From: Kris Leech Date: 2006-06-19T19:19:47+09:00 Subject: Re: ZenObfuscate - for when you really really have to ship a Patrick Hurley wrote: > On 6/17/06, Kris Leech wrote: >> Ultimitly you would need to include all ruby files in the binary. > > But I could just rename the compiled so file, write a simple loader > that loads the .so and then do what ever I wanted. But would the code in the .so be modify-able? To take real > control you would need a special build of ruby (probably with an > "embedded encrypted key" (yes I know this is stupid :-), that would > only run encrypted and/or signed versions of the code. What do you think to these programs like EXECrypter which adds anti-debug, encryptioned code and other anti-tamper/hack techniques. > > Ultimately, this is also bound to be far too easy to circumvent (again > by any attacker worth his or her salt) -- if the key is embedded it > can be extracted and used to decrypt the files -- the key can be > changed etc. > > Again the only thing that can save you is a service based approach > (where you control the server) and the code never gets to the clients > machine -- if the code is on a client machine and the value it high > enough it can and will be hacked, all non hardware DRM is doomed to > quick and painful failure. Depending upon your application and > audience you may be able to hide your internals from your user > community, but don't believe that you can protect it against a > determined and knowledgeable opponent. It looks like Ruby is mostly suited to the service based approach. And can not be distributed like compiled desktop applications. > > pth -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.