Jump to content

Altering Compiled Scripts


w0uter
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hmm ok myAutoToExe is finding this signature: <Removed>. If someone can change this signature, myAutToExe won't be able to decompile the script. But when you change this, AutoIt throws an error??

Edited by Valik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm ok myAutoToExe is finding this signature: <Removed>. If someone can change this signature, myAutToExe won't be able to decompile the script. But when you change this, AutoIt throws an error??

might want to say what error...

Edited by Valik

[left][sub]We're trapped in the belly of this horrible machine.[/sub][sup]And the machine is bleeding to death...[/sup][sup][/sup][/left]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This script is a violation of the AutoIt license. I have removed the offending content and locked this thread. Keep in mind that if you are using this you are violating the AutoIt license.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was asked how w0uter's script breaks the license. It's this clause which you can read for yourself in the 3.3.0.0 documentation:

Reverse engineering. You may not reverse engineer or disassemble the SOFTWARE PRODUCT or compiled scripts that were created with the SOFTWARE PRODUCT.

In order to defeat the decompilers that are out there, w0uter (and others with similar tools) must figure out how we store the script. Then they must figure out how to break the decompiler while not breaking AutoIt. This requires figuring out how AutoIt works, also known as reverse engineering. Since we have a "you may not reverse engineer" clause in our license we certainly can't allow something to flagrantly violate it.

Before somebody else asks, the reason I closed this even though it's something of a white-hat effort is where do we draw the line? The same technique (reverse engineering) that's used to create a too like w0uter made is the same technique used to create a decompiler. Both are violations of the license. The distinction many of us want to make is that this should be allowed because it's "helping". The counter argument to that, however, is that some people think a decompiler is "helping". If you get the right two groups of people you can let them argue and they will say the exact same thing about the validity of both decompilers and anti-decompilers. But the fundamental point, and the reason this thread was closed, is that both tools, no matter which color hat you think they wear, violate the license agreement concerning reverse engineering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...