Re^2: Interpreting Assembly

.. having recherched further.

There would be the MIPS I emulator, written in perl.
And, things like retrobsd, a port to MIPS 4;

Also other alien OS's.

http://retrobsd.org/wiki/doku.php
https://hackaday.com/2012/03/28/building-the-worst-linux-pc-ever/

NUTTX could possibly even run at the Z80 emulator, written in perl.
http://nuttx.org/doku.php?id=documentation:about

This would increase the wtf-factor immensely, however, seems to me,
the additional layer(s) give a clean separation, which don't add anything to obfuscation or security.

I might give nuttx a try, just out of curiosity.

But at the moment I believe I'm going to either compile the editor into MIPS asm,
and write a "translator" to get perl code again.
DSL might be another term for what I'm going to do, I didn't know the concept yet.

Or I'll translate the texteditor from c to perl by hand.
Overall, it's only about 600 loc, not counting comments.
;) btw., the link to the editor. https://github.com/michael105/et

Comment on Re^2: Interpreting Assembly

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Interpreting Assembly by harangzsolt33 (Deacon) on Dec 04, 2019 at 15:38 UTC
times have changed, and it might be possible to bruteforce the passwords nowaday within reasonable time. If I knew it was a text editor and that it's password protected, I might just write my own text editor in C. I don't really see the point of obfuscating a text editor. If you want to take over the world, there's got to be an easier way! LOL	[reply]
Re^4: Interpreting Assembly by misc (Friar) on Dec 05, 2019 at 08:45 UTC
> If I knew it was a text editor and that it's password protected, I might just write my own text editor in C. I don't really see the point of obfuscating a text editor. If you want to take over the world, there's got to be an easier way! LOL It's not only the editor. It's about mixing encryption and the editor, obfuscation, and also encryption / obfuscation of the memory. And yes, there are editors out there, who can do encryption. However, in my experience, the best action to improve security is to do something uncommon. The other point is that I'd like to have a single statically linked executable without dependencies. A few cheap tricks, and the success of "Uh, it's a perl script attached to perl itself" becomes "uuuh. Now I've to reverse engineer the slightly changed perl, too". At this point, I'd guess, if someone tries to steal my muddy secrets at all, he will choose another approach. :p	[reply]