Re: ANN: obfuscate 0.2.2
On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 6:03:23 PM UTC-6, joshj...@gmail.com wrote: > for importing obfuscate do we just type in import obfuscate > or import obfuscate 0.2.2 Oh boy. I had forgotten about this little community "gem" dating back to 2010. And unfortunately for comrade Steven, there is no way to obfuscate this thread! Not even double rot13 will help! :-)) -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: ANN: obfuscate 0.2.2
for importing obfuscate do we just type in import obfuscate or import obfuscate 0.2.2 -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
ANN: obfuscate 0.2.2
I am pleased to announce the first stable release of obfuscate, version 0.2.2. http://pypi.python.org/pypi/obfuscate/ obfuscate is a pure-Python module providing classical encryption algorithms suitable for obfuscating and unobfuscating text. This is a maintenance release of back-end and API changes but no new ciphers. This should be considered the first stable API for obfuscate. obfuscate includes the following ciphers: - rot13, rot5, rot18, rot47 - atbash - Caesar cipher - Keyword - Affine - Playfair, Playfair6, Playfair16 - frob (xor) - Vigenere - RailFence - plus others. DISCLAIMER: obfuscate is not cryptographically strong, and should not be used where high security is required. obfuscate is released under the MIT licence. Requires Python 2.5 or 2.6. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: ANN: obfuscate 0.2.2
Steven D'Aprano st...@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 ;-). -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: ANN: obfuscate 0.2.2
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:34:17 -0700, Paul Rubin wrote: Steven D'Aprano st...@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 may add a quadruple-rot13 to the next release. Would you like credit? obfuscate does include ciphers which, prior to the invention of the computer, were good enough for real world use. E.g. the Playfair cipher was still in use for field communications in World War 2, e.g: http://practicalcryptography.com/ciphers/playfair-cipher/ and of course Vigenere is uncrackable if you provide it with a cryptographically random key as long as the message which you use only once. (In that case, it is a one-time-pad.) -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: ANN: obfuscate 0.2.2
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au wrote: On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:34:17 -0700, Paul Rubin wrote: Steven D'Aprano st...@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? Geremy Condra -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: ANN: obfuscate 0.2.2
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 03:00:50 +, geremy condra wrote: On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au wrote: On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:34:17 -0700, Paul Rubin wrote: Steven D'Aprano st...@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. No, I'm not serious. If I had a dollar for every time somebody suggested using rot13 twice for extra security, I could buy out Microsoft. Hell, if I had a dollar for every time *I* suggested using rot13 twice, I could buy out Google. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: ANN: obfuscate 0.2.2
In article mailman.1734.1270954853.23598.python-l...@python.org, geremy condra debat...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au wrote: On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:34:17 -0700, Paul Rubin wrote: Steven D'Aprano st...@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 (a...@pythoncraft.com) * http://www.pythoncraft.com/ It is easier to optimize correct code than to correct optimized code. --Bill Harlan -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: ANN: obfuscate 0.2.2
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 3:44 AM, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au wrote: On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 03:00:50 +, geremy condra wrote: On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au wrote: On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:34:17 -0700, Paul Rubin wrote: Steven D'Aprano st...@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 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: ANN: obfuscate 0.2.2
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 4:37 AM, Aahz a...@pythoncraft.com wrote: In article mailman.1734.1270954853.23598.python-l...@python.org, geremy condra debat...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au wrote: On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:34:17 -0700, Paul Rubin wrote: Steven D'Aprano st...@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 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
