android-lvl

I'm looking to use the new licensing (LVL) stuff with Android Marketplace, but I'm running into a performance problem with the stock AESObfuscator. Specifically, the constructor takes several seconds to run on a device (pure agony on emulator). Since this code needs to run to even check for cached license responses, it puts a serious damper on checking the license at startup. Running the LVL sample app, here's my barbarian-style profiling of AESObfuscator's constructor: public AESObfuscator(byte[] salt, String applicationId, String deviceId) { Log.w("AESObfuscator", "constructor starting");

So I would like to make a free app with full functionality loaded in. The pro functionality will be disabled until the app detects a licensed pro key. And of course I would like to have the pro key check it's licence using LVL. While I know how to do things right until this point, I don't know how to make the pro key communicate with the app that it should enable the pro functionality. Here's the main app code (com.test.mainapp): public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) { super.onCreate(savedInstanceState); setContentView(R.layout.main); context = getApplicationContext(); final

I am receiving this exception in LogCat every time I press the Back button in my app: Activity has leaked ServiceConnection com.android.vending.licensing.LicenseChecker@471cc039 that was originally bound here The code responsible for this leak in onCreate() is: mLicenseCheckerCallback = new MyLicenseCheckerCallback(); mChecker.checkAccess(mLicenseCheckerCallback); How do I get rid of this leak? I tried not assigning MyLicenseCheckerCallback to a member, thinking perhaps when the activity goes onPause() the reference to the callback is responsible for the leak: mChecker.checkAccess(new

I'm trying to build an Android release with Ant and ProGuard. I uncommented the following line in project.properties, despite the comment in said file noting that you shouldn't modify it ;): proguard.config=${sdk.dir}/tools/proguard/proguard-android.txt:proguard-project.txt When obfuscating, I get the following notes: [proguard] Note: the configuration refers to the unknown class 'com.google.vending.licensing.ILicensingService' [proguard] Note: the configuration refers to the unknown class 'com.android.vending.licensing.ILicensingService' I do understand why this is happening. These lines can

I am creating an application in Android. I want that once my application is installed on one device, user should not be able to copy the ".apk" and run it on other device. Please help me out. Thanks in advance. :) The answer I'm about to give is not the answer you want to hear, but please read through, as I will justify this answer and give you an alternative model you might be able to use in your application. In general, you should not look for a single method that will be absolutely successful in protecting your application from being pirated. A determined pirate will, at some point, be able

I currently use a combination of LVL and Proguard as a first line of defence against piracy. However, what about the resource strings? For example, if there is a resource string like "License check failed" then doesn't the pirate simply need to trace that resource id back to where it was used in the code? In fact, this is also true if the string is something generic like "Please contact dev". What is the best approach? If you define a resource string, you will probably define or use it in: the string resource file res/values/strings.xml , layout files res/layout/*.xml , the generated resource

I have a free application that has a number of paid-for upgrade applications you can buy for it. The base game is free and remains the application that the user always launches, it detects the presence of the other applications and unlocks various upgrade features as appropriate. I wanted to use the new licensing service to detect whether the bought applications were licensed, and pass the name of the package to the licensing service to verify if it is authorised (and blindly following the sample I stupidly assumed that passing in the package name to the obfuscator meant that the package name