Blockland Forums > General Discussion
Add-On Compiler
TheBlackParrot:
--- Quote from: Subpixel on January 14, 2014, 07:22:27 PM ---Is this stupid
--- End quote ---
yes
--- Quote from: Subpixel on January 14, 2014, 07:22:27 PM ---are there any flaws?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: Blockzillahead on January 14, 2014, 07:25:08 PM ---It needs a very specific huge database to know what is suspicious and what isn't. A database that takes years to form with new detections added to it.
Not worth it
--- End quote ---
If you want to keep your addons from being seen then don't release them. Keep them to yourself or friends you can 150% trust with it.
Subpixel:
--- Quote from: TheBlackParrot on January 14, 2014, 07:28:02 PM ---yes
If you want to keep your addons from being seen then don't release them. Keep them to yourself or friends you can 150% trust with it.
--- End quote ---
Not the entire add-on, just things that you don't want people to be digging in to.
--- Quote from: Greek2me on January 14, 2014, 07:27:14 PM ---If they were manually approved, then that might be fine.
--- End quote ---
That would be better.
eldruF:
--- Quote from: Subpixel on January 14, 2014, 07:24:51 PM ---well that's completely off-topic but i agree i guess
--- End quote ---
My bad, read the post wrong.
boodals 2:
I'm pretty sure i've seen badspot or someone say something about this idea before. In short, it wont happen. Its similar to why we cant disable other players saving bricks. If you don't want a script to be public, don't make it public, keep it to yourself.
There is no point in making a script encrypted anyway. The only two reasons I can see would be either the script is so terrible, that they don't want anyone else to be able to try to learn off it, and pick up bad habits or methods, or if they're a selfish idiot, and they want to keep their uber amazing 10/10 chatbot they copy-pasted off the forums private, but still share it with other people, so that only they can update it, and pretty much force everyone to go to them to get improvements for it.
Ipquarx:
Things wrong with this:
* Using DSOs are not a good way of guaranteeing the user will not edit anything, as just like machine code it can and has been disassembled
* Untrustworthyness, even if there was a verification process
* Takes valuable time away from the people verifying it, and will probably end up like RTB where things wait for months on end
* Would greatly hinder the ability for users to learn TS from add-ons
* Artificial limitations presented by the need to verify safe code (For example, you wouldn't be able to have an auto-updater or any sort of data given in from a remote source without "possibility of contamination")
It's just like preventing users from saving. It defeats the purpose and opens up so many possibilities for malicious intent.
In addition, it's impossible to make a foolproof automated malicious code checker, even if you have the original source. Want proof? Anti-virus programs don't always detect viruses. This is the same concept.