Development Of A Mobile Agent For Preventing Software Piracy On A Network

Project and Seminar Material for Computer Engineering

Development Of A Mobile Agent For Preventing Software Piracy On A Network


Abstract


This study was carried out on the development of a mobile agent for preventing software piracy on a network. The study covered the encapsulation of the actual software with mobile agent codes. It also covered the coding and the development of the remote server/web interface. The interaction between the mobile agent codes and a remote server hosted on the site of the vendor during the authentication stage of the software installation was covered. TUSRUC algorithm function was also studied which shows the way the system handles cases of unforeseen contingencies during the “first time” period of using the software product.

The target population of this work includes students of Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka and software developers in awka, in Nigeria. A convenient sampling was applied where the opinions of students of the AfriHUB Cisco Networking Academy, at Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka were sought and analysed. The attributive inspection mode of valuation was employed where 18 samples out of a sample size of 41 students were rejected who indicated that they have not personally acquired and executed commercial license software in the past and not even any form of GNU Public license Software.

The implication of the answer that there is no yet expected end for software piracy is that software investors and economy of countries will expectedly tend to suffer financial losses in the near future, more or less as stated in the problem statement.Recommendation thus follows that software vendors and developers should always engage in combining several technical measures in protecting their software against piracy.


Table Of Contents


Preliminary Page(s)

  • Title page
  • Certification page
  • Dedication
  • Acknowledgment
  • Abstract
  • Table of contents
  • Abstract

Chapter One

Introduction

  • 1.1 Background Of The Study
  • 1.2 Rational / Theoretical Framework
  • 1.3 Statement Of The Problem
  • 1.4 Purpose Of The Study
  • 1.5 Research Questions And Hypotheses
  • 1.6 Significance Of The Study
  • 1.7 Limitations Of The Study
  • 1.8 Scope / Delimitation Of The Study
  • 1.9 Operational Definition Of The Terms

Chapter Two

Literature Review

  • 2.1 Introduction
  • 2.2 Main Body
  • 2.3 Summary Of Literature Review

Chapter Three

Materials and Methods

  • 3.1 Introduction
  • 3.2 Research Design:
  • 3.3 Population Of The Study
  • 3.4 Sampling Procedure
  • 3.5 Instrumentation
  • 3.6 Data Collection (Procedure)
  • 3.7 Data Analysis Techniques

Chapter Four

Results, Analysis and Findings

  • 4.1 Introduction
  • 4.2 Research Questions/Hypotheses Analysis And Results
  • 4.3 Discussion Of Results
  • 4.4 Summary Of Findings

Chapter Five

Conclusion and Recommendations

  • 5.1 Introduction
  • 5.2 Implications Of The Study
  • 5.3 Recommendations
  • 5.4 Suggestions For Further Studies
  • 5.5 Conclusion
  • References
  • Appendix A
  • Questionnaire

Chapter One


1.1 Introduction

Software piracy has affected the growth and the profitability of the software industry. It causes so much harm to software publishers when their products are duplicated without due authorization and spread across to individuals who are not licensed users or when their products are installed amongst multiple machines beyond the licensed number. Nowadays, we are surrounded by software applications which are used for services like online payments, social networking, games, data management, etc.

The profitability of the producers and vendors of these software applications are negatively affected by threats such as piracy, reverse engineering, and tampering. However, these threats are exacerbated when these software are poorly protected. Therefore, it is important to have a thorough threat analysis as well as software protection schemes in order to protect the huge revenues of software companies which increases in proportion with the wide use of software. This protection is not only for operating systems, but also for professional applications (e.g. graphics software) which can also be very expensive. The illegal use of software is on the increase and with just a few mouse clicks, people can download software product, apply a downloaded patch to it, and start using it without payment. Vendors realized that protecting software against malicious users is a hard problem.

The user is in control of his machine: he has physical access to the hardware and he controls the network connectivity (Howard & LeBlanc, 2002). The BSA (2013) explained that software piracy creates unfair competition for legitimate companies, damages brands through distribution of substandard products, and exposes customers to a range of IT risks including malware, security breaches and data loss. It also denies end-users the benefit of necessary customer support, upgrades, technical documentation, trainings and bug fixes. These pirated software end-users of course have no warranty to protect themselves and they are subject to significant fines for copyright infringement.

