1. UnShroud
--=====================_868011409==_
Well, due to legal considerations, I am temporarily suspending developement
of UnShroud, until I recieve feedback as to how popular this program would be
with the "standard" Euphoria geek, and with the "professional" geeks who may
be trying to make money. (btw, I consider myself one of the "standard" geeks,
no putdown intended)
As it stands now, I am releasing the current working version of UnShroud for
comments. In its current form, it is probably only of use to those who have
shrouded a program and one way or another lost the original source. UnShroud
will resolve every built in command, and even add intentation to add to the
readability of a program. However, commands from files that have been
"include"'ed are uninteligable, as are function names and variables. Please
send
any bug reports &/OR comments on UnShroud, or even RIP, to jpowell at
teleport.com.
Anyway here it is:
--=====================_868011409==_
with trace
trace(1)
-- Program UnShroud
-- By James A. Powell
-- Version .99.1b
-- UnShroud will decode a shrouded Euphoria program.
-- Usage: UnShroud <iFileName> [<oFileName>]
-- iFileName is the name of the input file (required)
-- oFileName is the name of the output file (optional)
--
-- If oFileName is ommited, the output from the program will be
-- saved with the same name as iFileName, but with the extension
-- of .EX rather than .SHR (assuming that you use the extension
-- .SHR to name your shrouded or RIP'ed files).
--
-- Note: UnShroud must be in your path and <iFileName> MUST be in the
-- current directory or the decode will be unsuccessful.
constant SCREEN = 1
constant ERR = 2
constant TO_LOWER = 'a' - 'A'
constant M_SEEK = 19
type file_number(integer f)
return f >= 0
end type
type file_position(integer p)
return p >= -1
end type
function lower(object x)
-- convert atom or sequence to lower case
return x + (x >= 'A' and x <= 'Z') * TO_LOWER
end function
function upper(object x)
-- convert atom or sequence to upper case
return x - (x >= 'a' and x <= 'z') * TO_LOWER
end function
function seek(file_number fn, file_position pos)
-- seeks to a byte position in the file,
-- or to end of file if pos is -1
return machine_func(M_SEEK, {fn, pos})
end function
procedure DecShrFile(sequence iFileName, sequence oFileName)
atom iFN, oFN, FoundAt, NumIndents, PrevToken
object iBuffer
sequence oBuffer, Tokens, Names, Indents
Tokens = {129, 130, 131, 132,
133, 134, 135, 136,
137, 138, 139, 140,
141, 142, 143, 144,
145, 146, 147, 148,
150, 151, 171, 172,
173, 174, 175, 176,
177, 178, 179, 180,
181, 182, 183, 184,
185, 186, 187, 188,
189, 190, 191, 192,
193, 194, 195, 196,
197, 198, 199, 200,
201, 202, 203, 204,
205, 206, 207, 208,
209, 210, 211, 212,
213, 214, 215, 216,
217, 218}
Names = {"if ", "end ", " then ", "procedure ",
"else ", "for ", "return ", " do",
"elsif ", "while ", "type ", "constant ",
" to ", " and ", " or ", "exit",
"function ", "global ", " by ", " not ",
"with ", "without ", "length", "puts",
"integer ", "sequence ", "position", "object ",
"append", "prepend", "print", "printf",
"clear_screen", "floor", "getc", "gets",
"get_key", "rand", "repeat", "atom ",
"compare", "find", "match", "time",
"command_line", "open", "close", "trace",
"getenv", "sqrt", "sin", "cos",
"tan", "log", "system", "date",
"remainder", "power", "machine_func", "machine_proc",
"abort", "peek", "poke", "call",
"sprintf", "arctan", "and_bits", "or_bits",
"xor_bits", "not_bits"}
Indents = {129, 132, 134, 138, 139, 145}
iFN = open(iFileName, "r")
if iFN = -1 then
printf(ERR, "UnShroud couldn't open the input file: %s.\n", {iFileName})
abort(1)
end if
oFN = open(oFileName, "w")
if oFN = -1 then
printf(ERR, "UnShroud couldn't open the output file: %s.\n",
{oFileName})
close(iFN)
abort(1)
end if
iBuffer = gets(iFN)
FoundAt = 0
oBuffer = {}
PrevToken = 0
NumIndents = 0
while sequence(iBuffer) do
for iBufPos = 1 to length(iBuffer) do
FoundAt = find(iBuffer[iBufPos], Tokens)
if FoundAt then
oBuffer = oBuffer & Names[FoundAt]
if find(Tokens[FoundAt], Indents) then
if PrevToken = 130 then
NumIndents = NumIndents - 1
else
NumIndents = NumIndents + 1
end if
end if
PrevToken = Tokens[FoundAt]
else
oBuffer = oBuffer & iBuffer[iBufPos]
end if
end for
printf(oFN, "%s", {oBuffer})
oBuffer = repeat(32, NumIndents * 3)
iBuffer = gets(iFN)
end while
close(iFN)
close(oFN)
end procedure
