ANN: obfuscate 0.2.2
in [Python]
|
From: Aahz on 11 Apr 2010 00:37 In article <mailman.1734.1270954853.23598.python-list(a)python.org>, geremy condra <debatem1(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Steven D'Aprano ><steve(a)remove-this-cybersource.com.au> wrote: >> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:34:17 -0700, Paul Rubin wrote: >>> Steven D'Aprano <steve(a)REMOVE-THIS-cybersource.com.au> writes: >>>> >>>> DISCLAIMER: obfuscate is not cryptographically strong, and should not >>>> be used where high security is required. >>> >>> Certainly no one should never use obfuscate's rot13 function for high >>> security. Use at least double-rot13 instead, or maybe even quadruple >>> rot13 ;-). >> >> Ha ha, that's funny! I've never heard that one before! *wink* > >I think I lost a sarcasm detector to this line- are you being serious? There are people who have a .sig that says, "This message protected by double-rot13 for extra security." It's an extremely common jape. -- Aahz (aahz(a)pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "It is easier to optimize correct code than to correct optimized code." --Bill Harlan
From: geremy condra on 11 Apr 2010 00:47 On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 3:44 AM, Steven D'Aprano <steve(a)remove-this-cybersource.com.au> wrote: > On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 03:00:50 +0000, geremy condra wrote: > >> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Steven D'Aprano >> <steve(a)remove-this-cybersource.com.au> wrote: >>> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:34:17 -0700, Paul Rubin wrote: >>> >>>> Steven D'Aprano <steve(a)REMOVE-THIS-cybersource.com.au> writes: >>>>> DISCLAIMER: obfuscate is not cryptographically strong, and should not >>>>> be used where high security is required. >>>> >>>> Certainly no one should never use obfuscate's rot13 function for high >>>> security. Use at least double-rot13 instead, or maybe even quadruple >>>> rot13 ;-). >>> >>> Ha ha, that's funny! I've never heard that one before! *wink* >> >> I think I lost a sarcasm detector to this line- are you being serious? > > > Possibly I overloaded your sarcasm detector and broke it. I figured, but given how severely it broke I couldn't be sure. I suppose the fact that you used exclamation points should have tipped me off, though. Geremy Condra
From: geremy condra on 11 Apr 2010 00:49
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 4:37 AM, Aahz <aahz(a)pythoncraft.com> wrote: > In article <mailman.1734.1270954853.23598.python-list(a)python.org>, > geremy condra <debatem1(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Steven D'Aprano >><steve(a)remove-this-cybersource.com.au> wrote: >>> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:34:17 -0700, Paul Rubin wrote: >>>> Steven D'Aprano <steve(a)REMOVE-THIS-cybersource.com.au> writes: >>>>> >>>>> DISCLAIMER: obfuscate is not cryptographically strong, and should not >>>>> be used where high security is required. >>>> >>>> Certainly no one should never use obfuscate's rot13 function for high >>>> security. Use at least double-rot13 instead, or maybe even quadruple >>>> rot13 ;-). >>> >>> Ha ha, that's funny! I've never heard that one before! *wink* >> >>I think I lost a sarcasm detector to this line- are you being serious? > > There are people who have a .sig that says, "This message protected by > double-rot13 for extra security." It's an extremely common jape. I work in infosec. I've heard it ;) Geremy Condra |