Welcome to the future - Homeland-Security - with not recourse to explanation.
A while ago I got a rejection because I had a Constant within a module named “TEMP”.
They said this would overwrite the system “TEMP” -
Of course it would NOT… and so they backed down.
BUT you do need to watch watch what you submit…
The main change in this new regime is that you must submit your RBZ file containing only RB files [in the subfolders[s]] - because if there are any RBS/RBE files it WILL result in a rejection.
And therefore the [tested] base-level loader-RB must refer only to the ‘file-name’ in the subfolder [with NO extension-suffix].
SketchUp finds either RB or RBS files etc, during loading [and therefore testing] - no need to specify the ‘file-type’.
PS: Do not be fooled.
You are offered choices which are poorly explained…
- You can publish your RBZ with NO encryption.
- You can publish your RBZ encrypted as RBS
- You can publish your RBZ encrypted as RBE
- You can publish your RBZ encrypted as BOTH RBS & RBE
Here are my thoughts…
=1. This is what you do if you are unconcerned about your Intellectual-Property [aka IP].
=2. This is what you do if you are relaxed about your IP, or have already exposed it to the hacking-community in earlier releases. - so it has already been potentially cracked, but at least it’s harder to extract your IP. from it.
Also see see item 4 below for more clarity !
=3. This is what you do with brand-new IP which you wish to protect from hackers.
The RBE format and its related ‘hash’ file is currently ‘uncrackable’ [although ‘they’ are working on it as I type]
BUT if you already published it as RBS it is already ‘exposed’…
This format has the additional ‘downside’ that it does not work in <2016 !
This severely limits your user-base…
=4, This is what you do if you are plain stupid !
I cannot believe this is an offered option !
[Trimble please note!]
If you publish it as an RBZ encrypted as an RBS, then it works in ALL SketchUp versions [including v2016] - despite what the new regime’s signing-portal might [incorrectly] suggest.
If you publish an RBZ containing both RBS and RBZ formats it works in ALL current versions - BUT it offers potential hackers extra help.
Because the RBS and the RBE versions will both be signed at the same instant, and that they therefore contain the exact same data, it offers a clear benefit to any hackers - they will know what both files ought to contain [after all, the RBS is known to be readily crackable!] - so why offer the illusory encryption, when offering <v2016 compatibility.
I raised this with Trimble ages ago [with some other ‘security loopholes’] - still no response…