Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
go ahead... be a heretic

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here is a commercial obfuscator

by herveus (Parson)
on Mar 21, 2003 at 12:59 UTC ( #244843=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re: Re: Re: Re: Here is a commercial obfuscator
in thread Here is a commercial obfuscator


Oh? By what theory do you construe B::Deobfuscate as reverse-engineering? It is based on the openly published (by the vendor) description of how the product achieves its claimed end. No evidence has been adduced that diotalevi has obtained and/or examined the actual product.

Of course, you don't have any such theory. You just can't take the heat, so you try FUD. Go away.


  • Comment on Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here is a commercial obfuscator

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here is a commercial obfuscator
by Anonymous Monk on Mar 22, 2003 at 12:10 UTC
    Independant of how B::DeObfuscate was implemented, it's sole purpose is reverse engineering of the products obfuscated with Stunnix Perl-Obfus and others (not for reverse-engineering the Perl-Obfus itself of course - please feel the difference!). You try to imply that one may use nuclear bomb for anything but bombing. Have you ever seen in US shops master keys e.g. for Volvo car's locks? B::DeObfuscate is the same.

      You are talking nonsense.

      B::DeObfuscate works on any perl code, whether run through Perl-Obfus or not. It has already been pointed out that it would work fine on other code. It's a generic deobfuscator, not specific to Perl-Obfus. You may as well try and declare perltidy and B::Deparse illegal.

      The legality of running it on a piece of code depends on the licence for that code. If I wished I could purchase Perl-Obus, run it on a piece of my code, and release the "obfuscated" code under the GPL. It would be perfectly legal for people to do whatever they like to the source.

      If I wished I could write a piece of code, release it with a restrictive licence and if somebody altered so much as a single tab they would be breaking the law.

      Contracts, licences, patents and copyright control the legality of altering code. Obfuscation is a foolish method of trying to control source code.

      If I'm going to obey the law whether the code is obfuscated or not makes no difference - I'm not going to fiddle with the source.

      If I'm going to break the law obfuscation is so trivially overcome it's not going to make a difference.

      If you're capable of making a living distributing your obfusticator - good luck to you. Just don't expect the rest of the world to agree with you.

        Could you explain then why B::DeObfuscate is usefull for *non-obfuscated* code? Obviously there is no use in running it over non-obfuscated code. So the sole purpose of it is making studying obfuscated code simpler.

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://244843]
[Discipulus]: what about a good 'ol SOPW?
[erix]: Giro d'Italia won by Dumoulin (peccato Nibali)
[ELISHEVA]: csv_detect_bom doesn't work either
[erix]: (SCNR)
[ELISHEVA]: I may have to resort to SOPW - but was hoping that this would be something simple
[erix]: I'd just remove the BOM, it is pretty simple
[ELISHEVA]: Simple yes. and I did consider that. but this isn't one off . An important data source that I don't control is generating bom prefixed utf8 files and I'd rather not have to be munging files every few months.
[erix]: on teh other hand a SOPW is pretty much garanteed to get an answer from tux (and probably the module fixed)
[ELISHEVA]: plus it bugs me that something that *should* be simple, *should* work- unicode and noms aren't exactly the new kids on the block
[ELISHEVA]: well then since the obvious possible mistakes on my part have been ruled out, SOPW it is.

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others avoiding work at the Monastery: (9)
As of 2017-05-28 20:32 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?