sequence cmd, iFile, oFile
procedure GFileNames()
cmd = command_line()
if length(cmd) > 3 then
oFile = upper(cmd[4])
iFile = upper(cmd[3])
elsif length(cmd) > 2 then
iFile = upper(cmd[3])
oFile = {-1}
else
puts(SCREEN, "UnShroud Version .99.1b\n")
puts(SCREEN, "By James A. Powell <wizard at djo.com>\n")
puts(SCREEN, "\nUnShroud will decode a shrouded Euphoria program.\n")
puts(SCREEN, "\nUsage: UnShroud <iFileName> [<oFileName>]\n")
puts(SCREEN, " iFileName is the name of the input file
(required).\n")
puts(SCREEN, " oFileName is the name of the output file
(optional).\n")
puts(SCREEN, "\n If oFileName is ommited, the output from the
program\n")
puts(SCREEN, " will be saved with the same name as iFileName, but
with\n")
puts(SCREEN, " the extension of .EX rather than .SHR (assuming
that\n")
puts(SCREEN, " you use the extension .SHR for your shrouded or
RIP'ed\n")
puts(SCREEN, " files.)\n")
puts(SCREEN, "\nNote: UnShroud must be in your path and <iFileName>
must\n")
puts(SCREEN, "be in the current directory, or the rip will be
unsuccessful.")
abort(1)
end if
if not(match(".", iFile)) then
if oFile[1] = -1 then
oFile = iFile & ".EX"
end if
iFile = iFile & ".SHR"
else
if oFile[1] = -1 then
oFile = iFile[1..match(".", iFile) - 1] & ".EX"
end if
end if
if not(match(".", oFile)) then
oFile = oFile & ".EX"
end if
if (length(iFile) > 11) or (length(oFile) > 11) then
printf(SCREEN, "%s\n%s\n", {iFile, oFile})
puts(ERR, "One of the above is an Invalid FileName!\n")
abort(1)
end if
end procedure
-- Beginning of program
GFileNames()
DecShrFile(iFile, oFile)
printf(SCREEN, "UnShroud successfully decoded a program out of %s.\n", {iFile})
--=====================_868011409==_
--=====================_868011409==_--
2. Re: UnShroud
- Posted by Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen <nieuwen at POP.XS4ALL.NL>
Jul 04, 1997
-
Last edited Jul 05, 1997
Hey, stop it!!
Loosing your code this way is your own fault.
Shroud use to protect you from people stealing your code, now you
are gonna make it impossible..... dumb dumb dumb, that is the thing
you would do if you hate Euphoria and wanted to get rid of all
there possiblilities for commercial software.
How have you got this info anyway? The file bind.ex is shrouded too!!
You never wondered why???
Well you are a hell of a cracker... ...but please stop it..
I don't know if it's already too late, if so, RDS should redo their
bind method to another method people don't know yet!
Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen
nieuwen at xs4all.nl
3. Re: UnShroud
Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen said:
> Hey, stop it!!
> Loosing your code this way is your own fault.
> Shroud use to protect you from people stealing your code, now you
>are gonna make it impossible..... dumb dumb dumb, that is the thing
>you would do if you hate Euphoria and wanted to get rid of all
>there possiblilities for commercial software.
>How have you got this info anyway? The file bind.ex is shrouded too!!
>You never wondered why???
>Well you are a hell of a cracker... ...but please stop it..
>I don't know if it's already too late, if so, RDS should redo their
>bind method to another method people don't know yet!
>
>Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen
That wont work. In order to change the way a file is shrouded, RDS would also
have to redo the way the interpreter reads and interprets the file (IMHO that
would be too difficult, and would make all new shrouded files incompatible with
every single new release of Euphoria)
As to my being a cracker, no way. I didn't even hack bind.ex in order to write
UnShroud. (Think about it for a minute, the answer is suprisingly simple ;)
Although, I did notice at least 1 small change between the bind.ex in v1.5
and the
one in v1.5a (at least, I think its 1.5a, I dont have it yet to check). If
you have
RIP, try using 1.5a to bind a program, and then RIP it. :) It probably
wont work.
The problem is, bind.ex in 1.5 attached the shrouded file to EX.EXE with the
keyword "BINO". But now, in 1.5a, it looks like that keyword has changed to
"BIND".
Heeding views from programmers like yourself though, I have put all development
of RIP and UnShroud on hold until I get more feedback from Euphoria users.
Developement will not continue (except for bug fixes) unless a majority of users
can come up with a compelling reason for me to continue.
