Why can't convert this script to an executable?

[tubaba]

5 minutes ago, Jos said:

Sound like a familiar project.  
Au3Stripper is the remains of the Obfuscator I wrote for scripts, and still does some obfuscation when the /RenameMinimum is used.
I can tell you this is not a trivial endeavor to have a proper syntax as output and make sure the speed of the program is good. My initial Tidy and Obfuscator were also written in AutoIt3, but eventually changed it to C to gain speed.

Enjoy your scripting challence.

Jos  

I love this programming language. It has spent 15 years with me.

[Jos]

1 minute ago, tubaba said:

I love this programming language. It has spent 15 years with me.

Then you probably know the Obfuscator that was available til a few years back.

Jos

[tubaba]

2 minutes ago, Jos said:

Then you probably know the Obfuscator that was available til a few years back.

Jos

yes...But it's bad for double-byte character support...

[jchd]

Just as I supposed, this is only a pointless (ugly) exercise since it won't protect anything from sister kids.

[AndyG]

@jchd, i agree, and yes, i did´nt used an Obfuscator ever.... 

BUT, there are only a handfull "sister kids" which are able to "de-obfuscate" a script.

And 99,99% of them are lazy (as all real programmers) and do this job only for self-gratification or for money.

The question is, what is the intention of a sister kid (which is capable to de-obfuscate) to help a "stupid" sister kid?  

Earn money?! -> Check!

Self-gratification?! -> Flood them with "work" and the urge to help goes to 0....Mission goal achieved! 

[Jos]

1 hour ago, AndyG said:

BUT, there are only a handfull "sister kids" which are able to "de-obfuscate" a script.

Not really as a deobfuscator was available together with a "thing that we don't discuss here"  that "sort of" restored the original code, but I've always stated very cleary that Obfuscator doesn't make the code secure rather only hard to read! 

Jos

[jchd]

Humans don't like limits.
Show a Thing on social networks, pretending it can't be reverse-engineered and you'll see an army of sister kids rushing to try to hack it, just for the beauty of trepassing limits.

Publish a new crypto algorithm saying it isn't crackable or an exchange protocol with hype it's 100% secure and again you see both professionnal cryptographers and amateurs try hard to break it apart and search for vulnerabilities. Ah yes, you're right: pro cryptographers know enough to avoid wasting their precious time on amateur snake-oil crypto.

[Jos]

In this case it isn't really hacking as the script needs to be executable by the interpreter so needs to be sort of readable, so you could call it reformatting.

  

Edited July 8, 2018 by Jos

[AndyG]

3 hours ago, jchd said:

on social networks, pretending it can't be reverse-engineered and you'll see an army of sister kids rushing to try to hack it,

Yes, and tomorrow? And the day after? I think they are bored faster than you and I can think about that!

I note, that in many forums (this one included) more and more experienced users doesn´t answer questions because of the stupididy and ignorance of the questioner. The most questions were answerd many times before, today it is "state of the art" to to ask the dumbest questions again and again. (The prior opinion is not thread-related^^ )

I'm afraid that behavior will not change in the future....At least the experienced users will have more time to take care of more important things :o)

3 hours ago, Jos said:

so you could call it reformatting.

The Reformatter is the new De-Obfuscator!  hmmm, Amen!

 

 

 

Edited July 8, 2018 by AndyG

[tubaba]

In the nature of AutoIt, all code needs to be interpreted and executed. So any encryption is futile.
It does not make the script more secure But to make it difficult to read that is my purpose.

I don't think a capable cracker would be interested in confusing a script to understand the true intent of each line of scripting code.

 

Call it reformatting may be more appropriate