The "View Source" and "Save" Myth

[HypnoticAngel]

People say you cant disable View source in IE with html pages when Ive had seen View Source disabled. SO i know there is a way to do it, I just dont know how. Ive seen scripts that disabled the view source completely out of the html.

I had a code for the no "Save" webpages but I lost it. I accidently bumped into that code when I modified a script by accident. So I know there is a code for that one.


If anyone here knows either both or one of them, please post em. Thanks.

[Zoma]

While I'm sure there are some out there, I think it's pretty pointless. I'd be willing to bet that I can get past any of them in a matter of seconds/minutes :)

[GrayCalx]

Originally posted by Zoma
While I'm sure there are some out there, I think it's pretty pointless. I'd be willing to bet that I can get past any of them in a matter of seconds/minutes :)

Wow, how helpful of you and rather annoyingly pointless.

[Tekime]

You can disable the alternate mouse click menu using the code from this site (http://www.abiglime.com/webmaster/boards/html/posts/825.htm). You cannot disable it from the menu in IE though.

I hope you do realize that doing this doesn't amount to anything but wasted code space, though. The only people this might prevent from looking at your source at those who have NO clue about computers, in which case you really don't need to prevent them from viewing it anyway 'cuz they won't know what it is.

You can't protect your HTML because in order to view your site the browser first downloads the HTML. As a result, no matter what you do to prevent someone from viewing the source from within their browser, it's still cached on their hard drive. All you have to do is copy it out of temp. files and view it with a text editor.

Even if you have the menu and right-click disabled, one can simply type "view-source:http://www.somesite.com" and there it is.

Another thing to remember is that code like this is all JavaScript, HTML itself cannot achieve a single thing in this situation. If someone disables JavaScript for the page they get the view source option back.

One JavaScript method I've seen is to encode all of the HTML and then decode it with JScript again, so view source just shows a bunch of \00 stuff. Still doesn't do much because they can just reverse the JScript function, and it also takes a really long time to render a page.

There really is no good way, anyone who wants to see your code will see it, and trying to stop them is just going to annoy the good people who want to view a site normally.

[Zoma]

Wow, how helpful of you and rather annoyingly pointless.

At least I gave him some information, while your post was just an annoyingly pointless, moronic flame.

[fallenang3l]

Originally posted by HypnoticAngel
People say you cant disable View source in IE with html pages when Ive had seen View Source disabled. SO i know there is a way to do it, I just dont know how. Ive seen scripts that disabled the view source completely out of the html.

I had a code for the no "Save" webpages but I lost it. I accidently bumped into that code when I modified a script by accident. So I know there is a code for that one.


If anyone here knows either both or one of them, please post em. Thanks.

You can't hide the source. Period. You prolly fell for the newbie trick by including a bunch of newlines so it looks like the source is empty, but scrolling down reveals different. Isn't your sig a tad too long?

[Tekime]

Originally posted by fallenang3l


You can't hide the source. Period. You prolly fell for the newbie trick by including a bunch of newlines so it looks like the source is empty, but scrolling down reveals different. Isn't your sig a tad too long?

Actually, as I mentioned, you can hide the source through encoding. It is reversable, but it can actually, technically, be hided. It's dumb, I'll admit, and I would have to laugh at someone spending days programming encoding/decoding functions in JScript, but it can be done.

Oh and with your next post try and be a little more immature, I'm sure you can do it... just a few more pointless slanders... :rolleyes:

[bryce777]

You can still see the unecoded source looking through the menus.

[e_dawg]

Originally posted by Tekime


Actually, as I mentioned, you can hide the source through encoding. It is reversable, but it can actually, technically, be hided. It's dumb, I'll admit, and I would have to laugh at someone spending days programming encoding/decoding functions in JScript, but it can be done.

Oh and with your next post try and be a little more immature, I'm sure you can do it... just a few more pointless slanders... :rolleyes:

I once captured a VB script email worm in a matter of 5 minutes by using its own functions to decode the code (it was encoded multiple times over with different functions that were obvious once you decoded it)... So, there really is no way to encode it so it cannot be read. All anyone that wants to read it need do is use the happy little decoding functions you had to send with the page (or else the browser wouldn't have been able to decode it anyway) to decode them, which defeats the laborious task of hiding it.



Also, seriously, what are you so afraid of, someone stealing your site? :rolleyes: Drop a copyright notice in there and be done with it, just like anything, that's all the protection you really can get and it doesn't mean anything unless you own a pack of rabid lawyers.

[Tekime]

Originally posted by e_dawg

I once captured a VB script email worm in a matter of 5 minutes by using its own functions to decode the code (it was encoded multiple times over with different functions that were obvious once you decoded it)... So, there really is no way to encode it so it cannot be read. All anyone that wants to read it need do is use the happy little decoding functions you had to send with the page (or else the browser wouldn't have been able to decode it anyway) to decode them, which defeats the laborious task of hiding it.


I belive you, and like I said - it's ridiculous to do and it IS reversable. I was stating that it can be done (obviously on a superficial level). Also I'm not sure what you're pointing out by saying it took 5 minutes, since I said it would take days to make the encoding/decoding scripts, not just decode one. (well not days but certainly would take some work...).



Also, seriously, what are you so afraid of, someone stealing your site? :rolleyes: Drop a copyright notice in there and be done with it, just like anything, that's all the protection you really can get and it doesn't mean anything unless you own a pack of rabid lawyers.

Um.. I'm not sure this is intended for me too, but if so PLEASE read the damn thread.

Trying to hide your source is ultimately a joke - if I didn't make my opinion clear enough then there it is :D

[e_dawg]

Originally posted by Tekime
I belive you, and like I said - it's ridiculous to do and it IS reversable. I was stating that it can be done (obviously on a superficial level). Also I'm not sure what you're pointing out by saying it took 5 minutes, since I said it would take days to make the encoding/decoding scripts, not just decode one. (well not days but certainly would take some work...).

I am agreeing and pointing out that all effort is lost because it takes 5 minutes to decode it using the script it'd take days to write (as you indicated)... I just thought I would agree and give an example of the total futility of the project to reiterate the point.

Um.. I'm not sure this is intended for me too, but if so PLEASE read the damn thread.

Trying to hide your source is ultimately a joke - if I didn't make my opinion clear enough then there it is :D

Sorry, man, I was responding to the creator of the thread in agreement with your point... Just trying to help add credibility to your statement.

[Tekime]

Thanks for clarifying e_dawg, didn't mean to be so rude but I guess I was taken up by all the angst this thread was creating :o

[Galen of Edgewood]

GrayCalx and Zoma...

Please read this (http://www.internet.com/corporate/privacy/aup.html) again. Apparently y'all don't quite get the idea that you are not to flame.

Zoma, I know he started it first, but that doesn't mean that you need to continue it...

[daFreak]

This may not help much, but I once say a webpage that used a script to encode the HTML so when it was viewed it was completely scrambled. I wish I could tell you the name of the program that did it, but I can't seem to remember. I'm sure if you check out enough "illegal software" sites you'll run across it eventually. :)

[dighn]

Originally posted by daFreak
This may not help much, but I once say a webpage that used a script to encode the HTML so when it was viewed it was completely scrambled. I wish I could tell you the name of the program that did it, but I can't seem to remember. I'm sure if you check out enough "illegal software" sites you'll run across it eventually. :)

that idea was mentioned and refuted several times in this thread :rolleyes: