string encryption
Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Fri Jul 1 16:55:08 PDT 2016
On Friday, 1 July 2016 at 23:23:19 UTC, Hiemlick Hiemlicker wrote:
> ok. For some reason I thought CTFE's applied to normal
> functions but I realize that doesn't make a lot of sense.
It is applied to normal functions, just when they are used in the
right context.
int a = factorial(3); // normal runtime
static a = factorial(3); // CTFE
Same function, but different contexts. In a static or enum
variable, it is CTFE'd. In a normal runtime variable, it is
runtime interpreted.
> Yes, of course. Do D names change depending on -debug vs
> -release?
No, he meant -g, not -debug. That puts the function names in the
executable, whereas they might not be there without it (though
they might be too... I don't think this makes much of a
difference)
See my post here:
http://stackoverflow.com/a/38149801/1457000
tbh, I don't think encrypting strings is really worth it either,
they aren't hard to extract anyway.
> I'm not too concerned about the attacker seeing them because
> they will have to watch every decryption to get the string(or
> possibly write a utility to automate the decryption).
And that's not really hard.... where's the string going anyway?
You might want it in a separate file that you can optionally
encrypt or ask for it from the user.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list