The software vendors and manufacturers and also the BSA with local laws in different countries have not relented in the quest to completely prevent software piracy. Many websites today are used to fight piracy by including linking information such as “report software piracy”, thereby involving legitimate users of software in the fight. Software piracy is more often practised when digital files are made into one or more copies, thus programmers have usually come together trying to find a way of making digital files uncopyable. Schneier (2011) has said that trying to make digital files uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet. Job (2011) has also argued that there is no good technological solution to a behavioural problem. While so many are still on the fight for piracy prevention, some others are arguing that software piracy prevention has no perfect measure.

According to wheeler (2011), a combination of four main factors means that no imperfect copy-protection system can be possibly safe. In the light of his “four major factors”, he said the question shouldn’t be “Why are software still easily pirated?”, but “Why are people still trying to prevent it?”. So many others do believe that piracy can be tackled with a combination of measures. A decision to totally relent on the fight to prevent software piracy is like a decision to cease software production all over the world and its impact will be unimaginable.


1.2 Rational / Theoretical Framework

The increase in demand of software products should no doubt increase the revenue of the Software vendors and create more jobs for software developers. The Application of software programs have become very popular that any task has software relating to it (Adu, 2013). But unfortunately, it has been the reverse that software developers lose their jobs and that the profitability of software vendors tends to suffer over the years. Yet, there is very large number of students graduating annually throughout the world from the study of software engineering and other related fields, while so many others are gaining admission to study and so many others having the passion for software engineering and related fields. Software Piracy is a dangerous menace that needs to be combated now in order to secure the future of this population of future software engineers. Software vendors have tried a lot to prevent software piracy through means that are visible to the users. This study of combating software piracy with mobile agent is very necessary because of its verification and authentication processes being hidden from the various users of software during installation.


1.3 Statement Of The Problem

The problems of software piracy are its negative effects on the following areas:

Funding of continuing research and development efforts through sales of software

Software developers and vendors have envisioned a future with so many possibilities through creation of various software products. Mathworks (2013) stated their goal to accelerate the pace of discovery, innovation, development, and learning in engineering and science through the software they create. To this end, making substantial and continuing research and development efforts, which are ‘funded’ through the sales of their software products.

Loss of jobs

Unfortunately today, throughout the world, we do not only have a problem of software piracy reducing this funding of ongoing development efforts, but also a problem that software vendors have not really achieved the desired much in their quest to prevent this dangerous menace which affects their profitability and which also is a threat to jobs of so many software developers.

Financial losses to software firms and the government

The BSA study concluded that software piracy cost the U.S economy $1.9 billion and resulted in more than 105,000 lost jobs (Jack, 2004). At global level, the global piracy rate hovered at 42% in 2011 while a steady expanding marketplace in the developing world drove the commercial value of software theft to $63.4 billion (BSA, 2011). Apple (2013) also stated that more than $11 billion is lost to piracy every year. Software piracy has also been a discouragement to so many who wishes to invest in the software industry thus affecting the expected alternative software solutions to solve people’s needs in the future. If enough strict software piracy–prevention measures are not put in place, it could lead to a very high increase in software prices in the future because of the need for business sustainability on the side of software vendors.


1.4 Purpose Of The Study

This study is aimed towards achieving the following results:

  1. Using the migration behaviour of mobile agent codes for software-user identity collection and for software usage count. And also to implement a scenario illustrating such mobile agent code activities.
  2. Combining an online activation code system with the mobile agent system in a way as to make them a single unit aimed at preventing software piracy through technical means.
  3. Building a web interface which will act as the data processing element for the combined system.
  4. Ensuring that an unforeseen circumstance that may arise after the users’ first time installation of software is put into consideration.
  5. In addition, using data collection procedures to ensure that the study has an outstanding contribution to make towards the fight against software piracy, but first ensuring that data analysed is from a population ‘really informed’ about software piracy.

1.5 Research Questions And Hypotheses

Would it be that software users are not educated about software piracy or does it mean it still appeals to them ethically to still engage in software piracy even when they are educated enough about software piracy and its effect on the world economy. Would it not be appropriate for software vendors to work very hard in order to safeguard their products even if it affects the time they should have put in the development of new products or enhancing available ones for a better users’ experience? Most software products initially come with some features with the inclusion of more features gradually over time in the name of release of new versions of the same product.

