Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
laziness, impatience, and hubris
 
PerlMonks  

Re^5: Why is it bad to hide the source?

by daveola (Novice)
on Feb 27, 2011 at 21:56 UTC ( #890467=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^4: Why is it bad to hide the source?
in thread Why is it bad to hide the source?

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.


Comment on Re^5: Why is it bad to hide the source?
Re^6: Why is it bad to hide the source?
by marto (Chancellor) on Feb 28, 2011 at 10:10 UTC

    You seem to be missing the point. ikegami has once more elaborated on what your script does, and does not do.

    "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."

    ACME::Bleach is obfuscation rather than encryption.

    "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."

    Open debate has been welcome here, certainly for as long as I've been a user, and the archives show that this has always been the case. Various people have pointed out your "truths" may be misunderstandings resulting in inaccuracies in your claims of what your script does. The name of the site is PerlMonks, the theme (user levels etc) may be themed as such but that's where the religious aspect of the site ends.

    "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?"

    Your tool does not do what you claim it does. You're not being attacked. Open debate isn't misinformation. Don't worry about "reputation" or XP (See The Role of XP in PerlMonks). Because you've written perl scripts does that mean that people can't discuss them with you without you claiming you're being made victim of some form of injustice? These comments are based on what the script in question does and does not do.

      I recognize that I am using a weak encryption,...

      ACME::Bleach is obfuscation rather than encryption.

      *sigh*

      Fortunately I'm not talking about Bleach, I'm talking about the weak encryption that is built into perlc.

      It's amazing how many times I have to state this.

      Various people have pointed out your "truths" may be misunderstandings

      Ironically it's the other way around. It's interesting as well that people such as yourself are more willing to trust the claims made by ikegami, rather than to either trust the claims or the author, or, better yet, check for yourself.

      http://MarginalHacks.com/Hacks/perlc/

      Search for 'key'

      Or look at the source and/or run the usage:

      http://MarginalHacks.com/bin/perlc

        "Fortunately I'm not talking about Bleach, I'm talking about the weak encryption that is built into perlc."

        Again, this isn't encryption. You are misleading people into believe it is so. And more of the same here.

Re^6: Why is it bad to hide the source?
by ikegami (Pope) on Mar 02, 2011 at 18:10 UTC

    The source is NOT initially loaded into a variable with no obfuscation other than Bleach.

    I demonstrated that the source is loaded into a variable.

    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.

    Not true. perlcc avoided is. Obfuscation would avoid this.

    It's pretty amazing to me that I get negative reputation on this board for posting truths,

    I suspect you're nodes are getting negative reputations due to your use of infantile arguments like pretending I don't know what "intact" means.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://890467]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others browsing the Monastery: (6)
As of 2014-09-21 20:29 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    How do you remember the number of days in each month?











    Results (175 votes), past polls