How can I compile without encrypting the exe

[MattH]

AutoIt3Wrapper automatically encrypts the compiled exe. The McAfee virus scan at my work spends about 30 seconds per file any time I view or copy or move one of these encrypted files. Is there a way to compile the au3 code without it being encrypted. Thanks in advance for your help.

[Jos]

When you mean "without UPX" then add this at the top:

#AutoIt3Wrapper_UseUpx=n

[MattH]

I'm sorry for my ignorance, but UPX does encryption, too? I thought it only compressed the file. In the AutoIt Help, it states that "the compiled script is compressed and encrypted".

[Jos]

I'm sorry for my ignorance, but UPX does encryption, too? I thought it only compressed the file. In the AutoIt Help, it states that "the compiled script is compressed and encrypted".

Correct. UPX compresses the resource header but sometimes leads to false positives.

So, what exactly are you after, because that is about the only thing you can do different.

Edited January 14, 2010 by Jos

[MattH]

Thank you for your help. I'll give the no compression a try and see if that improves the McAfee scan time.

[SeanMaloney]

I'm sorry for my ignorance, but UPX does encryption, too? I thought it only compressed the file. In the AutoIt Help, it states that "the compiled script is compressed and encrypted".

Correct. UPX compresses the resource header but sometimes leads to false positives.

So, what exactly are you after, because that is about the only thing you can do different.

To clarify, does AutoIt's compiler encrypt the source code whether or not UPX is enabled? I have read through many threads on this topic and reviewed the FAQ and help file. I can't find anything that clearly states this.

I ask because I'm trying to automate the modifcation of resource fields while compiling several hundred scripts. I can achieve what I want with the #AutoIt3Wrapper_Run_After directive, but only if UPX is disabled. Some of these scripts contain product keys, proprietary code, etc. I understand there are ways to decompile/decrypt my code, but I don't want to reduce what security is already in place.

So does disabling UPX make it easier for someone to decompile and decrypt my code?

Edited October 31, 2012 by SeanMaloney

[BrewManNH]

It converts the script to bytecode and stores that in the exe. It's not normally in plain text in the exe itself.

[SeanMaloney]

It converts the script to bytecode and stores that in the exe. It's not normally in plain text in the exe itself.

While I'm sure that is a fine answer, I don't know what bytecode is or how it compares to what people have been referring to as encrypted code.

I guess the most important question is: Does disabling UPX make it easier for someone to decompile and decrypt my code?

[water]

Byte code.

[czardas]

Does disabling UPX make it easier for someone to decompile and decrypt my code?

UPX appears (to me) to introduce an additional layer of obfuscation. That in itself would make it harder to reverse engineer. I don't know if this is entirely correct (not knowing the details), but it sounds logical to me at least. Edited November 1, 2012 by czardas

[BrewManNH]

UPX neither helps nor hinders decompiling your script, in other words it has no effect on whether your script can be decompiled or not.

You could use the Obfuscator to help further hide some things in the script, but understand there's almost nothing you can do to prevent someone from finding out the information that you use in your script. Mobius has a script in the example scripts section that supposedly makes it much harder to get at your script, but even then it's not going to be 100% secure.

[czardas]

UPX neither helps nor hinders decompiling your script, in other words it has no effect on whether your script can be decompiled or not.

Well I didn't expect a great deal of difference, and I'm not going to attempt to test this. Compression (+ encryption) is at least one additional layer of abstraction as I see it - perhaps not a very secure one in this case. Although I'm open to the suggestion that using UPX may make it easier to decompile, it does seem somewhat counter-intuitive. I would be very surprised if there was absolutely no difference whatsoever, if only in the time it takes.

Edit

It's good to know that UPX is not to be relied on for this purpose (I didn't really imagine it would be).

Edited November 2, 2012 by czardas

[Jos]

Folks, All UPX does is compress the PE header in the program and doesn't add any encryption/security what so ever since "UPX /d" reverts the process.

Jos

[czardas]

Haha. It's an extra step though! Thanks Jos for the enlightenment.

Edited November 2, 2012 by czardas

[twitchyliquid64]

BrewManNH,

autoit does not use bytecode. it simply stores the tokenised script in the EXE, with the parsing done it runtime. the only exception is wierd things like fileinstall(), i have no idea how they work.

fyi:

bytecode - a series of stateless instructions for a virtual machine. sometimes given structures or headers. the key feature is that no parsing is required for execution.

tokens - a linear array of critical elements of the script. a lot of work is still required at runtime for execution.

[BrewManNH]

According to several posts I've read, it's been converted to bytecode by Aut2Exe since 3.2.6.0.

[twitchyliquid64]

brewman,

3.2.6.0 introduced tokenisation into the compilation process. i know people have said its bytecode but its not, there is a very clear difference. the difference is wether you do parsing at compile or runtime.

sorry for being pedantic.

[czardas]

I was a little confused (by Jos' responce to MattH's question in post No 4) when I replied earlier; which is why I expressed some caution in what I said. I just wanted to know the answer to SeanMaloney's question in post No 8. Now I know the answer to that question at least.