in reply to Re^9: What happened to perlcc?
in thread What happened to perlcc?

Encryption does NOT require a secret.

Again? You really should start reading the material to which you reference before contradicting.

to make it unreadable to anyone except those possessing special knowledge

To consider ROT13 and perlc to be forms of encryption, one must consider the algorithm itself to be the secret. First rule of encryption: Never consider the algorithm a secret.

But enough theory. In practice, perlc provides the original intact without knowing either the algorithm or the salt you call "key". Objections over names don't really matter.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^11: What happened to perlcc?
by daveola (Sexton) on Mar 02, 2011 at 04:56 UTC
      To consider ROT13 and perlc to be forms of encryption,

    To consider ROT13 to be encryption, you have to know the definition of encryption. You choose to ignore it. I can't help you with that.

    I'm sure I'll get more negative reputation for this - someone should probably go to Wikipedia (and every other technical source on the subject) and let them know that Ikegami has redefined encryption and ROT13 no longer counts.

    Furthermore, I don't think we agree on the word intact:

    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intact

    The code is not intact, it is transformed by the key. Whether or not you want to admit that "weak encryption" exists is up to you, but the code is not intact in the executable.

    This is the most ridiculous conversation I've had on the net, and that's saying a lot.

[reply]

      By encrypting, I mean to make unreadable to anyone except those possessing special knowledge. Looks like there's no need to let Wikipedia know.

      By intact, I mean byte-for-byte equal. If the proginal program was «print("Hello World\n");», one gets back «print("Hello World\n");». What do you think it means?

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

      By encrypting, I mean to make unreadable to anyone except those possessing special knowledge. Looks like there's no need to let Wikipedia know.

      By intact, I mean byte-for-byte equal. If the original program was «print("Hello World\n");», one gets back «print("Hello World\n");». What do you think it means?

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]
        I don't know what you mean by "one gets back"..

        If you could give me a set of commands that I can run on an executable where I can "get back" the original script, I'd love to hear about it!

        Because the script is NOT intact in the executable, it is encrypted. This is, of course, assuming that you are using the standard definitions for words like 'encrypted' 'intact' and 'not'.. YMMV.

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom