KidSafe FINAL [discontinued]

Submit updates of portable freeware that are already listed in the database.
Message
Author
User avatar
webfork
Posts: 10818
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: KidSafe FINAL

#16 Post by webfork »

>> I'm increasingly worried that these forums can be a gigantic wet blanket for people who want to get community feedback on their software.

> I personally will stop posting my programs on the Forum from here on in. I don't want to be known for abusing the Forum

I think you misunderstood: I've actually lamented that there aren't more programs like DropIt here on the PFW forums.

Wet blanket is a euphemism referring to the putting out of a fire. In this case, the fire is the desire to create. The forums are frequently a "wet blanket" because we hit people over the head with license stuff and sometimes are frankly too negative. I'm partly at fault for this because I go on and on about my open source idealism without trying to remember that people frequently dislike this legal BS and it can kill the fun. That was sort of the point (I think) behind the Rights Talk thread back in April.

Let me be clear: if you ever quit posting stuff about DropIt and your other programs, I would be very disappointed. This should be the home for that kind of stuff and I'd be very proud if you listed our forums as THE forums for those softwares.
Last edited by webfork on Mon May 30, 2011 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: (added note about the other thread)

computerfreaker
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 9:46 pm

Re: KidSafe FINAL

#17 Post by computerfreaker »

webfork wrote:I'm increasingly worried that these forums can be a gigantic wet blanket for people who want to get community feedback on their software. So please remember that we like software and we like active projects so if something here doesn't make your job easier, ignore it and keep moving.
That's never been an issue for KidSafe; aside from a few people complaining about too-frequent updates, all of you have been completely supportive. I've really appreciated that, and at a couple of points during KidSafe's development that's what kept me going. :)
computerfreaker wrote:There doesn't seem to be a good level of balance here; either I can severely cripple KidSafe or I can give it a great deal of power. Either way, someone's going to be satisfied and someone's going to be unhappy.
computerfreaker wrote:do I have to worry about someone abusing KidSafe (and given KidSafe's OSS license, the KidSafe source) for malicious purposes, or do I have to worry about someone taking advantage of a wide-open "safety shutdown" to nullify any protection KidSafe could offer?
webfork wrote: * Based on my work on the initial program, KidSafe wasn't supposed to be a strong security measure: its designed to help prevent non-techy people from causing problems. Using complex techniques to avoid circumvention doesn't seem necessary when keeping kids out.
Agreed. I think rcmaehl has taken this even further than I did (blocking logonui.exe??) and probably a bit further than I intended, so I have just asked him to change the program's name and distance it from KidSafe. In its current incarnation, this program isn't mine anymore.

At some point I'll be totally redoing KidSafe the way a kid-blocker should be done: simply.
webfork wrote: * I participated in this program in its initial stages because it was open even though I don't really have a need or use for it. Open doesn't guarantee collaboration, but when people feel like the software belongs to the community (as with the GPL), you're more likely to see involvement.

Whatever you decide, if you do end up taking the program a closed-source route, please leave the Google Code site up.
Like you, I strongly support FOSS, and I intend to leave KidSafe under the GPL, even after its redesign. (I can't speak for rcmaehl, of course, but I believe he intended to stay open-source as well.)

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 10818
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: KidSafe FINAL

#18 Post by webfork »

computerfreaker wrote:That's never been an issue for KidSafe; aside from a few people complaining about too-frequent updates, all of you have been completely supportive. I've really appreciated that, and at a couple of points during KidSafe's development that's what kept me going. :)
computerfreaker wrote:At some point I'll be totally redoing KidSafe the way a kid-blocker should be done: simply.
computerfreaker wrote:Like you, I strongly support FOSS, and I intend to leave KidSafe under the GPL, even after its redesign. (I can't speak for rcmaehl, of course, but I believe he intended to stay open-source as well.)
All points are good news and good to hear. Thanks.

rcmaehl
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:11 am

Re: KidSafe FINAL

#19 Post by rcmaehl »

After messaging back and forth with computerfreaker, the autoit version of kidsafe is no longer kidsafe but a branch of kidsafe. The autoit program is now known as URSafe and is more based on security. I hope that it can stay FOSS, HOWEVER, on the FIRST sign of abuse of it, it may be FORCED to go Non-OSS to prevent abuse. Going Non-OSS is a LAST RESORT for me and I will be doing everything in my power to make URSafe abuse-proof.

