egghelp/eggheads community

encrypt

2004-02-21T13:46:03-04:00

I tried many ways to recover my script from bytecode without any results. Once after modifications in tbcload library i've recovered small part but i need all. I don't know how you decompiled it, but i'm very interested in it (still trying to recover my forgotten code).

Statistics: Posted by KrzychuG — Sat Feb 21, 2004 1:46 pm

encrypt

2004-02-15T21:18:58-04:00

May not be so hard, but I think that there is no program which can do that (decompile it to human readable form).

What's your point? bytecode compiling == encryption because there's no script kiddie tool avaliable to decode it?
In many cases decoding the xstrings found in the .tbc file will give you most of the code without even interpreting any bytecode.

Statistics: Posted by user — Sun Feb 15, 2004 9:18 pm

encrypt

2004-02-14T15:23:42-04:00

May not be so hard, but I think that there is no program which can do that (decompile it to human readable form).

Statistics: Posted by KrzychuG — Sat Feb 14, 2004 3:23 pm

encrypt

2004-02-11T08:43:20-04:00

As for if 'info ' would work for byteencoded scripts, no, it would not work, as the TCL is obliterated and turned into simpler machine code. Hence the term "ByteCode Compiler"...
yeah, but maybe it would have been decrypted on the fly...wouldnt be secure at all, i know.

I repeat: bytecode compilation is NOT encryption. A .tbc file holds an (ascii-85) encoded version of the compiled script. All normal tcl scripts are compiled when you load them, and what your interpreter runs internally is this compiled version of the code. The string returned by 'info body' is a copy of the original source, not the actual code running in your interpreter.
When loading a .tbc file there is no source (in most cases anyway... there is a #define in the compiler to include the source in compiled files). The main purpose of bytecode compilation (the way I see it) is to avoid compiling a static script every time it's loaded. You also save the memory normally occupied by the source code copy (unless you change that #define in your compiler, of course).
Reconstructing the source (or at least a human-readable version) from the bytecode should not be too hard.

Statistics: Posted by user — Wed Feb 11, 2004 8:43 am

encrypt

2004-02-11T06:24:01-04:00

As for if 'info ' would work for byteencoded scripts, no, it would not work, as the TCL is obliterated and turned into simpler machine code. Hence the term "ByteCode Compiler"...

yeah, but maybe it would have been decrypted on the fly...wouldnt be secure at all, i know.

Statistics: Posted by GodOfSuicide — Wed Feb 11, 2004 6:24 am

encrypt

2004-02-10T23:44:55-04:00

For the record, my method is NOT "encryption", it's "obfuscation" (for my publically released scripts). I have never made any such claim that my publically released scripts are encrypted. My publically released scripts are designed for all eggdrop versions, without the use of any external modules, shared objects, dlls, etc.. etc.. There is no (semi)secure method of publically releasing an "encrypted" script without also releasing/using some type of addon/modification.

The encryption of my personal scripts IS actual encryption, private, not what I release. Thus, you would never have even seen my encryption method, as you put it.

As for if 'info ' would work for byteencoded scripts, no, it would not work, as the TCL is obliterated and turned into simpler machine code. Hence the term "ByteCode Compiler"...

Statistics: Posted by strikelight — Tue Feb 10, 2004 11:44 pm

encrypt

2004-02-10T15:41:11-04:00

Why would you want to encrypt a whole script, anyway? Are there passwords in it, or unprotected commands or something?

Statistics: Posted by stdragon — Tue Feb 10, 2004 3:41 pm

encrypt

2004-02-10T14:06:15-04:00

you wouldnt even have to decode it, you could also find out the commands / settings / vars names with info, then get the proc's body with info body command, then the args and you're done....i wonder if this also works at TCLPro, anyone want to try ?

Statistics: Posted by GodOfSuicide — Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:06 pm

encrypt

2004-02-10T13:04:52-04:00

Not many users know how to decode strikelight's method.. so it's better than none

Statistics: Posted by caesar — Tue Feb 10, 2004 1:04 pm

encrypt

2004-02-10T08:45:29-04:00

well, for me bytecode asm and this stuff is like a cryptic lang

Statistics: Posted by GodOfSuicide — Tue Feb 10, 2004 8:45 am

encrypt

2004-02-10T07:43:44-04:00

TCLPro is the only acceptable way i'd say, strikelights method e.g. is too easy to crack

You mean bytecode compilation, right? That's not encryption

Statistics: Posted by user — Tue Feb 10, 2004 7:43 am

encrypt

2004-02-10T06:02:52-04:00

TCLPro is the only acceptable way i'd say, strikelights method e.g. is too easy to crack

Statistics: Posted by GodOfSuicide — Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:02 am

encrypt

2004-02-10T04:34:07-04:00

i wana ecrypt the whole tcl script, not just on word

Statistics: Posted by duofruo — Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:34 am

encrypt

2004-02-09T19:41:22-04:00

Code:

set text [encrypt $key $text] <- encrypts $text with $keyset text [decrypt $key $text] <- decrypts $text with $key

be sure to use the same key on both bots

Statistics: Posted by GodOfSuicide — Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:41 pm

encrypt

2004-02-09T16:27:37-04:00

is there a way to encrypt the tcl scripts, i neet the encrypt a botnet script, that contains many components

Statistics: Posted by duofruo — Mon Feb 09, 2004 4:27 pm