Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
I have to agree with tachyon here. One of the benefits of compiling your scripts - according to ActiveState - is: Script Encryption Yes, the source code is hidden, but the suggestion that this allows one to protect one's intellectual property is flat out wrong. My personal thought is that it is dishonest for a company to suggest that their products offer more than they do. Incidentally, this is not the only time that ActiveState has decided that security is not that big of a deal. From an email correspondence I had with ActiveState (emphasis mine): Unfortunately, PerlEx does not currently allow you to use taint checking. However, it is being considered as a feature of the next PerlEx release, which is scheduled to occur in the couple of months. That email was sent two months ago, as of this writing. As far as I understand, they still do not incorporate taint checking in PerlEx. Security does not appear to be a significant concern to them. Side note: we are in the process of migrating one of our largest projects from Win2K/IIS to Linux/Apache/mod_perl in part because of ActiveState's lackadaisical attitude regarding security. Cheers, Vote for paco! Join the Perlmonks Setiathome Group or just click on the the link and check out our stats. In reply to (Ovid Security *is* the issue) Re(2): Security, is it to much to ask?
by Ovid
|
|