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 10818
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: KidSafe FINAL

#20 Post by webfork »

rcmaehl wrote:After messaging back and forth with computerfreaker, the autoit version of kidsafe is no longer kidsafe but a branch of kidsafe. The autoit program is now known as URSafe and is more based on security. I hope that it can stay FOSS, HOWEVER, on the FIRST sign of abuse of it, it may be FORCED to go Non-OSS to prevent abuse. Going Non-OSS is a LAST RESORT for me and I will be doing everything in my power to make URSafe abuse-proof.
Appropriately, the AutoIT team had some idea of what abuse looks like and also planned to take the whole thing closed-source. So far they haven't gone that route.

Edit: I was corrected later in this thread: they actually did go that route

User avatar
guinness
Posts: 4118
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:00 am
Contact:

Re: KidSafe FINAL

#21 Post by guinness »

I was happy to Help you with URSafe and offer you some Free Functions I've created, but it appears you weren't and neither am I now.

Killing LogonUI.exe is very dangerous indeed and could cause huge problems especially if URSafe was to crash. And as I've had problems with URSafe I will be sticking to KidSafe. Thanks.

rcmaehl
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:11 am

Re: KidSafe FINAL

#22 Post by rcmaehl »

guinness wrote:I was happy to Help you with URSafe and offer you some Free Functions I've created, but it appears you weren't and neither am I now.

Killing LogonUI.exe is very dangerous indeed and could cause huge problems especially if URSafe was to crash. And as I've had problems with URSafe I will be sticking to KidSafe. Thanks.
Killing LogonUI is being removed since there was reports of unstability of URSafe when using that method. I am grateful that you helped with URSafe and I'm still browsing over your functions.

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 10818
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: KidSafe FINAL

#23 Post by webfork »

Old thread update:
rcmaehl wrote:I hope that it can stay FOSS, HOWEVER, on the FIRST sign of abuse of it, it may be FORCED to go Non-OSS to prevent abuse. Going Non-OSS is a LAST RESORT for me and I will be doing everything in my power to make URSafe abuse-proof.
Initially I just assumed that computerfreaker was fine with that, but a recent slashdot thread made me second guess this. This may well be news to just me, but make sure you get permission from the copyright holder to release software derived from GPL'd code under a non-GPL license.

rcmaehl
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:11 am

Re: KidSafe FINAL

#24 Post by rcmaehl »

webfork wrote:Old thread update:
rcmaehl wrote:I hope that it can stay FOSS, HOWEVER, on the FIRST sign of abuse of it, it may be FORCED to go Non-OSS to prevent abuse. Going Non-OSS is a LAST RESORT for me and I will be doing everything in my power to make URSafe abuse-proof.
Initially I just assumed that computerfreaker was fine with that, but a recent slashdot thread made me second guess this. This may well be news to just me, but make sure you get permission from the copyright holder to release software derived from GPL'd code under a non-GPL license.
1. URSafe has completely different coding than KidSafe. C++ vs Autoit
2. URSafe will NEVER be Non-OSS due to measures to be implemented by 1.2.0.0
3. KidSafe is an incredible program and URSafe will never be able to achieve it's level of perfection, but I can get as close as possible.

