> It is of course depends on what level of "security" you want from such an
> encoder; a competent person can always unpack the code using
> disassemblers, API monitors and the like. His/her task will also be
> simpler since the Ruby source code will be open-source in the foreseeable
> future.

    True, very true.. Even making it inconvienent would be better than
nothing (though not if it would take a huge amount of time and resources to
complete the project.. )


> If you need something simple you might want to have a look at rbwrap. At
> least it will give you an exe to distribute instead of the rb files.
> It currently does not obfuscate or encode ruby code in any way but it
> wouldn't be to difficult to add such features. Especially for modes
> where files aren't unpacked to disc but ran direct from memory (not
> implemented yet but mentioned in the design doc). Take a look at the
> design document in the tarball. I'd welcome any ideas you might have on
> these issues.

Hmm, I'll take a look. Thanks!

-Mitch