This indeed is more revenue for the software vendors but causes regular budgeting for software costs by users. The following questions could thus arise: Are these frequent new releases strategies for making more money by the vendors, maybe to make up for losses caused due to software piracy? Did these frequent needs for users to pay and upgrade to newer versions lead to or encouraged more piracy? Is it that the users of pirated software are not having in mind the profitability and business sustenance of the vendors who claims to have the needs of their clients in mind? Is there an expected end to software piracy? Finally and more importantly, is technology really needed to combat software piracy and how has technology applied in the past able to fight piracy.


1.6 Significance Of The Study

The proposed study has Educational, Technological and Economic significance. It is of educational significance to students, IT instructors and lecturers in IT field who can use the study as instructional reference for self study and tutorials when referring to software, piracy, coding and also to ICT-driven services. It is also of educational significance to researchers in areas of software piracy as a review study.

Technologically, it is of significance to software developers who engage in seeking new systems of preventing software piracy through technical means especially means relating to mobile agents or a combination of mobile agents. The study will also be useful technologically and economically to software vendors who has need to identify usage and control installation limits of software as a way of frustrating piracy and preventing financial losses.


1.7 Limitations Of The Study

One shortcoming of this study is based on the fact that the software installer will encapsulate both the mobile agent and the actual software which altogether forms a single unit that is copied to a CD or uploaded to the vendor’s site, maybe as a single .php file. Only a few professional programmers though can de-encapsulate this unit to separate the component and run the actual software independently, though he will need to do that faster if he knows the algorithm used for the encapsulation.

Therefore, this information should never be provided by the vendor as a way of overcoming this shortcoming. Also the amount of time that will be required for this de-encapsulation can discourage the pirate. If the programmer-user eventually succeeds in de-encapsulating the various components, he can spread the actual software to non-programmer users and the spread continues from there. Another limitation is the TUSRUC feature of the mobile agent system which is though designed to make up for unforeseen contingencies on the side of the users. The feature ensures that even if the software is made to be installed on many computers, after the first installation, the software/serial key combination enters a TUSRUC period which must elapse before the software can be installed on the rest of the computers.


1.8 Scope / Delimitation Of The Study

This study is focus on preventing software piracy through technology. This technology is the use of a mobile agent. The study will cover the encapsulation of the actual software with mobile agent codes. It shall also cover the coding and the development of the remote server/web interface. The interaction between the mobile agent codes and a remote server hosted on the site of the vendor during the authentication stage of the software installation will also be covered. TUSRUC algorithm function will also be studied which shows the way the system handles cases of unforeseen contingencies during the “first time” period of using the software product. This study however, does not cover the de-encapsulation process. The actual software to be installed will only serve as test software, its development process or coding will not be covered.


1.9 Operational Definition Of The Terms

Activation Code:

Some software needs an activation code to unlock it for use. Without activation code, such software cannot be functional  (Bahar Reuben, 2011).

Algorithm:

A step-by-step method of solving a problem or achieving
a task.

Amnesty:

a period during which a law is suspended to allow
offenders to admit their crime without fear of prosecution.

Auction Sites:

Online auction sites are like giant flea markets; they provide a forum for buyers and sellers to find or sell just about anything. Auction is also held on the internet (BSA Internet Piracy
Report, 2009).

BitTorrent networks:

A set of rules that governs how large amount of files can be distributed over a network or over the internet (BSA
Internet Piracy Report, 2009).

BSA –Business Software Alliance:

The Business Software Alliance (BSA) is a watchdog group dedicated to fighting software piracy, educating computer users about software copyrights and cybersecurity, and advocating public policy for electronic commerce, international trade, intellectual property protection, export controls, and emerging technology issues (BSA Global Advocacy and Europe Members, 2013).

Code Encryption:

This makes the code unreadable by a third party (Cronin, 2011). Passwords are often encrypted and appear as bullets. -Copyrights: gives the creator of a work or software exclusive right of distribution of the work or software.

Copyright Infringement:

The republishing or use of works under copyright without permission from the rightful owner.

