The signature of a compiled file is perfectly static. By accepting a EULA all the major AV companies and any that request it have access to the format headers and documentation of a compiled script and can decide on the best way to create signatures. They also have access to methods to determine what a script does. This is done with my help - this has not changed.
I mistakenly referred to a compiled EXE's "bytecode" or contents as a "signature."
Sounds like you are saying noone should be able to release software in .exe format. I'd better throw away my C compiler.
Not at all. If C was an automation language, I would have problems with someone attempting to make them harder to examine as well.
The format is different for a number of reasons (performance, security and to support future optimizations). The way that the orginal file format was cracked was by stepping through Exe2Aut.
That is great for those who wish to *protect* their source I suppose.
Bizaare statement. If you are committed to offering open source software then relying on some mangled white-space and comment stripped Exe2Aut version of the source is a nonsense. You should be suppling the script files or having all the files FileInstalled() so they can be used properly.
In fairness, I did not say that I would *rely* on "some mangled white-space comment stripped Exe2Aut version." I just meant that for whatever reason if the source cannot be found, then my EXE could then be decompiled. Anyone who wished to do this would surely know what to do with it at that point.
I do not agree with Koshy John's silly statement (no offense John!), that someone who does not keep their source or whatever, does not deserve to have had it in the first place. If I write an application, offer it for download and then my house burns down, does that mean I do not deserve my source?
I can always redownload my application, decompile and go through the laborious process of commenting it again or adding to it, bug-fixing, et cetera.
The version of Exe2Aut that is supplied only decompiles 126.96.36.199 and earlier scripts.
Thanks. And again, in fairness this is why I will not be upgrading. If I happen to use some features only available in >188.8.131.52, then I automatically lose the ability to decompile in the above scenario.
Believe me though, I love AutoIt. In fact, I have already downloaded the newest version (obviously) and plan on seeing what its fundamental differences are and playing with it a bit. Which actually leads me to my next response to JdeB
So, there is my meager $0.02 worth of opinion. Take care, Jon.
Is it odd to find it cool as hell that I actually conversed with Jon? I seem to get this way around *all* talented programmers.
When I first met Mark Russinovich, Mark Thompson, Bjarne Stroustrup, Miguel de Icaza, countless talented Microsoft programmers, assorted "MVPs" or whatever they call themselves nowadays, and several tens of lesser-known talented programmers, I found myself grinning like a fool. *shrugs*