Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!feeder.news-service.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed6.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.007 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.99; '*S*': 0.00; 'python,': 0.01; 'raised': 0.07; 'used.': 0.07; 'garbage': 0.09; 'pm,': 0.11; 'wrote:': 0.14; 'subject:python': 0.15; 'chunks': 0.16; 'disassembled': 0.16; 'finney': 0.16; 'from:addr:tyler': 0.16; 'from:addr:tysdomain.com': 0.16; 'from:name:littlefield, tyler': 0.16; 'message-id:@tysdomain.com': 0.16; 'received:69.164': 0.16; 'received:69.164.206': 0.16; 'received:69.164.206.65': 0.16; 'received:tds-solutions.net': 0.16; 'reply-to:addr:tyler': 0.16; 'reply-to:addr:tysdomain.com': 0.16; 'served': 0.16; 'subject:distribution': 0.16; 'yank': 0.16; 'url:blog': 0.18; 'this?': 0.18; 'modules': 0.20; 'writes:': 0.20; 'code,': 0.20; 'code': 0.22; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.22; 'blog:': 0.22; 'sound': 0.22; 'trying': 0.23; 'subject:code': 0.23; 'that?': 0.23; 'java': 0.24; 'script': 0.26; "i'm": 0.26; 'putting': 0.26; 'all.': 0.30; 'this.': 0.30; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.32; 'another': 0.32; 'topic': 0.33; 'received:192.168.1': 0.34; 'received:192': 0.34; 'skip:" 10': 0.34; 'there': 0.35; 'files,': 0.35; 'couple': 0.35; 'open': 0.35; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.35; 'rather': 0.36; 'response': 0.36; 'think': 0.36; 'received:192.168': 0.37; 'some': 0.37; 'bigger': 0.38; 'but': 0.38; 'no.': 0.38; 'delete': 0.38; 'common': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'whatever': 0.39; 'would': 0.40; 'evidence': 0.60; 'skype:': 0.60; '8bit%:21': 0.60; 'best': 0.60; 'url:net': 0.62; 'upon': 0.63; 'care,': 0.69; '8bit%:23': 0.69; 'skip:\xe2 10': 0.72; 'reply-to:no real name:2**0': 0.72; 'header :Reply-To:1': 0.72; 'website:': 0.73; 'race': 0.73; 'programs,': 0.77; 'gain': 0.80; 'collection,': 0.84; 'examining': 0.84; 'critically': 0.91; 'universe': 0.91 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on wuff X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.1 Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 21:36:53 -0600 From: "Littlefield, Tyler" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: python-list@python.org Subject: Re: obviscating python code for distribution References: <87boz3gw5u.fsf@benfinney.id.au> In-Reply-To: <87boz3gw5u.fsf@benfinney.id.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: tyler@tysdomain.com List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 38 NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.94.164.166 X-Trace: 1305517027 news.xs4all.nl 41102 [::ffff:82.94.164.166]:53458 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.python:5469 I'm putting lots of work into this. I would rather not have some script kiddy dig through it, yank out chunks and do whatever he wants. I just want to distribute the program as-is, not distribute it and leave it open to being hacked. On 5/15/2011 9:29 PM, Ben Finney wrote: > "Littlefield, Tyler" writes: > >> I have been considering writing a couple of programs in Python, but I >> don't want to distribute the code along with them. > This topic has been raised many times before, and there is a response > which is now common but may sound harsh: > > What is it you think you would gain by obfuscating the code, and why is > that worthwhile? What evidence do you have that code obfuscation would > achieve that? > >> Finally, is there a good way to accomplish this? I know that I can >> make .pyc files, but those can be disassembled very very easily with >> the disassembler and shipping these still means that the person needs >> the modules that are used. Is there another way to go about this? > Not really, no. You would be best served by critically examining the > requirement to obfuscate the code at all. > -- Take care, Ty my website: http://tds-solutions.net my blog: http://tds-solutions.net/blog skype: st8amnd127 “Programmers are in a race with the Universe to create bigger and better idiot-proof programs, while the Universe is trying to create bigger and better idiots. So far the Universe is winning.” “If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete themselves upon execution.”