Cyber Crime:

Criminal acts dealing with Computers and Networks, called hacking.

Encapsulation:

The inclusion of one thing within another thing so that the included thing is not apparent.

Illegitimate users:

Illegitimate users obtain software from the
Software pirates because they want it cheap or even at no pay.

IPR – Intellectual Property:

Granting a rightful owner of a product certain exclusive right to his product. Third party usage must be under owner’s consent (Apple-Legal-Piracy Policy, October 2013).

Legitimate users:

Legitimate users purchase software from the
Software Vendor, and obtain updates from the same.

Malicious:

When a software product is pirated, it will contain codes that can cause damage or hurt the software in general.

Malware:

A software that is hostile and intrusive.

Mobile Agent:

A code that can move from one computer to another computer in a network (Shieh et al, 2011).

Module:

A Software program can be broken down into modules (Davidson and Myhrvold, 1996). Each module has its own separate task.

Obfuscation:

A software programmer can make his codes unreadable by others (Benneth Josie, 2006).

ODRL – Open Digital Rights Language:

Is a rights expression language developed to express rights, rules, and conditions – including permissions, prohibitions, obligations, and assertions – for interacting with online content (Iannella, 2001).

Reseller:

A company or an individual that buys goods in order to sell them to others rather than using them.

Shareware:

A software vendor can give out his software for free to the public asking them to try it and pay if they like (Merkle R.C, 1993).

Software Cracking:

Process of illegally making software functional by bypassing its normal process of activation.

Software developers:

people who create software with all its
features.

Software Installation:

Software cannot function on its own. Computer is required to run software, thus the software is made to run on a computer or machine by installing it there.

Software Licensing:

When software is being purchased, a license to that software is being issued by the software vendor. Thus procession and use of a software product without its license is an illegal act and considered a crime.

Software Patents:

A legal monopoly granted for the use, manufacture, and sale of an invention (Nichols K, 1999).

Software Pirates:

The Software Pirates illegally obtain software sold by the Software Vendor, and redistributes (potentially altered) copies of the software causing financial harm to the Software Vendor.

Software Updates:

Periodically, every software need to be updated with the latest fixes, bugs, patches and security features.

Software Vendor:

The Software Vendor sells software, keeps a list of registered users, and ensures that the legitimate users’ software are updated when due.

Watermarking:

One can embed watermarks on an image or software in order to be able to trace it (Myles Ginger and Collberg Christian, 2003).

XML:

Extensible Mark-up Language. A computer language used to encode a document to be understood by both humans and machine or computer.


Chapter Five


Conclusion And Recommendations

5.1 Introduction

The study was set up to explore the concept of extending the fight against software piracy not just beyond the ethical measures of educational, amnesty and appeal, but also beyond other technical measures already in place by a method of combination of activation key technology and the migration features of mobile agents which is where the purpose of the study lies. The mobile agent codes collects software-users’ information on installation, calculates software usage and manages user unforeseen circumstances that may arise after first time installation.

The system which is similar to the activation code system is an enhancement to it, since there is no room for the user to supply false information to the vendor, the mobile agent codes automatically collects user information and send to the vendors’ user information platform. All is geared towards seeking a solution to software piracy which affects all. Software developers and vendors have been losing funds that would have been raised from the sales of their software products aimed at funding further development efforts and making substantial and continuing research. Unfortunately, the efforts of government bodies and the BSA to fight the menace of software piracy through ethical and legal means have not really achieved outstanding results. Amongst all, empirical findings from this study have sought to answer the following questions:

  1. Would it be that more software users are not educated about software piracy?
  2. Is it possible for users who are really informed about the demerits of software piracy still find the act appealing?
  3. Would it be appropriate for software developers and vendors to attach more importance to the safeguarding of the software products they already have even if it affects the time they should have put in the development of new products?
  4. Is there an expected end to software piracy?

