Video

Yes it is . your source is not for 100% secure. but it is secure enough. there are projects designed for decompiling pyarmour but usually every new version they fail . so there is no solid answer to that . you can check pyarmour decompile ( google it ) and you will see many . but test it yourself on your code.

@@sina6348 okay nice, I agree. I think the newest pyarmor gets harder to break. I'm wondering if the strings in the exe are obfuscated or plain text

Pyarmor maintainer is supposed to change obfuscation algorythm every new version I guess. It is written in C and built as python binary file .pyd. So I think to get a source is nearly impossible. As for strings yes they are not secured. You have to buy paid pyarmor version and there will be a bunch of new secure methods also for strings. But still it can be secured simply by storing strings as a list of characters and they build it during runtime.

​@@bill8126 wow a very nice insights you have bro. Nice ones. thank you. Thanks for mentioning about the strings part which can be stated in binary or number

Qustion one: When you lock your code using PyArmor by specifying an expiration date, the expiration is embedded into the encrypted code itself. This means that if the expiration date has passed, downloading the script again will not reset the date. The script will still check against the original expiration date embedded in the code. If the date has expired, it will indicate that the date has finished and the script will not run. To continue using the script beyond the expiration date, you would need to re-encrypt the code with a new expiration date. Question two: Maybe for restricting on MAC address first you give your user an script that gets the mac-address and then make a pyarmour for the main code based on obtained mac. so do not give them the main code at the first place

Hello, I have provided the wholde code , including png.hpp in the dropbox link in the video description. you can replicate the whole solution. :)

Libraries like Pandas are simple list and arrays and such loops at the back-end and lower level. so still almost same thing happens underhood

Mojo Code: ``` from time import now fn is_prime(n: Int) -> Bool: if n <= 1: return False if n <= 3: return True if n % 2 == 0 or n % 3 == 0: return False var i: Int = 5 while i * i <= n: if n % i == 0 or n % (i + 2) == 0: return False i += 6 return True fn primes(n: Int) -> Int: var count: Int = 0 for i in range(1, n): if is_prime(i): count += 1 return count fn main() raises: let n: Int = 10000000 let start: Int = now() let count: Int = primes(n) print("Time: ", (now() - start)/1000000000, "s") print("Primes: ", count) ```

Thank you for replicating the codes, and I guess it agrees with my resluts, with the Go to be the fastest then Python+Condon, then MOJO and classical Python to be the last. but it is interesting that python+codon is that much faster than MOJO.