Compiled script wrapping/protection

[rabcassa]

I appologize if this isnt' the correct place. I've searched the forums, found multiple posts about whether AutoIt scripts can be truly hidden in terms of their source scripts un-available to the end user. I'm aware of the general rule, that if something can be made it can be broken.

I have tried various exe programs such as softwarepassport (armadillo) and private exe protector. The problem seems to lie that there are two parts to the compiled autoit exe, the script and the interpreter. The interpreter only seems to be able to be protected by these additional packers. As protection of the data after the interpreter seems to cause the interpreter to not be able to see the script.

The main concern is that there is an easily obtainable program that can read the compiled .exe and just yank out the script source, then deobfuscate it for the user. It appears to search for the same string/signature that I suppose the interpreter does to find the script in the compiled .exe. This in essence bypasses the point of using another program such as armadillo to try and prevent unauthorized running of the script. I realize there is not full proof work around, but I'd atleast like to make it harder for someone than simply dragging and dropping the compiled .exe into a program to have it ouput the source of the script for them.

Are there any known programs/packers that work well with autoit compiled scripts to prevent this sort of thing? Does armadillo really work with AutoIt and just takes special settings (only seemed to work when data at end of program is left unprotected, other 3 settings would make it crash)?

Edited April 21, 2010 by rabcassa

[slayerz]

Have you read this?

[NIKHILSKYNET]

i tried to protect with armadillo but but there is a flaw in it. we can return the original exe from it without using any application

[jchd]

@rabcassa

Are there any known programs/packers that work well with autoit compiled scripts to prevent this sort of thing?

The short answer to your question is "NO". You have exposed the reasons why yourself.

Hint: if a packer/program can be made , then it can be circumvented.