Questionnaires were shared out to some ICT students with the expectation that they are more likely to be educated about software piracy. Though a reasonable percentage of the students indicated they were quite educated about software piracy, the number reduced when I manually analysed the section A of the questionnaire which was designed to actually ascertain that a respondent is really informed or not based on the data he or she supplies, irrespective of whether the respondent claims to be informed or not. Discussing the results on the section A, a greater percentage of the populace was analysed to be uneducated or not really informed about software piracy. It was interesting to even analyse that 30% of those who claimed to be informed about software were rather not really informed. On the whole, 65% of the respondents were analysed to be not informed or uneducated about software piracy. The remaining 35% were analysed to be really informed about software piracy and were allowed to continue with the section B of the questionnaire. The section B covers the ethical measure of Appeal.

Results of the section supports a conclusion that the majority of software users who are really informed about software piracy tend not to bow to appeal no to engage in the act or patronize software pirates. It was seen that 32.5% have their several reasons to intentionally go for pirated software. This is a clear indication that reasons why people pirate software far outweigh the positive effect of the public appeal. Also 2.5% said they had never engaged in acts that supports piracy. This is a clear indication that the educational means of tackling piracy has not been a total waste. The remaining 65% which represents the longest bar on the chart as can be seen on fig 25 was a clear indication that the larger population has nothing to contribute as regards fighting software piracy. I intentionally could not allow them to contribute to the section B of the questionnaire since they will either copy from others just to make sure they fill and return theirs or they might just end up returning questionnaires filled out of a mere guess. Furthermore, the section B also covers analysis of results from the aspect of fighting software piracy through technical means or simply through technology.

The results have also been discussed to indicate that software developers and vendors have not abandoned the fight for software piracy prevention only to the hands of the BSA and legal means. They have also used technical means to help prevent software piracy. However, these various technical means have also shown to agree with peoples’ opinion according to (schneier 2001), that there is no perfect measure of totally preventing software piracy. This is supported as shown in fig 28, by the responses from the number twelve (12) of the questionnaire where all the really-informed respondents indicated that pirated software often exist in their environment as cracked software with or without serial keys. This is a clear indication that software prevention measure using serial keys or encryption algorithms like watermarking, digital rights management and diversity have not all been able to totally prevent software piracy. Also 12.5% of the total 40 respondents or 35.7% of the really-informed respondents supplied the information that pirated software also exist within their environment as downloaded software updates. This data generates a finding that using software ageing as a technical means of preventing software piracy does not give a perfect solution. Though it is quite true that none of the respondents indicated that they have piracy going on in their environment as a result of pirates having illegal access to online servers hosted by software vendors, the result of the interview conducted on a software marketer has indicated that professional pirates still have the tendency of doing at will.

However, this study on mobile agents has shown its uniqueness in combating software piracy where authentication is the first stage of the installation process, thereby discouraging the potential pirate from the start. The migration characteristics of mobile agents which collects user unique information is also a unique feature of this system which helps the vendor track illegal installations even when the keys are technically manipulated by experts. The TUSRUC feature is also a unique feature which is not found in the ordinary activation code system with maximum software usage limits. This TUSRUC feature makes up for unforeseen contingencies that may arise after first time installation of a software product such as virus attack or system break down. The TUSRUC feature though has its negative effect of having to wait for the TUSRUC period to elapse on first time installation before legitimately installing same multiple-use software in other computers.

One will even observe that amongst the three measures of fighting software piracy which includes ethical measures, legal measures and technical measures, the legal measures were not included as an area that requires analysis. This does not mean that legal means does not contribute to the fight for software piracy; it is because legal means does not actually prevent software piracy before it happens. Rather, they are used to prosecute defaulters but that is after the damage has been done and the software has been distributed illegally. Software vendors thoughtfully cannot abandon the fight for piracy prevention to legal measures alone. If a software vendor intends to use legal means to fight illegal use of his software, he will need a mobile agent combination to enable him collect user unique information which is technically traceable in developed countries. Putting it all together with a hope to providing an answer to the question if there is an expected end for software piracy, according to the result of the Venn diagram (fig 28), it is so obvious that pirates are also seriously working so hard to ensure that all software products are available for all to use free of charge. Software users who do not have any regards towards ethical values hopefully and continuously owes them big thanks, but this is to the detriment of software developers and vendors who have invested their time and money. However, the remaining part of this chapter has been structured to cover the implication of this study, offer recommendations and make suggestions for further studies and afterwards, the conclusion of the conclusion.


