rotor alternative?

Jorge Godoy godoy at ieee.org
Thu Nov 20 14:35:14 CET 2003


jjl at pobox.com (John J. Lee) writes:

> That's not a "but", that's an "and".  It does a bad job of strong
> encryption, it does the job for obfuscation.  It *is* a step up
> Anybody can write a program to decrypt XORed data in a line of code
> (maybe emacs has a keystroke for it), decryption of rotor encryption
> requires the extra effort to find a library to crack it, or to know
> enough to write your own.  Whether that small point justified its
> initial inclusion is certainly debatable, but now it's in there, it
> seems like a mistake to deprecate it.

Sorry for my ignorance, but how do you get to decrypt the code to run?
Use any kind of wrapper? Is such a wrapper written in C? Do you store
the key inside such a wrapper? 

The same problem would happen with AES or any other crypt method:
where and how to store the key in a way that's easy for the user. 


See you,
-- 
Godoy.     <godoy at ieee.org>




More information about the Python-list mailing list