in reply to Re^10: What happened to perlcc?
in thread What happened to perlcc?

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.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^12: What happened to perlcc?
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Mar 02, 2011 at 05:00 UTC

    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]
Re^12: What happened to perlcc?
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Mar 02, 2011 at 04:59 UTC

    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]

        I don't know what you mean by "one gets back"..

        We're talking about whether the program is obfuscated or not. I said it's not, it's available intact in «block».

        Because the script is NOT intact in the executable

        In the binary image? Never said it was.

        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!

        Step to the call to eval_pv. Print the argument.

        Alternatively, change the call to eval_pv to a call a call to printf and run the program.

        it is encrypted

        I've head of self-extracting archives, but self-decrypting encryption? That's laughable!

        This is, of course, assuming that you are using the standard definitions for words like 'encrypted' 'intact' and 'not'..

        It's the third time you've used this baseless infantile attack. Move on.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom