|XP is just a number|
Re^5: Why is it bad to hide the source?by daveola (Novice)
|on Feb 27, 2011 at 21:56 UTC||Need Help??|
Except that *again* that is actually FALSE.
The source is NOT initially loaded into a variable with no obfuscation other than Bleach. ikegami is incorrect, hence the 'doesn't understand' claim I make.
I suggest running 'strings' on an executable made without Bleach to find this source. I recognize that I am using a weak encryption, but I feel that strong encryption would be a bit of overkill here considering what the script has to do next.
And yes, there is a point where the script exists as plaintext as it it passed to perl, this is essentially unavoidable without modifying perl. I address that issue as well.
It's pretty amazing to me that I get negative reputation on this board for posting truths, it seems to reply that this board is more of a religious resource rather than a technical resource, though I suppose that may be apparent in the name.
I understand that some people don't believe in source obfuscation. I get it. Other people do. Heck, most of my source is freely available. I write a tool that allows for the latter group of people to accomplish what they want, with Perl, and I am attacked with misinformation and negative reputation. Really? As an author of a number of publically available perl scripts, as a perl resource, and as a perl advocate, is this how I should be treated, just because I don't have the same religious views on open source?
Doesn't really inspire me to come back here.