[erlang-questions] Stand Alone Erlang or Equivalent

Vlad Dumitrescu vladdu55@REDACTED
Fri Sep 7 12:33:23 CEST 2007


The explanation this time is clearer, thanks.

On 9/7/07, Benjamin Tolputt <bjt@REDACTED> wrote:
> Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
> > Erm, if the byte-code is encrypted, how would you replace a beam file
> > with a different one without breaking the encryption?
> You wouldn't. Like most "single player" games, you would simply "patch"
> the archive containing the beam files "as a whole" (i.e. as a binary
> patch to the archive file rather than individual patches to the files
> contained therein).

I'm not sure where the misunderstanding lies. Here's how I understand this:

You say some kind of DRM is necessary in order to get a deal. Sure, that's

You say it's easier/safer to put all beam files in an archive and protect
it, as compared to protect each beam file. I may be wrong, but I think
there's no difference. If the code loader is extended so that it can load
from an encrypted archive, then it can just as easily load from separately
encrypted beam files. A cracker can do something about it if it cracks the
encryption, and in that case both alternatives are just as easy to tamper
with. Without the encryption key, a modified beam file would useless in both

What am I missing? What is a packaging into a smaller set of files adding to
the security level?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20070907/cf3e9539/attachment.htm>

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list