User avatar
JohnTHaller
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:44 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: KidSafe FINAL

#25 Post by JohnTHaller »

webfork wrote:Appropriately, the AutoIT team had some idea of what abuse looks like and also planned to take the whole thing closed-source. So far they haven't gone that route.
AutoIT did go that route years ago. They used to be GPL but closed it off. I'm not sure how they addressed any outside contribution copyright issues when they did this. It's been closed source since then. That may be a contributing factor in the popularity AutoIT has with malware publishers (it's a single EXE with the script tacked on and a feature where you can 'encrypt' the script so an antivirus program can't analyze it). As it's closed-source, it's harder to reverse-engineer this to analyze what an AutoIT app actually does without running it, which is an issue considering that it has hooks built into the base EXE with lots of Windows APIs that can be used for bad things. This results in lots of false-positives by antivirus programs on all AutoIT-based EXEs. That's why we no longer accept AutoIT-based apps for official release at PortableApps.com and will phase out our 2 apps that are based on it shortly.

Autohotkey is based on much of that old open-source AutoIT code and is still open source under the GPL.
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software | Support Net Neutrality

User avatar
guinness
Posts: 4118
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:00 am
Contact:

Re: KidSafe FINAL

#26 Post by guinness »

I'm not sure how they addressed any outside contribution copyright issues when they did this.
They asked the developers what should happen to stop their code being stolen & going closed source was the unanimous decision by the majority of developers.

I would also like to make it clear (as your post doesn't) that the developers of AutoIt DO NOT advocate the use of their product for illegal activity & it's only a small number of users who spoil it for the rest of us. Anyone who posts in the Forum discussing illegal activity is put on mod review or blocked, depending on how severe the post/request was.

User avatar
JohnTHaller
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:44 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: KidSafe FINAL

#27 Post by JohnTHaller »

guinness wrote:They asked the developers what should happen to stop their code being stolen & going closed source was the unanimous decision by the majority of developers.
One of the things they did not like was AutoHotKey using their code in a competing product despite attributing it in the source code and help file, at least from a quick read of it all. From reading the old thread, it seems that the owner of AutoIT did not want competing projects using their code (with or without attribution) and didn't understand the purpose of the GPL. Side note: 'unanimous' and 'majority' are at odds with each other in your statement.
I would also like to make it clear (as your post doesn't) that the developers of AutoIt DO NOT advocate the use of their product for illegal activity & it's only a small number of users who spoil it for the rest of us. Anyone who posts in the Forum discussing illegal activity is put on mod review or blocked, depending on how severe the post/request was.
I never implied that that was the case. I just stated that it is popular with malware writers specifically because it is closed source and has a means of encrypting AutoIT scripts so that they can't be analyzed (by users, other developers, security researchers or antivirus/antimalware programs). That fact plus the fact that all AutoIT-based EXEs are actually the standard AutoIT EXE with the script tacked onto the end means that you wind up with lots of false-positives since both malware and innocent useful programs are essentially all the same EXE.
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software | Support Net Neutrality

User avatar
guinness
Posts: 4118
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:00 am
Contact:

Re: KidSafe FINAL

#28 Post by guinness »

My post might have come across as a little defensive, but I code in AutoIt for ease & I was making clear that not all of us are into creating malware, I have a reputation to uphold :D

User avatar
JohnTHaller
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:44 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: KidSafe FINAL

#29 Post by JohnTHaller »

guinness wrote:My post might have come across as a little defensive, but I code in AutoIt for ease & I was making clear that not all of us are into creating malware, I have a reputation to uphold :D
I figured that much out :) It is a shame, but I think AutoIT could fix the whole situation by ditching the script encryption feature (easy) or turning it into an actual compiled EXE (much harder). Unfortunately, until that happens, false positives will be an ongoing issue for AutoIT EXEs.
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software | Support Net Neutrality

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 10818
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: KidSafe FINAL

#30 Post by webfork »

Old thread update: Found a program with similar functionality build in AHK over at DonationCoder:
http://www.donationcoder.com/Software/S ... oddlerTrap

Post Reply