Adam Howard
Well-known member
Token ... key....It's not a key so there is no way to make a keygen...
You say tomato and I say tomato ... It's a tomato.
Token ... key....It's not a key so there is no way to make a keygen...
This of course is also trueHonestly, I wonder about the "purpose" of this API... Any decent hacker who wants to distribute mods that check for this can very easily edit out the function since PHP is visible source.
http://xenforo.com/community/threads/license-validation-api.48350/page-3#post-518666This of course is also true
I agree. I love the idea that they are trying.I think the point here Adam (not having a dig) is atleast xenforo are trying which is more than can be said for other companies who couldn't give a toss about the 3rd party developers just as long as they're making a quick buck. I think it's great to see this come into action.
Anyhow just my 2 cents worth. Excellent work xf team, i mean that.
True, but I believe in the long term... This is actually a "leak" ... a backdoor if you will....Well, if you are worried about people cracking your token, don't generate one then. Devs can refuse to sell their addons to you of course, but they could do that since the beginning. This is merely an optional tool.
We discussed this many times in different threads, but apparently a very vocal group considers this an invasion of privacy.I'd be happy with a nice "verified" in my postbit. That would be simple enough for me and I think most everyone else here.
IPB does this (add it into the postbit)... As much as I dislike their company, support, and development ..... They get this one right.We discussed this many times in different threads, but apparently a very vocal group considers this an invasion of privacy.
I don't remember the details anymore but the issue people had wasn't just displaying a licensed token in the posbit. Things like access to forum users for third-parties without permission and revoking one's XF license came up. IPB doesn't do that afaik.IPB does this... As much as I dislike their company, support, and development ..... They get this one right.
I'd be more worried about that small, yet very vocal group.
We discussed this many times in different threads, but apparently a very vocal group considers this an invasion of privacy.
All I can say is that if you have one of my add-ons and wish to receive future updates, you’d better learn how to generate a token
Then I'd say you will become very proficient at generating tokensWhat if you own four?
I am really happy to see that people are passionate about only selling to valid customers.
When I first read this suggestion, my initial impression was to shrug. I have been selling some add-ons, and, truth be told, I do not believe it is my responsibility to make sure that the customer I am selling to is a valid XenForo customer.
Some people speak to principle (omg!, you are selling to a thief!), but at the end of the day, doing this validation is an additional administrative process and an additional cost for me that I will need to pass forward and will in turn make the add-on more expensive (and the purchase process for the person more annoying, since now they need to generate a token).
I am in no way saying this is a bad idea, this is definitely an excellent idea, and will allow the most passionate people to restrict their dealing with valid XenForo customers. This will also in little sense help XenForo combat piracy, since a person might not even be able to buy add-ons without a valid license (though, if someone pirated XF in the first place, most likely they will not buy an add-on).
However, this is a gesture, these kind of things show how much the devs are back, caring, listening, and enhancing the community, and that is the piece that I take, the piece that I find incredible and that I believe will foster more engagement from the community itself.
It is not a "leak" nor a "backdoor".True, but I believe in the long term... This is actually a "leak" ... a backdoor if you will....
No and you're misinterpreting me. By "leak" I mean it is possible that this could give means which could in theory be wrongfully used to validate those who should not be validated... Not talking about security, per say.It is not a "leak" nor a "backdoor".
Didn't you get in a legal mess for saying the same thing about IPB?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.