Code obfuscation / decompilers?

Joshua Muskovitz josh at open.com
Mon Oct 9 05:16:12 CEST 2000


Sigh.  Because it is not within my power to modify the form of the key.  If
I was really trying to create an ideal system, I would start from scratch.
I'm not.  I'm trying to create the "least sucky" solution, given the
constraints imposed on me.

This is the difference between real world coding and theory.

-- johs

"Lokie" <anthony at lokie.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6D4E5.34334$Cl1.766003 at stones...
> Looking at this from a slightly different direction, and with the
assumption
> that any code designed to eventually be executed can be examined in at
least
> some form, leads me to conclude the solution is not to distribute the lock
> with the code.
>
> (*** Warning Here comes a wild tangent ***)
>
> Why not then make the unlock code and key one and the same?
>
> For example if I know the user name in advance I can use that for some
> simple (or as complex as you want) encryption/decryption of the key to
> unlock the application. And having that key as a Python code object which
> can then be exec'ed to perform the unlocking operations (maybe some
function
> redirection?) hides from your casual cracker the means to steal your hard
> work.
>
> Of course that doesn't solve the problem of "friends" sharing out keys and
> usernames, and casual code browsers gleaming some of your intellectual
> property, but as a means to protect a revenue stream may be the best way
> forwards in an interpreted language.
>
> --
> Anthony McDonald
>
>




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----



More information about the Python-list mailing list