Hello John,

JW> Ryan Leavengood said:
>> Another issue in regards to Ruby is that I believe the license makes it
>> difficult to make changes like this without having to release the source,
>> which of course makes it much easier to circumvent any encryption changes.
>> I recall reading Lothar Scholz talking about this before...care to chime
>> in Lothar?

JW> As a matter of fact, I just looked through an older thread that I had
JW> initiated on compilation to native code in which Lothar reponsded
JW> outlining a possible similar approach to what I've mentioned, except that
JW> it involved changing some function names, etc.

JW> Lothar, I'd love to hear more about your possible approach and if you did
JW> indeed run into licensing issues.

If you ask matz for this it's no problem he can give you his
permission to create a personalized ruby interpreter version. I also
patched ruby.exe for Arachno but the patches are available if somebody
ask (only 2 persons did in the past), so i didn't ask him.

Thats no problem and with this you can make your program as protected
as possible (without hardware dongles). If the OP wants to know how to
do this in a very good way he should send me a personal mail. The
first rule of security is not to talk about security.

As other persons said without TPM it is not possible to protect a
program but it is almost possible - the few hackers that have the
skills to crack good protected code are normally only interested in a
few mainstream applications. And the average one has no chance if it
is done right (and in a non generic way).


-- 
 Best regards,                        emailto: scholz at scriptolutions dot com
 Lothar Scholz                        http://www.ruby-ide.com
 CTO Scriptolutions                   Ruby, PHP, Python IDE 's