Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #30124 > unrolled thread

how is this page rendered?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

Contents

  how is this page rendered? Mike S <mscir@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-27 21:10 -0700
    Re: how is this page rendered? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-03-28 10:59 +0200
      Re: how is this page rendered? Mike S <mscir@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-28 14:35 -0700
        Re: how is this page rendered? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-03-29 01:01 +0200
          Re: how is this page rendered? Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> - 2016-03-28 21:11 -0300
            Re: how is this page rendered? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-03-29 11:07 +0200
              Re: how is this page rendered? Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> - 2016-03-29 09:59 -0300
                Re: how is this page rendered? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-03-29 18:53 +0200
    Re: how is this page rendered? Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 11:03 +0200
      Re: how is this page rendered? Mike S <mscir@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-28 14:18 -0700
      Re: how is this page rendered? Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> - 2016-03-28 18:30 -0300
    Re: how is this page rendered? Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> - 2016-03-28 11:00 -0300
      Re: how is this page rendered? Mike S <mscir@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-28 14:24 -0700
    Re: how is this page rendered? Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> - 2016-03-28 11:02 -0300

#30124 — how is this page rendered?

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.theartloungenz.com/#!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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#30126

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)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30141

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30147

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)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30149

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?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30154

Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> wrote on 29 Mar 2016 in comp.lang.javascript:

>> So I repeat:
>>>> Tell your buddy, [..] his selfesteem as a programmer is overrated.
> 
> What if he simply wants to see what is possible?

Alexandro, perhaps he wants to learn Swahili, everything is possible,
so then perhaps he would be "simply" glad by explaining him the working of 
window.alert(); to display "Habari ya mchana. Hujambo?".

His intentions were stated in the OQ, however, so I trust you are simply 
trying to meddle.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30155

On 29/03/16 06:07, Evertjan. wrote:
> Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> wrote on 29 Mar 2016 in comp.lang.javascript:
> 
>>> So I repeat:
>>>>> Tell your buddy, [..] his selfesteem as a programmer is overrated.
>>
>> What if he simply wants to see what is possible?
> 
> Alexandro, perhaps he wants to learn Swahili, everything is possible,
> so then perhaps he would be "simply" glad by explaining him the working of 
> window.alert(); to display "Habari ya mchana. Hujambo?".
> 
> His intentions were stated in the OQ, however, so I trust you are simply 
> trying to meddle.

Just trying to show you how all isn't necessarily a self-esteem problem. :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30156

Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> wrote on 29 Mar 2016 in
comp.lang.javascript: 

> On 29/03/16 06:07, Evertjan. wrote:
>> Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> wrote on 29 Mar 2016 in
>> comp.lang.javascript: 
>> 
>>>> So I repeat:
>>>>>> Tell your buddy, [..] his selfesteem as a programmer is overrated.
>>>
>>> What if he simply wants to see what is possible?
>> 
>> Alexandro, perhaps he wants to learn Swahili, everything is possible,
>> so then perhaps he would be "simply" glad by explaining him the working
>> of window.alert(); to display "Habari ya mchana. Hujambo?".
>> 
>> His intentions were stated in the OQ, however, so I trust you are
>> simply trying to meddle.
> 
> Just trying to show you how all isn't necessarily a self-esteem problem.
> :) 

Well, If is is about speaking Swahili, then maybe not, 
but if it is about the OQ's programming, it most probably is,
and that is the OPR, the original problem.

Gari langu linaloangama limejaa na mikunga!
<http://www.omniglot.com/language/phrases/hovercraft.htm>


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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30127

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.theartloungenz.com/#!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&tbm=isch

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30134

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.theartloungenz.com/#!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&tbm=isch
>
> 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30139

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&tbm=isch

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30131

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 “download” exactly? I just downloaded
that site with no problems.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30137

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 “download” 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30132

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 “download” 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.theartloungenz.com/#!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.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web