[Openmcl-devel] CCL images, consumer apps, and piracy

David Brown lisp at davidb.org
Sun Apr 10 13:42:03 UTC 2011


On Sat, Apr 09 2011, Brandon Van Every wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Andrew Shalit <alms at clozure.com> wrote:
>>
>> But perhaps we're still not understanding what your concern.  If you could state more specifically why you think it would be easier to hijack and repurpose a CCL application than an application written in another language, we might be able to respond more fully.
>
> It is trivially easy to decompile a bytecoded language such as Java or
> C#.  At present I don't know how much of CCL's operation is based on
> bytecode or native code.

This is fairly easy to learn.  DISASSEMBLE is a standard Common Lisp
function that will show you what a given definition compiled to.  You'll
find that for CCL, it is definitely generating native code.

Normally, symbols will be present, and someone has already mentioned how
to not include the source references.

If this is really deep concern, perhaps consider a commercial
implementation where stripped application delivery is a feature, or
consider hiring Clozure associates to do something custom.

David

> I don't know what compilation information is
> retained or lost in the resulting image.  I don't know what its
> equivalents of stripping symbols or removing debugging information
> are.  I don't know how function or module linkage is performed.  I
> know how these things are done in C/C++ and roughly what to expect
> from a security / piracy / reverse engineering standpoint.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Brandon Van Every
> _______________________________________________
> Openmcl-devel mailing list
> Openmcl-devel at clozure.com
> http://clozure.com/mailman/listinfo/openmcl-devel



More information about the Openmcl-devel mailing list