Flash MX image protection project

[chrishoggy]

Ken, the magnifier will be bigger and I may do away with the handle, just leaving a thin outer rim. The magnifier seems a bit overpowering because the base image (800x573) is so small compaired to the restored (zoomed 1600x1146) image, thus doubling the zoom before it even started . Once finished the magnification will be between 1.5 and 2x, and shouldn't be as blocky, as both images will be the same size.

Frank, as you know, you got the image url via this script.

loadMovie("thisisthesmall.jpg", "imagebase");
loadMovie("thisistheoneyouwant.jpg", "imagemagnifier.imagelarge");
_root.onEnterFrame = function() {
if (loaded == 2) {
scalefactor = imagemagnifier.imagelarge._width/imagebase._width;
gotoAndStop(2);
}
};
stop();

Where as the encrypted swf looks like this after decompiling

Level #0: Frame=1 Label="!#p"
Movie Clip: Frame=1 Target="_level0.imagebase"
Shape:
Movie Clip: Frame=1 Target="_level0.imagemagnifier"
Shape: Mask
Movie Clip: Frame=1 Target="_level0.imagemagnifier.imagelarge"
Shape:
Movie Clip: Frame=1 Target="_level0.imagemagnifier.theglass"
Shape:

PS: I don't mind codes being posted etc, as final template will have a totally different layout structure

[Frank Lopes]

Post the SWF file on the website and then I'll take a look. It just might work for you...

Originally Posted by chrishoggy

Ken, the magnifier will be bigger and I may do away with
...
different layout structure

[chrishoggy]

This is a standard encryption swf. same file as before, but with the image file names changed. Images don't exist, so won't show in flash. But the image details are there to be found, as they were before
http://www.chrishoggy.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/test.swf

Just post the image file name

[chrishoggy]

PS: If your decompiler does give up the details, it would be useful to know what one you are using . The encrypting software claims to block many of the main ones on the market

[Frank Lopes]

The files are canyoufindit.jpg and canyoufinditbig.jpg

Would you rather take this discussion offline? We might be boring others to death with such arcane subject.... :-)

Originally Posted by chrishoggy

This is a standard encryption swf. same file as before, but
Just post the image file name

[chrishoggy]

There are many tech minded people on here who can contribute to the building/development of this, thats why I posted it to start with That one was done with http://www.amayeta.com/ trial version. Would be nice to inform them of the lack of security in their software product. What decompiler do you use?

Seems server side access only is the way to go, and write the swf on the fly That cuts out any chance of gaining access to the files, unless they gained ftp access to the server

[Frank Lopes]

Are those the correct names?

I don't use a standard "Flash decompiler" but I did "decompile" the code.
I use my own method. It would not serve anyone telling the world how to "hack" a swf file, so if you don't mind I'll not make it public.

I got to go for for now: got to shovel snow... the northeast US is under a blizzard... :-(

Originally Posted by chrishoggy

There are many tech minded people on here who can
...
ftp access to the server

[Cameraken]

Quote from Amayeta

“SWF Encrypt™ 3.0 encrypts your Macromedia Flash® SWF files, protecting them from the most popular Flash Decompiler Tools on the market! Secure your ActionScript today and prevent SWF Reverse Engineering and Decompiling.”


Well Done Frank.

Ken

[chrishoggy]

so if you don't mind I'll not make it public.

Yes, they are correct
Don't mind at all, in fact I have a good idea how, as I have just done it myself now (didn't try before) Doesn't say much for their stuff does it

Keeping the files server side may give them the file names, but they would have no access to a none public folder on the server (before you say it, I know there are ways. But it ain't that easy)

This kind of testing is the only way we will ever be able to get something that will have as many closed doors as possible

[chrishoggy]

Quite like the way this one turned out
http://www.chrishoggy.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ex.swf

[Frank Lopes]

You decided to include both large and small in the SWF?

If you plan to use the swf method, then leave the big one in the server and load it as you were doing before. It was lightweight and very quick. This one weights a hefty 685Kb :-)

Originally Posted by chrishoggy

Quite like the way this one turned out
http://www.chrishoggy.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ex.swf

[chrishoggy]

Yes, I will have larger images on server, once I can secure them in a way that blocks direct access. Is this viewer better than the other for size of restored image etc? It does seem a bit larger/clearer and you can change size of viewer .
If the no security version Here is wanted for general web viewing/web design etc, I'm happy to post a zip with the source files and instructions on putting on the web. It's only a case of sizing and naming your before and after images, then uploading them along with the swf file.

[creeduk]

A strip you can slide along revealing a slice of restored image I think would be a nice method for viewing. I saw one similar that you slid back the old to reveal the restore, this time though to protect from screen grab I would just use a slice of reveal then at least you see a full strip and by sliding across get a full effect of the work you have done.