debatem1 at gmail.com
Wed Feb 17 08:00:59 CET 2010
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 1:10 AM, Banibrata Dutta
<banibrata.dutta at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 7:41 AM, Steven D'Aprano
> <steven at remove.this.cybersource.com.au> wrote:
>> > security aspects I guess it would also not be much use, is this correct?
>> Absolutely 100% wrong. It is an fundamental principle of security that
>> you must not assume that the enemy is ignorant of your procedures.
>> "Security by obscurity" is not security at all.
>> See, for example:
> I believe, the use of work 'security' wasn't the best choice to describe the
> need, if I understand the original poster's intentions. The intentions of
> original poster were "intellectual property protection",
Which has little to do with the language in question.
> where-in they have
> indeed created something worth stealing, and would like to put it under
> lock-n-key. For that purpose, I do not think Python is the right choice.
> BTW for people who are non-believers in something being worth stealing
> needing protection, need to read about the Skype client.
Most of the people I know who were interested in REing skype were
a lot more interested in either interoperating with the protocol or ensuring
that skype wasn't deliberately including malware or a backdoor. In any
even I don't see this having anything to do with Python.
More information about the Python-list