From: Alex Young <alex@...>
Date: 2006-05-23T23:28:30+09:00
Subject: Re: Writing a interpreter extension

Bira wrote:
> On 5/23/06, Guest <krisleech@interkonect.com> wrote:
> 
>> An open source project compiled (open at design time) and software that
>> has interpreted open source (open at run time) are different. And
>> interpreted is less secure than compiled.
> 
> 
> How so? I don't think I've ever read anything about this before. Sure,
> it's easier to change interpreted code, but if the attacker already
> has enough access to make those alterations in the first place, it
> doesn't matter wheter the program is compiled or interpreted, and you
> have a deeper problem in your hands.

It depends on what metric you use for "secure".  If you use "minimum 
amount of energy expended to retrieve protected data", then in an 
otherwise like-for-like system, then assuming that the software is not 
bypassed completely, the system with compiled code needs additional 
energy for the decompilation, making it "more secure".  Simple as that :-)

-- 
Alex