Serendipity Forums

Hello

i installed serendipity for my website but was wondering if right click protection or simular security can be installed for protecting my pictures. (we run a photostore) I don't want that visitors can download pictures by right click and save.

any ideas

Hi!

There is no protection like this. Every "protection" can be circumvented usually with a few mouseclicks, firefox extensions, greasemonkey scripts or simple HTML sourcecode viewing.

Regards,
Garvin

Perhaps watermarking the photos would do what you want?

As Garvin said, anyone determined can get to your photos no matter what you try to implement... so Judebert's suggestion is about all you have... Watermark the image. Also, do not use really high resolution images in your site so even if someone gets the image, it is not really suitable for printing (if that is what you are trying to prevent).

Thanks for the info..................and yes i already gave them a watermark.

we use coppermine for things and there are many useful plugins for this....

including a clear GIF overlay for images -- so when one right clicks all they get is the clear gif...

oc course all they have to do is same the page to the pc to get images...

make sure they are low res 72dpi and not much use to folks...

They don't even have to save the page - if the image was displayed by their browser, it was cached, even with the clear gif trick. Like I said, if someone is determined, they can get to the image. If you need to protect the image, do not display a high resolution version, and watermark the images you do display.

That is very nearly brilliant. I wish I were that clever.

Even as clever as it is, it's still not an absolute protection. I recreated the complete image in a few seconds with the GIMP.

It's another layer of effort, of course. It would discourage some people.

A more comprehensive method would be a flash viewer that uses encoded filenames as its parameter. Then you'd need a protocol analyzer to see what the flash viewer was downloading.

You're right; I hadn't even considered that.

Just shows there's more ways to break security than there are to enforce it.