Instead, I have now begun picking apart sources on text editors (Thanks David,
yours is excelent!) and have started trial work on an IDE for Euphoria. Even
though David Cuny's editor is wonderful (being based on EDIT from dos 7), I
grew up on QB 4.5 and I miss the ability to keep procedures seperated. My plans
are to make an editor that will seperate procedures and functions into their
own screens, as in QB, as well as giving support for instantanious inclusion
of files.
Just think, add a line containing "include x.e" and instantly all public
procedure and function names (as well as calling parameters) are listed in a
pop-up window!
I don't know if anyone else thinks this would be useful, but it's something I've
wanted for some time now. I am tired of loading 3 files and switching between
them over and over, just to locate portions of code and calling convetions.
James Powell
PS, you've probably noticed this is coming from jpowell at teleport.com now
instead of wizard at djo.com. I switched ISP's and am MUCH happier now with a
more professional ISP rather than DJO's BBS system.
4. Re: UnShroud
- Posted by Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen <nieuwen at POP.XS4ALL.NL>
Jul 04, 1997
-
Last edited Jul 05, 1997
> Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen said:
> > Hey, stop it!!
> > Loosing your code this way is your own fault.
> > Shroud use to protect you from people stealing your code, now you
> >are gonna make it impossible..... dumb dumb dumb, that is the thing
> >you would do if you hate Euphoria and wanted to get rid of all
> >there possiblilities for commercial software.
> >How have you got this info anyway? The file bind.ex is shrouded too!!
> >You never wondered why???
> >Well you are a hell of a cracker... ...but please stop it..
> >I don't know if it's already too late, if so, RDS should redo their
> >bind method to another method people don't know yet!
> >
> >Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen
> That wont work. In order to change the way a file is shrouded, RDS would also
> have to redo the way the interpreter reads and interprets the file (IMHO that
> would be too difficult, and would make all new shrouded files incompatible wit
h
> every single new release of Euphoria)
>
> As to my being a cracker, no way. I didn't even hack bind.ex in order to writ
e
> UnShroud. (Think about it for a minute, the answer is suprisingly simple ;)
Yeah, i know, not gonna tell.. but i know already...
> Heeding views from programmers like yourself though, I have put all developmen
t
> of RIP and UnShroud on hold until I get more feedback from Euphoria users.
> Developement will not continue (except for bug fixes) unless a majority of use
rs
> can come up with a compelling reason for me to continue.
Think you have done enough... you could get Packard's source with
this for exemple, he problely doesn't want that.. cause he is asking
money for it... that's why i hope everybody deletes the rip &
unshroud from his HD as respect to commercial development in
Euphoria.
> Instead, I have now begun picking apart sources on text editors (Thanks David,
> yours is excelent!) and have started trial work on an IDE for Euphoria. Even
> though David Cuny's editor is wonderful (being based on EDIT from dos 7), I
> grew up on QB 4.5 and I miss the ability to keep procedures seperated. My pla
ns
> are to make an editor that will seperate procedures and functions into their
> own screens, as in QB, as well as giving support for instantanious inclusion
> of files.
> Just think, add a line containing "include x.e" and instantly all public
> procedure and function names (as well as calling parameters) are listed in a
> pop-up window!
> I don't know if anyone else thinks this would be useful, but it's something I'
ve
> wanted for some time now. I am tired of loading 3 files and switching between
> them over and over, just to locate portions of code and calling convetions.
He has a routine list when you press F2
What about a project manager and inbuilt precompile and macro
options....
Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen
nieuwen at xs4all.nl
5. Re: UnShroud
James Powell wrote:
> grew up on QB 4.5 and I miss the ability to keep procedures
> seperated. My plans
> are to make an editor that will seperate procedures and functions into
> their
> own screens, as in QB, as well as giving support for instantanious
> inclusion
> of files.
> Just think, add a line containing "include x.e" and instantly all
> public
> procedure and function names (as well as calling parameters) are
> listed in a
> pop-up window!
> I don't know if anyone else thinks this would be useful, but it's
> something I've
> wanted for some time now. I am tired of loading 3 files and switching
> between
> them over and over, just to locate portions of code and calling
> convetions.
Excellent! I've been waiting for something like this. Actually, I was
about to start coding something like that myself. But, now that you've
stepped up, I'll just sit back and wait. hehe<choke>
Later!
ck
6. Re: UnShroud
> James Powell wrote:
>
> > grew up on QB 4.5 and I miss the ability to keep procedures
> > seperated. My plans
> > are to make an editor that will seperate procedures and functions into
> > their
> > own screens, as in QB, as well as giving support for instantanious
> > inclusion
> > of files.
> > Just think, add a line containing "include x.e" and instantly all
> > public
> > procedure and function names (as well as calling parameters) are
> > listed in a
> > pop-up window!
> > I don't know if anyone else thinks this would be useful, but it's
> > something I've
> > wanted for some time now. I am tired of loading 3 files and switching
> > between
> > them over and over, just to locate portions of code and calling
> > convetions.
