Script Decompilation Poll

[SpaceManPlusPlus]

Decompilation is illegal if the script is purchased.

[Valik]

Decompilation is illegal if the script is purchased.

Decompilation is only illegal if the software license the author provides the script under explicitly states decompilation/reverse engineering are against the terms of the license. Also there may be local laws regarding such activity which may override the license.

In short, your blanket statement is simply not in any way shape or form true or accurate.

[SmOke_N]

I find it totally humorous, all the opinions being given here. As if someone actually has a clue on why the poll was actually given.

It's like you guys see a way you "think" can push the Devs in a specific direction if you just add that last little statement.

I must admit, I'm totally curious on why this thread/poll was even started... But lack the intelligence I suppose to even make an educated guess on it, as so many of you have (educated being used quite loosely here).

I'm going to step out on a limb here that this thread is simply not locked because:

A.) If you lock the thread you can't vote? (Not sure on this one).

B.) The Devs are beside themselves with laughter at the insinuations everyone is making of this thread?

[Valik]

I personally find it both amusing and frustrating that people are continuing to make assumptions despite the fact that I have said repeatedly not to make assumptions about what the purpose of this thread is. It's funny that people can't listen; it's frustrating that people can't listen. It's rather insulting to us as developers some of the things that have been said. Not only are the things I'm saying being totally ignored, for the most part, some of the comments give us absolutely no credit for being able to think for ourselves, either.

For me, personally, this thread is a brilliant example of why I deplore humans. It is a window into the minds of many and is useful to me as a re-affirmation of my observations on humans. The actual poll content takes a back-seat to the much more nourishing glimpses into the psyche of people.

[Nutster]

I am a professional computer programmer and trainer. I have used AutoIt to control other programs and OS settings on my computers and those of my clients and employers. Usually, I do not install the full AutoIt system on my client's computers; I write the AutoIt script on my computer, compile it and give it to the client/employees with instructions on how to use the program (the compiled AutoIt script). This is how I make my money. If just anybody can take a look at what I wrote, why would they pay me? Even better, why would they pay to make adjustments to the original program?

Yes, I have helped write AutoIt and have given that away to Jon and the world for free, but that was my choice. If I want to restrict what I let others see of what I wrote, that is also my choice. That is the point, it is my choice as to what I do with what I write and that choice should be respected. If I choose to share with the world ( and I have for many things with AutoIt ) then so be it. If I choose to keep things to myself, that should also be respected.

As for so-called legitimate uses of decompiling, etc., I feel that authors of scripts, etc. should make sure that they have copies of their original code tucked away in a nice safe place before they do anything that could cause changes. I do this with my C/C++ code, MS-Access databases, AutoIt scripts and so on. When I compile an MS-Access .MDB file into a .MDE file, I first strip out a bunch of functions I use for debugging before I compile it. This requires that I keep a copy of the original database file secure so that I can actually edit it again in the future and be able to use my debugging functions. Even if you are not familiar with MS-Access database programming, the general flow should still make sense, translated into the context of AutoIt.

It is the responsibility of the person managing the project (In a team of one, that person is you!) to make sure that all required resources, including but not limited to source code, are properly protected in case things get lost / scrambled / inappropriately edited, etc. This include back-up strategies, code retention and storage strategies, source code version control strategies, etc. Debugging tools are usually an essential part of the tools used during software development. A decompiler is generally not one those; needing to use one of those means that you were not paying attention, which is a good effective way to lose a job. There is really no good way to lose a job.

I am reminded of the system administration definitions for "Data Security": "That's your problem. I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over it. My files are locked up tight. I feel secure." Now I am just being cruel. Happens when I get tired. I start sounding like Valik.

Edit: Add a little clarity.

Edited August 12, 2008 by Nutster

[jvanegmond]

One question though, seriously.

What is the Dev team going to do about script decompilation? The author of .. a very renowned decompiler says the password is stored inside the actual script itself, so it is easy to decompile it without having the passphrase.

[Jos]

Just some food for thought:

- AutoIt3 is a interpreter language.

- A Compiled script is the Runtime module and encrypted script source wrapped in a self-containing executable.

- Some sort of source is needed to run/perform your script.

- How would the EXE be able to decipher the source when it doesn't have the needed "key" to obtain this source?

Jos

Edited August 23, 2008 by Jos

[jvanegmond]

You're right. I didn't fully think it over at the time I posted it. The only solution I see is to force the user to type the passphrase every time the script runs, although this is far from ideal.

Edited August 23, 2008 by Manadar

[Jos]

One other thought / consideration:

True compiled programs are not safer, the only thing that's difficult to do is to reverse engineer it back into some sort of readable source.

I think Obfuscator is close to achieving just that and I haven't seen anything close to make to really readable again.

Agree is easier to get some sort of source back than with a truly compiled/link program, but its still pretty ugly.

Jos

Edited August 23, 2008 by Jos

[TehWhale]

A "Decompiler" i've seen does not work with Smoke_N's EnCodeIt so thats a good start too. That same decompiler can deobfusicate scripts.