Prevent decompile like IronAHK

[vbmark]

I just learned about this old, abandoned version (fork?) of AHK that :

When scripts are compiled the source code is not attached to the binary file so it cannot be decompiled. This is unlike AutoHotkey which stores a full copy of the script with the compiled .exe which can be extracted and decrypted or read from process memory when it is executed.

http://www.ironahk.net/docs/autohotkey/

I have been able to decompile AHK scripts compressed with MPRSS and UPX with ease. However, I could not decompile and get the source script from an exe compiled with IronAHK.

However, because this fork has not been updated since 2010-10-24 it will not compile any recent more complex scripts. So my question is....

WHY CAN'T WE HAVE THIS FEATURE ADDED TO OUR CURRENT VERSION OF AUTOHOKEY!?!?!

Who is someone who works on the source that we can ask?

[nnnik]

1. IronAHK is a different language.
There are some fundemental differences.
Autohotkey is written in C C++ and assembler.
IronAHK is written in C#.
Even though it is not decompilable in the way autohotkey is it is compilable.
IronAHK produces CLI bytecode that is decompilable.
Unless you change the basic design of Autohotkey you wont be able to compile to Machine Code.

[vbmark]

When we write AHK scripts aren't we just really writing shortcuts (you might say) to c++ code?

It seems (in theory) that each AHK command could then be interpreted to the c++ that it is calling then that could be compiled to bytecode.

(Disclaimer: I have no idea what I'm talking about but would like to bat this around awhile to empower a new paradigm of out-of-the-box thinking (little CEO speal for motivation).)

[nnnik]

I had the same idea a while ago.
But I had a view at the source.

[joedf]

Hmm... I don't really get it... Everything goes through the T() function
And I can't find its declaration anywhere...

[vbmark]

Which code are you looking at?

[HotKeyIt]

T() is short for TEXT() and it is a makro, not a function. It converts the strings/text to ANSI/UNICODE for compilation, see MSDN.

As I understand it is a lot of work to change AutoHotkey source code to be able to compile to byte code and it could be still decompiled easily by professionals since all it does is jumping from function to function with different parameters and all AutoHotkey functions are open source.

[vbmark]

...it could be still decompiled easily by professionals...

No software company is safe from professionals but I think we could all use a little extra protection from script-kiddies taking intellectual property, making a few changes, and calling it their own.

And I know the argument, "don't worry about protection... spend your time coding." I just don't subscribe to that philosophy.

If others are fine cranking out open source software then I tip my hat to them. But there are some income producing apps that I think need to be protected. But that's just cranky ol' me.

I've just been looking, in my spare non-coding time, for a way to make getting my source script more difficult than dragging and dropping on to an app. So far the only answer I have found is to not use AutoHotkey. So, uh, yeah.

[tank]

the concept of intelectual property while rooted in law is the most idiotic thing mankind has ever done. How can anyone own a thought. how dare you tell me i cant think the same thing. seriously mankind has issues. that being said even microsoft has finally more or less given up on preventing such
if you must own something that is monetized own support and writing new upgrades. All software can be decompiled. nothing at all you can do about it. scriptkiddies will just find and steal someone elses method of decompiling your now harder to decompile code. its an idiotic cycle. It is fine and awesome when someone shows respect for a things creator. but the presumption by a thing creator that they are entitled to anything at all is insanity. I am mostly Native american and i find the concept of ownership in general offensive. we all live under the same sky and breath the same air and drink the same water. whats next? owning the air?

You cant own my air and my water that the heavens have offered. perhaps man in his greed and need to oppress life and growth will find some means of owning and charging for sunlight. you certainly cant own my thoughts. but i will share them without any expectation that you will remember they are from me. I will share them without any expectation that you wont claim them as your own.

perhaps you endeavor to think every thought? maybe you will claime each thought as your own? am i no longer allowed to have those thoughts?
perhaps you only want some of them? just because a law aggrees with you for now does it mean no one else will think them?
is software anything more than a thought arranged skillfully over physical circuts?
perhaps those are the ones you want to own?
will you own all of it or just the implimentation? just the logic? so if i decompile your script how much am i required to change before i can claim it as my own under your law? what if i do it in another language? is there an objective measure of this standard or is it a matter of how much greed can be satisfied by those given the power to make such descision?

the "intelectual property" arguement to protect software is pretty devoid of logic unless you add greed and emotion. Most do not share my oppinion. thats ok. those that share it myst pay me because i own the oppinion it is my intelectual property. i therefore demand a cookie each time you think it.

