Talk:ActionScript code protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

First Article[edit]

Hi everyone. This is my first article on wiki. If you have any questions or advices please let me know. Soon I will add examples of obfuscated ActionScript code and the methods which are used to encrypt/obfuscate SWF ActionScript code. Thanks.

Obfuscated AS3-Code[edit]

The posted obfuscated AS3-Code is invalid and won't compile with strict type checking enabled. Duncan Conroy (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This article has a WRONG NAME[edit]

This article has a WRONG NAME.

Wikipedia LIES its readers with article written this way.

It should be named by its author SWF Bytecode Protection (or SWC Bytecode Protection) - the author clearly talks about modifying the SWF file - there are a lot of '// unexpected jump' in the examples. Such actionscript code is probably produced by SWF decompiler, it may not even compile – it may not even be a valid ActionScript source code, if the decompiler was not very good.

So, the ActionScript code is compiled into SWF, and then comes the 'protection' the author talks about (which should be SWF Protection, not ActionScript protection), and after that a decompiler decompiles the SWF producing the actionsript code.

ActionScript is a Programming Language. Read the ECMAScript specification if you don't believe me it's a programming language. The programs are written in Source Code files which are text files. ActionScript Code Protection would be something that takes the ActionsScript text source file as input and produces obfuscated valid ActionScript text file. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If you call this ActionScript Protection then you can say that the .NET Obfuscators which provide protection for the .NET bytecode - you can say that they provide C# Protection or Visual Basic Protection, but in fact you may not even know what was the original language which was used (the source code files) that was compiled in the resulting bytecode of the .NET assembly.

So I'm suggesting the article's name to be changed. 'SWF Bytecode Protection' is probably the right name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)