Hi,<br><br>The explanation this time is clearer, thanks. <br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/7/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Benjamin Tolputt</b> <<a href="mailto:email@example.com">firstname.lastname@example.org</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:<br>> Erm, if the byte-code is encrypted, how would you replace a beam file
<br>> with a different one without breaking the encryption?<br>You wouldn't. Like most "single player" games, you would simply "patch"<br>the archive containing the beam files "as a whole" (
i.e. as a binary<br>patch to the archive file rather than individual patches to the files<br>contained therein).</blockquote><div><br></div></div>I'm not sure where the misunderstanding lies. Here's how I understand this:
<br><br>You say some kind of DRM is necessary in order to get a deal. Sure, that's agreed.<br><br>You say it's easier/safer to put all beam files in an archive and protect it, as compared to protect each beam file. I may be wrong, but I think there's no difference. If the code loader is extended so that it can load from an encrypted archive, then it can just as easily load from separately encrypted beam files. A cracker can do something about it if it cracks the encryption, and in that case both alternatives are just as easy to tamper with. Without the encryption key, a modified beam file would useless in both cases.
<br><br>What am I missing? What is a packaging into a smaller set of files adding to the security level?<br><br>regards,<br>Vlad<br><br><br>