[CALUG] What would YOU do?

[Jason C. Miller]

I actually considered doing something like that.  

Instead of...

system("prog.sh")  /* From the C code */

...I could write something like...

system("cat prog.sh.crypt | decrypt_somehow | sh")

....but the problem with that is that I doubt I could hide the plaintext 
key anywhere well enough.  Even if I put that key in the binary itself, it 
could still be plucked out with something like 'strings' or 'strace'.  

Good start to an idea though.  :)


On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, attriel wrote:

> > On Mar 10, 2006, at 8:23 AM, Jason C. Miller wrote:
> >
> >> For the sake of trying to keep code proprietary in the interim , does
> >> anybody have any ideas as to how one could maintain the scripts in
> >> a way that would make it difficult for someone else to understand
> >> the logic that executes within them?
> >
> > As a pragmatic Perl developer, I would think its native syntactical
> > quirks would be enough to obfuscate its intent without any additional
> > compilation.  ;-)
> 
> you could always add comments.
> 
> seems to make my perl completely unintelligible :o
> 
> 
> there's probably a module that you could use to encrypt the perl files,
> then send a key to the wrapper script that then decrypts to memory and
> calls into the script
> 
> i've never really worried too much about trying to hide my code.  i don't
> seem to work with anyone who can understand computers anyway :o

--