Re^6: Win32::OLE and Wscript Shell -> Getting data back

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.

Comment on Re^6: Win32::OLE and Wscript Shell -> Getting data back

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
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]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

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]