5.2 Implications Of The Study

More software users are not educated about software piracy implying that most users encourage piracy by unintentionally patronising pirates. While most software users who are really informed about piracy still find the act appealing, technical measure still remains a better means to stop them. Making authentication the first stage of software installation and having to discourage a potential pirate from the start implies that the user can actually be made not to feel being in charge of whatever software in his possession. Also, if the mobile agent can forcefully collect user information, it does not actually make the user in total control of his machine and this implies that the relentless efforts of technical measures of fighting software piracy are not a total waste. However, the time invested in development of stronger technologies that prevent piracy will continuously tend to take the place of time which should been invested in creating better software solutions to solve peoples’ needs, in essence, retards software evolution speed. The implication of the answer that there is no yet expected end for software piracy is that software investors and economy of countries will expectedly tend to suffer financial losses in the near future, more or less as stated in the problem statement.


5.3 Recommendations

At first, the finding of this study shows that there is more percentage of the populace who are uneducated about software piracy. I recommend that the educational measures should be strengthened if not taken with a different approach like making it compulsory in higher institutions that every student takes a course related to ethical values at least once at undergraduate level. This study has also shown consistency with other related studies that there is no perfect measure of totally preventing software piracy. Recommendation thus follows that software vendors and developers should always engage in combining several technical measures in protecting their software against piracy. More research should be carried out on how to make mobile agents codes integral part of every software application that is necessary for the software to even function, rather than just use mobile agents to encapsulate an application. In other words, the main codes which do the main functions in an application can also be the same mobile agent codes that do the migration and authentication, such that if any of those codes are removed from the application, the application will totally become useless and unprofitable for the pirate. Also government and the BSA should not relent in investing in more research as to totally eradicate the act of piracy.


5.4 Suggestions For Further Studies

The need for further research on this study is based on some of the research questions which are not covered in the course of this study and other areas. Exploring the following as future research strategies can facilitate the attainment of a much better desired goal:

  1. Research on creating application software codes that doubles as mobile agent codes, such that very strong de-encapsulation will not be a way forward for piracy, as it is a limitation of this particular study.
  2. Research on the development of an ethical values-related course and its expected effect when incorporated into basic, tertiary and higher educations’ systems.
  3. Combining other technical measures with the mobile agent technology of software divisibility, migration and Activation Code System.

5.5 Conclusion

This system of using mobile agent technology to prevent software piracy is similar to the online activation code system, but with a major modification where the user-identity becomes a necessary tool for combating piracy. The system uses mobile agent codes which have divisibility and migration characteristics. The migration characteristics of mobile agent codes was concentrated on, where the mobile agents have to migrate between the user’s computer and the vendor’s server for online verification of activation codes, user information collection and verification, TUSRUC processing and finally, authentication of users for actual installation of software.

The system also makes use of software usage count in order to ensure that a particular software product is not installed beyond the maximum usage limit. The TUSRUC feature technically puts into consideration unforeseen circumstances that may arise after every first time installation of a particular combination of software /activation code. This TUSRUC period enables that particular user to re-install the software using same activation code without increasing the usage count, but this is only possible if the TUSRUC period set for the said activation code is still valid. During the TUSRUC period, installation of same software / activation code combination will not be possible in other computers.

The actual development of the test software is outside the scope of this study. The test software is already compiled software written in Visual Basic. The mobile agent is written separately but compiled together with the test software. A web interface was built as a data processing element between the mobile agent codes and the software authentication code platforms (SACP) as well as the software userinterface platforms (SUIP) located in the remote site of the software vendor. The SACP generates and stores authentication codes and manages the code usage count, while the SUIP stores user information with their associated software/code combination. Both the SACP and the SUIP are necessary for processing TUSRUC for every software/activation code combination during installation by different users. Though the actual software is strongly encrypted with the mobile agent codes, a professional programmer might succeed in decrypting the codes and separating the actual software from the mobile agent codes. This will indeed require a great deal of time which might be commensurate to building software of same features by same programmer. Another limitation being that a hacker can also hack into the vendor’s server to have access to the generated codes. A study has also been carried out on this development where results from questionnaires shows that pirated software mostly exists in form of cracked software and use of such software without activation codes even when it should require activation codes or use of different software kind with same activation code. Data collection technique adopted ensured that analysis were based on responses from a population of software users who were proved to be really informed about what software piracy is all about.

