable the print feature and the print screen > feature while viewers are visiting certain areas of my site. I > understand this is not 100 percent secure, I just would like to make it > a little more difficult. Are there any scripts I could put into the > website that would disable this? Again...I understand there are plenty > of ways around this. Thanks for any help. You'd probably have better luck using JavaScript rather than Java. As an aside, I seriously doubt you can do anything about PrintScreen. - Oliver Quoth Joseph Arseneau: > I understand this is not 100 percent secure, I just would like to > make it a little more difficult. Ignoring that you are in the wrong group, let me ask you: Why do you hate your users so much? \\kristian  Signature"Power is only given to the man who dare stoop to pick it up. Nothing more is needed, except courage. From the moment this truth had dawned upon me - a truth as clear as the light of the sun - I longed to dare, and I committed murder." Kristian Thy coughed up: > Quoth Joseph Arseneau: >> I understand this is not 100 percent secure, I just would like to >> make it a little more difficult. > > Ignoring that you are in the wrong group, let me ask you: Why do you > hate your users so much? Someone that is selling artwork, or showcasing the photos they just took for and to a customer would want to make it a little harder to grab the images. But I agree with Oliver. I doubt there is anything that could reach from the browser into the OS to disable the screen capture. SignatureSometimes life just sucks and then you live. On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 00:00:28 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall" <tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote or quoted >But I agree with Oliver. I doubt there is anything that could reach from >the browser into the OS to disable the screen capture. You see the same thing in PDF. The author can block copy/paste, but you can still use Paint Stop Pro and do a screen region snap. SignatureCanadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts. > You see the same thing in PDF. The author can block copy/paste, but > you can still use Paint Stop Pro and do a screen region snap. You don't even need "Paint Stop Pro" or anything extra. Just press shift+Prnt Scrn and paste in ms paint.(talking windoz here) >> You see the same thing in PDF. The author can block copy/paste, but >> you can still use Paint Stop Pro and do a screen region snap. > > You don't even need "Paint Stop Pro" or anything extra. Just press > shift+Prnt Scrn and paste in ms paint.(talking windoz here) I had problems with a variety of image that were touched by MS Paint. A pox on MS Paint. Personally I would use Robot to capture the screen and Java to write the image. You can see an example that I recently prepared to take a *series* of snapshots of animated components for tips. Chase the links from.. <https://screensavers.dev.java.net/servlets/ProjectForumMessageView?messageID=925 8&forumID=698> HTH SignatureAndrew Thompson physci.org 1point1c.org javasaver.com lensescapes.com athompson.info "Got no time to pack my bag, my foot's outside the door" Led Zeppelin 'The Ocean' > Kristian Thy coughed up: >> Quoth Joseph Arseneau: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > But I agree with Oliver. I doubt there is anything that could reach > from the browser into the OS to disable the screen capture. I have seen artwork sites that open each image in its own window. When the pointer leaves the window, it closes. Strictly speaking the site does not disable the print and save buttons, but the image is gone before you can reach them. Of course a clever user can get the images in other ways (the browser cache for example), but if you are simply trying to make it difficult, then this is one way. /gordon Signature[ do not email me copies of your followups ] g o r d o n + n e w s @ b a l d e r 1 3 . s e > I have seen artwork sites that open each image in its own window. When > the pointer leaves the window, it closes. Strictly speaking the site > does not disable the print and save buttons, but the image is gone > before you can reach them. You must be using the wrong browser, Gordon! [ OK. It is dead easy to thwart your average IE user, but *that* is a good example of the 'wrong browser' (for end user control/empowerment). ] SignatureAndrew Thompson physci.org 1point1c.org javasaver.com lensescapes.com athompson.info "We're lost in a cruel paradise.." New Order 'Someone Like You' > You must be using the wrong browser, Gordon! In that case, suggest a different one! I'm happy with the user empowerment I currently get from Firefox, and it also happens to run on all of the platforms I commonly use (Linux on 4 different cpu architectures + Solaris). And yes, I'm fully aware that these things can be circumvented. /gordon Signature[ do not email me copies of your followups ] g o r d o n + n e w s @ b a l d e r 1 3 . s e >> You must be using the wrong browser, Gordon! > > In that case, suggest a different one! I'm happy with the user > empowerment I currently get from Firefox, [1] Depends on the exact technique they are using, but generally - disabling JS stops most rubbish, while if they are both clever (and stupid) enough to *generate* the pages with JS, you need to do a direct call for the script(s) and hunt though the source. The deployer can then obfuscate it, of course, but ..we are already in the realm of 'not easy'. OTOH, I thought FF (or Mozilla based browsers in general) had options for the end user to configure.. - Where new windows appear (floating/tabbed window). - Whether scripts can close windows. >..and it also happens to run > on all of the platforms I commonly use (Linux on 4 different cpu > architectures + Solaris). Yes. If I did not have to have such close knowledge of IE, a Moz. based browser would be my choice. My choice would probably be Mozilla itself. There was a conversation recently that suggested that FF in particualr was not especially good for - *applet* developers, in that it only offers access to the Java console if their is a broken applet in the page. - web-developers, because it similarly hides (AFAIR) options to get at the page source, and the JS console.. FF is more geared to the end user, than either Java (applet) developers or web-application developers specifically. > And yes, I'm fully aware that these things can be circumvented. Just pointing out that is is often simpler than it looks. SignatureAndrew Thompson physci.org 1point1c.org javasaver.com lensescapes.com athompson.info "The Generals gave thanks, as the other ranks held back the enemy tanks ..for a while." Pink Floyd 'When The Tigers Broke Free' > There was a conversation recently that suggested that FF > in particualr was not especially good for > - *applet* developers, in that it only offers access to > the Java console if their is a broken applet in the page. > - web-developers, because it similarly hides (AFAIR) options > to get at the page source, and the JS console.. I've never had a problem access the page source from FireFox. In fact, FF even offers syntax highlighting of the HTML source code, while IE shows the sourcecode in Notepad (which obviously doesn't do syntax highlighting). On the other hand, FF is particularly bad when working with XML and XSLT documents, as I think FF caches everything in such a way so that even when you modify the underlying files and force the browser to refresh (via F5 or the menu), it still stubbornly uses the cached version. So when I'm writing XML/XSLT documents, I develop with IE, and then only at the end check if it still looks right in FireFox. - Oliver > Someone that is selling artwork, or showcasing the photos they just took for > and to a customer would want to make it a little harder to grab the images. Artwork and photo sites typically showcase samples in low-resolution. Yes, they can still be stolen, but the quality is lost. Hemal Pandya coughed up: >> Someone that is selling artwork, or showcasing the photos they just >> took for and to a customer would want to make it a little harder to >> grab the images. > > Artwork and photo sites typically showcase samples in low-resolution. > Yes, they can still be stolen, but the quality is lost. Or they also commonly throw in a hideous watermark right through the middle of the thing. SignatureWith knowledge comes sorrow. > Someone that is selling artwork, or showcasing the photos they just > took for and to a customer would want to make it a little harder to > grab the images. They are already "grabbed" by the HTTP GET action. You can't even know if there is a browser at the other end to disable in any way. Tor Iver Wilhelmsen coughed up: > "Thomas G. Marshall" > <tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> writes: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > They are already "grabbed" by the HTTP GET action. You can't even know > if there is a browser at the other end to disable in any way. Of course. They're all just socket programs after all. SignatureWith knowledge comes sorrow. Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.