My guess is your use of 0x. I also think that more then half of the people here could figure it out. You need to try to hide what you are doing. All you have done is run the lines of your code together, a few returns and even a novice can figure it out (I had my co-worker who has used perl for 2 months figure it out on his own). The 0x is a good start to actually hiding your code. If you generate the array, or the subs, you would have done a lot in the way of hiding your code (enough to have half the people here give up before figuring it out). | [reply] |
I admit that running the lines together isn't much of an obfuscation, but every little bit helps. 8) In point of fact,
what I was intending was different was multiple methods of data storage in the same program. Most obfuscated programs that
I see use only 1 type. Still, not too bad for my first try, eh?
Spacewarp
DISCLAIMER:
Use of this advanced computing technology does not imply an endorsement
of Western industrial civilization.
| [reply] |
OK, so this is my 2nd attempt at working obfuscated code out, so it makes sense that I do another easy one.
Yes, the code all runs together, oooh scary...
It's all about the subroutines....
Sub - boiled down = result
-----------------------------
b - char(74) = J
e - pack(U,65) = A
0x63 - pack(c,80) = P
0x32 - chr(72) = H (there's 72 little % signs there...)
I like the approach of using the hex codes as sub names & obviously leaving the '&' off the subs makes them less obvious.. Also, counting the garbage characters is a neat trick too.
Wait! This isn't a Parachute, this is a Backpack! | [reply] |