This development has indeed addressed this issue with the code usage count, TUSRUC feature and user-identity collection. The edge this development has over the other anti-piracy systems is that the user goes through activation code verification before the actual software product is installed in the user’s computer, unlike in the online activation code system where software installation first takes place, making the already copied program files more exposed to attack upon pirate activities. It also checks that an activation code usage will not exceed its predefined usage limit. Finally, combining both the divisibility and the migration characteristics of mobile agent technology was also recommended in this work for future research.


Development Of A Mobile Agent For Preventing Software Piracy On A Network


Project Material Download

3,000 Naira


The complete material will be sent to you in just 2 steps.

Quick & Simple…


Step One Purchase

Make payment of ₦3,000: through USSD Transfer, Bank Mobile App, ATM Transfer, or POS Transfer to:

Access Bank PlcAccount No.: 0811003731
Name: Samphina Academy
Account Type: Current

Or Click Here to pay with Debit Card

FOR CLIENTS OUTSIDE NIGERIA:
Click Here to pay with Debit Card ($15)
GHANA – Make Payment of 60 GHS to MTN MoMo, 0553978005, Douglas Osabutey 

  PAY WITH CRYPTOCURRENCY


Step Two Purchase

Send the following details through Text Message or WhatsApp Messenger | +234-8143831497

  • Payment Details 
  • Email Address 
  • Development Of A Mobile Agent For Preventing Software Piracy On A Network

The complete material will be sent to your email address after receiving your payment information | T & C Apply


  Contact Our Help Desk


You may also like:

⚠️ Need a different topic? Perform a quick search



Get A Complete Business Plan For Any Business In Nigeria

Business Plan for Businesses in Nigeria

  Business Plans in Nigeria


Development Of A Mobile Agent For Preventing Software Piracy On A Network


Disclaimer

This research material “Development Of A Mobile Agent For Preventing Software Piracy On A Network” is for research purposes and should be used as a guide in developing your research project / seminar work. For no reason should you copy word for word (verbatim) as samphina.com.ng will not be liable for any who copied the material.

The aim of providing this material is to reduce the stress of moving from one school library to another all in the name of searching for research materials. This service is legal because, all institutions permit their students to read previous projects, books, articles or papers while developing their own works. According to Austin Kleon “All creative work builds on what came before”.

samphina.com.ng is only providing this material “Development Of A Mobile Agent For Preventing Software Piracy On A Network” as a reference for your research. The paper should be used as a guide or framework for your own paper. The contents of this paper should be able to help you in generating new ideas and thoughts for your own research. Use it as a guidance purpose only.


How to defend your research work


This is a general guide on how to defend your research work:

1. Prepare For Questions:

If you are preparing for questions that may be asked during your defense, then your answers will flow smoothly and effectively. This will prove your knowledge on the subject e.g “Development Of A Mobile Agent For Preventing Software Piracy On A Network“, and strengthening your argument. Ask friends and family, read your work for them to listen to your presentation, and write down questions. You may be lucky the panel will ask you those you have already prepared on.

2. Strong Summary:

Summarizing your chapters will help keep your audience focused because it is easy for a mind to drift, so providing summaries will ensure your panel will follow along, even if they lose focus for a brief moment. Visual aides, such as graphs and power-point presentations can be very helpful. If you are going to use these, make sure you will practice your presentation with them.

3. Be Confident in Your Research Work:

Not knowing your topic “Development Of A Mobile Agent For Preventing Software Piracy On A Network” inside out will cause you to struggle and ultimately fail with your defense. You need to know the subject from every angle to ensure you are fully prepared for any question that may come your way.

4. Conclusion:

Reinforce your findings to conclude your defense. The finale of your presentation should focus on proving the work that has been done. You may need to recap on what has changed and remained unchanged, if is necessary.

5 . Listen:

Before you get defensive or recite a particular answer, make sure you truly understand the question being asked. Being a good listener is an important quality, because providing an inaccurate or off-topic answer will also weaken the validity of your paper.

Samphina Academy

Samphina Academy is an Online Educational Resource Center that is aimed at providing students with quality information and materials to aid them in succeeding in their academic pursuit.