Re^4: Win32::OLE and Wscript Shell -> Getting data back

I feel like I'm answering a whole new question here! :-)

You are of course correct concerning a bog standard use of pp on an end user system.

However, in my case I stand by the statement that the code is not viewable for the user. Because its a server side environment, the temp folder is created on the Citrix server in a temporary user profile (for each logged on user) which only the Citrix applications have access to. Users have no access rights to teh Citrix servers so cannot view these files. The temp folders are purged at logoff.

In any case, I've created a new OU in active directory to store the application groups that users will be allowed to add and remove themselves from. The admin account I'll be using to add/remove group access will ONLY have rights to the apps in that directory, so the security aspect is covered.

Comment on Re^4: Win32::OLE and Wscript Shell -> Getting data back

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Win32::OLE and Wscript Shell -> Getting data back by marto (Cardinal) on Jun 14, 2010 at 14:00 UTC
I appreciate that you're working on a Citrix system, however my previous post was clarification to your statement about executables created using pp, lest anyone see that as general advice on how it works. Cheers	[reply]
Re^6: Win32::OLE and Wscript Shell -> Getting data back by Gaz5 (Novice) on Jun 15, 2010 at 08:28 UTC
Fair enough. I was only responding to the inference that I should read the documentation again because I didn't understand how it worked based on a quote of half my post, when I'd actually explained why it wasn't an issue for me in the next sentence. Seemed more aimed at your perception of my understanding than a general statement for other people.	[reply]
Re^7: Win32::OLE and Wscript Shell -> Getting data back by marto (Cardinal) on Jun 15, 2010 at 08:53 UTC
The quote: "When you use the pp module in perl to create an exe from a script the actual script itself is compiled and cannot be viewed in a general text editor." was what prompted me to suggest reading the documentation more clearly, regardless of the fact you're running this executable on a Citrix platform, this statement is not accurate and implies that this method is somehow a secure way to hide source code. This method combined with the fact you're running it via Citrix is a different matter. As previously stated, my concern was for someone accepting your first statement as an accurate description of how pp works, not as a comment on how you are using it's output in your Citrix environment. Though initially I accept that I misread where you were running this via Citrix. I didn't intend for any of this to be insulting in any way, I apologise if it seemed like I did. Cheers Update: fixed a couple of typos	[reply]