in reply to Re^16: What happened to perlcc? (perlc script extractor)
in thread What happened to perlcc?
In fact, the first reply to your post was to state that this is exactly why you rock. So clearly this is not an easy task for the casual user. My comment on the home page still stands:
Secondly, I've been told multiple times that I am misleading people. I write a simple tool and put up on the docs about the tool about all of it's shortcomings, and somehow I am misleading people. If anyone can show me where I'm misleading people, I'd love to know.
I highly recommend that people who don't believe in closed source should not use my script. And if they choose to attack it, please feel free to do so on the ethical issues of open/closed source.
I highly recommend that people who want their code completely secure do NOT use my script. Then again, even if they choose to use a compiled language such as C, there are ways to disassemble C and even convert it back into C code.
I highly recommend that anyone who is comfortable with hiding their script from casual users, feel free to use perlc! And if they want something stronger than Bleach and the weak encryption that perlc offers, then they can obfuscate in some other manner, and yes, anyone who is able to run a debugger and deal with assembly will be able to get your code. There isn't anything you can do about that. You can dust off perlcc and get it working, and even then someone smart enough will be able to effectively reconstruct your code from that.
There is no guaranteed answer to hiding your code. That's a fact. I never claimed to have the answer to that. All I claimed is to write this:
And that's all.
Sorry you didn't like my script. Sorry it didn't live up to your standards. You're welcome to write something better. :)
|
|---|
| Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
|---|---|
|
Re^18: What happened to perlcc?
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Mar 05, 2011 at 06:56 UTC |