>
> Excellent! I've been waiting for something like this. Actually, I was
> about to start coding something like that myself. But, now that you've
> stepped up, I'll just sit back and wait. hehe<choke>
David Cuny's stuff is almost 100% like qb4.5, except he doesn't
support the selection of routines trough F2 of files also INCLUDED.
But the rest is already there, let this just be suggestion to David
Cuny.. instead of coding something that is already been code for 99%
Let's use [ALT] + 1,2,3,etc. for open PROJECTS
And each project holds a couple of files and their properties (like
preprocessors and a quick editable note of the use of the file.) All
the properties (a few i guess) and the files are then in a drop-down
list in the top line and the code starts under it. The project
settings and stuff is saved as comments as a .EX file... when you
open a .EX file without it you must select 'To project' or something
to make it a project, otherwise you can edit it without saving the
project properties (name and other stuff will just be gray, like
disabled)
With the dropdown box you select which part or file (an option in
one of the menus) you want to edit in its window. If you open several
project or non-projects, the screen will be split, like ed.ex does...
This would be the most usefull editor i can image....
Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen
nieuwen at xs4all.nl
8. Re: UnShroud
> I also have to agree with Ralf.
>
> I have an idea on shrouding the code THEN
> Encyrpting the shrouded code.
>
> At execution time the coded would be decrypted
> for use but would still be shrouded. The code
> would never be COMPLETELY vulnerable.
>
> I will not be releasing any encryption techniques
> that I design and use.
Yes, it would not be completely vulnerable, but you do have to hack
ex.exe if their encrytption method is any good. (Like calculation on
size, maybe somsort of inbuilt compression, location encryption,
etc.)
Or maybe they can do the precompiling directly in the file (with
some precompiling still to be done, like assigning memory addresses,
however you could make it pretty inreversable)
Or the ex.exe can have some inbuilt protection not to execute code
that reads a file which is partly equal to ex.exe and then have the
code in a sort of sequence way which would only be possible with
Euphoria.... (It would be impossible to write a program to read my
EDOM files, it would be so big and difficult)
Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen
nieuwen at xs4all.nl
9. Re: UnShroud
At 11:02 5/07/97 -0700, you wrote:
>---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
>Sender: luciuslhilleyiii at JUNO.COM>
>Poster: Lucius L Hilley III
>Subject: Re: UnShroud
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I also have to agree with Ralf.
>
>I have an idea on shrouding the code THEN
>Encyrpting the shrouded code.
>
>At execution time the coded would be decrypted
>for use but would still be shrouded. The code
>would never be COMPLETELY vulnerable.
>
>I will not be releasing any encryption techniques
>that I design and use.
>
>--Lucius Lamar Hilley III
Hi Lucius,
I have been thinking along similar lines myself. The decryption program would
have to be written in a different language or someone could easily unshroud it,
edit it ,use it to decrypt the main program, then in turn unshroud that. The
only way i can think of to make the decryption program edit proof would be to
make the encryption key some checksum generated from the decryption code itself.
For this it would have to be a bit self aware and know where abouts it is
stored in memory as it is executed so it can 'peek' at itself and generate the
decryption key as it runs. If it had been edited at all, the wrong key would
be generated.
I have no idea if this is possible.
What do you think?
Cheers,
Graeme Burke.
10. Re: UnShroud
> > At execution time the coded would be decrypted
> > for use but would still be shrouded. The code
> > would never be COMPLETELY vulnerable.
> >
> > I will not be releasing any encryption techniques
> > that I design and use.
>
> Yes, it would not be completely vulnerable, but you do have to hack
> ex.exe if their encrytption method is any good. (Like calculation on
> size, maybe somsort of inbuilt compression, location encryption,
> etc.)
> Or maybe they can do the precompiling directly in the file (with
> some precompiling still to be done, like assigning memory addresses,
> however you could make it pretty inreversable)
>
> Or the ex.exe can have some inbuilt protection not to execute code
> that reads a file which is partly equal to ex.exe and then have the
> code in a sort of sequence way which would only be possible with
> Euphoria.... (It would be impossible to write a program to read my
> EDOM files, it would be so big and difficult)
Like I said to LLH3, anything the computer can understand, the fanatic freaks
can read too...
Fortunately however, they aren't likely to be particularly interested, so just
trashing it a little will go a long way... (How long has the unshroud project
taken so far?...)
Anyway, I'm happy to leave the specifics to Craig. (And I think Craig is as
happy to have my punk kid nose out of it too...)
> Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen <nieuwen at xs4all.nl>
Anders
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Anders Eurenius <c96aes at cs.umu.se> ICQ UIN:1453793
Computer Science/Engineering student at the university of Umeaa
-------------------------------------------------------------------
