Re: Protecting a script

Problem is that money printing is a monopoly.


And even worse. It does not represent a humanly
recognizzzable value of trade off.





"mayayana" <mayaXXyana1a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:u8l4h.3831$L6.2105@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
could you please go away you freak?


asdf does like to be...well,
let's say "poetically murky". :)

But he has a good point. The question of
compiling script comes up almost weekly here
from people who don't know any better, or who
are confusing compilation with encryption.
SCRIPT DOES NOT COMPILE.
Unfortunately, there are plenty of people happy
to sell air conditioners to Eskimos if the price is
right.

The advantage of script is that it's easy
to write, editable, and reasonably safe to run. The
disadvantage is that it's interpreted and therefore
very inefficient and limited. Trying to "compile" a
script loses the advantages while keeping the
disadvantages. If people really ned compilation
then they really should just learn to write some form of
native-compiling code. Then there'll actually be a
good reason to compile it.

If someone just needs privacy - maybe for a
script running on the machines of corporate
lackeys - the script encoder should work well
enough. It's true that there are decoders
available, but If people want script code, or .Net code,
or Java code, badly enough they'll get it. None
of those are truly compiled in their public form.

In the case of the OP it sounds like the idea is
to avoid letting people know what the script
actually does, which is really a different issue.
Again, the script encoder is probably sufficient,
but if someone really wants to figure out what the
script is doing they can use Regmon, Filemon,
etc. to get quite a bit of information.



.