[vbmark]

Hey tank,

I think you're kind of stretching the meaning of intellectual property. I don't think anyone is saying you are not allowed to have their thoughts. Who is saying this?

A creative work of the mind is intellectual property. Mark Twains writings are his intellectual property. He's not telling anyone not to have those thoughts. What a strange idea.

But I think we can all agree that we don't want people taking his work, changing the title, and then calling it their own. That's all. No one is saying they own the air you breath.

[tank]

why not. Its not a new story just a new telling.how many times has romeo and juliet been ripped off?

I fundamentally disagree Mark Twain's writings are the sole property intellectual or otherwise of the person reading it. did he himself donate a copy to a library?

I wonder if the people part of the events in his life that inspired those writings have any ownership?
its ludacris..

a person may possess something but he may not own it

[joedf]

@HotKeyIt Thanks, it's funny because i used grep to search the file and could the macro either... I will check again, but thanks!
@tank I believe that you're right... i can't imagine if all the scientists and historians just decided to not write anything down and hide it... and save
it under a password, we wouldn't be here, nor would we get very far...
also.. did you mean ludicrous or ludacris (the rapper)

[vbmark]

Do you guys ask for money for the work you do or do you work for free?

I can't imagine if all the doctors and policemen just decided to not help anyone and hide their skill and save it under a paycheck, we wouldn't be here, nor would we get very far... Oh, wait.

[tank]

oh im not saying anything about working for free or the ability to charge for a product. I'm merely speaking out against the concept of intellectual property. but even so doctors are being paid for a service not a work or product. its a totally different argument. if a lawyer gets you out of some criminal offense he does not own your freedom? you paid him to do something and he owns nothing about the creativity he used

[joedf]

@vbmark i have thought, that you would say that! if you're sell a complete product... well then.. thats a complete different story..

[vbmark]

Ok, let's drop the phrase intellectual property. I don't think I like it either.

So it is OK to pay someone for physically doing something. So if a person physically writes a book for you that you either learn from or get enjoyment from, shouldn't he get a certain level of protection from someone else claiming that the work is theirs? Or do you think it is OK to take other people's books, put your name on them, and sell them on Amazon?

I guess that's what it comes down to. Are you OK with that?

[gregster]

WHY CAN'T WE HAVE THIS FEATURE ADDED TO OUR CURRENT VERSION OF AUTOHOKEY!?!?!

Perhaps you should offer some serious money, if you want someone to develop a better way to protect your source code, instead of asking here?
(It's not worth the effort anyway... Use some obfuscation techniques, if you want.)

[vbmark]

Perhaps you should offer some serious money

My money jokes around too much.

[gregster]

My money jokes around too much.

In this case, you should compile your money.

[tank]

shouldn't he get a certain level of protection from someone else claiming that the work is theirs? Or do you think it is OK to take other people's books, put your name on them, and sell them on Amazon?

If he can convince people to pay for it yes otherwise no.
I understand what your driving at but i draw the line at entitled to protection or compensation. No one OWES him anything and he isnt entitled to it. However if he is able to convince people to willingly contribute financially then great. in some way every new idea builds on others. under the logic of protecting from someone else using it in tact or partially we would all owe Adam a large sum.

but enough philosophy.
Lexikos removed any form of compression and in as much masking the script some time ago. Mostly because such utilities just cause false virus positives more than helping anything. That said AHK is not a security or code secrecy friendly product. I am sure someone could do alot of work and alter it. but to what end ? it just doesnt really do much and there is only a single developer. perhaps some sort of separate utility can be used?
maybe this archive of the conversation on the subject will at least catch you up on how vigorously the subject has been hashed over
http://ahkscript.org/forum/viewtopic.ph ... compres%2A