Reverse Compile LScript

I believe that's what he's asking, yes.

I'd be interested in the answer, too.

I know lscript is compiled into byte code when a script is executed. What those byte codes are, I have no clue.

I've got too many things going on to add a Reverse Engineering project to the mess.

I thought there are some mention of decompiling that's built in, but that was a long time ago...
 
Last edited:
No body has reverse compiled a LScript before?
Would be great for learning LScript.
Hope there is a way to reverse compile an LScript.
 

you can't reverse compile an .lsc
not as far as i know.

an .ls however, just open it in notepad

.lsc = 25% of all scripts made
.ls = 75% of all scripts made
[roughly]


 

oh, even worse
YI83NCf.gif


no, there is no way to do that.
bcwLfNX.gif



 
erikals said:
oh, even worse
YI83NCf.gif


no, there is no way to do that.
bcwLfNX.gif
Click to expand...
There is no Easy way to do it. The difficulty starts at hard, and borders on the impossible in some cases. The tools are out there, but you have to know what you're doing with them, and it might takes months to do so, and you still might not be successful. It's very hard work to do - I've done some software decompiling. You would be better off in learning how to from scratch, starting with the examples given in the SDK, for either C or Python.

Anything based off a bytecode / virtual machine language (.NET languages, Java, Python, etc.) is magnitudes easier than optimized C executables or libraries. And even then, there are ways to keep it from happening, because obfuscation libraries are a thing.

My recommendation is to get a copy of visual studio, find some tutorials on coding a lightwave plugin in C, and start in. It will be fewer headaches and legal issues, and less time spent.
 

The percentage of open source code in proprietary apps is rising​

  • 96 percent of the scanned applications contain open source components, with an average 257 components per application, and that
  • The average percentage of open source in the codebases of the applications scanned grew from 36% last year to 57%, suggesting that a large number of applications now contain much more open source than proprietary code.
  • The number of open source components in the codebase of proprietary applications keeps rising and with it the risk of those apps being compromised by attackers leveraging vulnerabilities in them, a recent report has shown.

    Compiled after examining the findings from the anonymized data of over 1,100 commercial codebases audited in 2017 by the Black Duck On-Demand audit services group, the report revealed that:

The analysts found that 78% of the codebases examined contained at least one vulnerability, with an average 64 vulnerabilities per codebase.
Funny Stuff!
 
@UNREALONE1 I would recommend instead of posting 3 posts one after the other, that you make use of the edit button, which is right next to the report button. I'm a little unsure what this forum's policy on double posting is, but it's something that is usually frowned upon.
 
It may also help to take a step back from the topic and realize the futility, both technically and legally. The LW license (and the licenses of 3rd party plugin developers) will specify that attempts at decompiling are prohibited. You'll find more success learning to program than turning to theft.
 
Kryslin said:
There is no Easy way to do it. The difficulty starts at hard, and borders on the impossible in some cases. The tools are out there, but you have to know what you're doing with them, and it might takes months to do so, and you still might not be successful. It's very hard work to do - I've done some software decompiling. You would be better off in learning how to from scratch, starting with the examples given in the SDK, for either C or Python.

Anything based off a bytecode / virtual machine language (.NET languages, Java, Python, etc.) is magnitudes easier than optimized C executables or libraries. And even then, there are ways to keep it from happening, because obfuscation libraries are a thing.

My recommendation is to get a copy of visual studio, find some tutorials on coding a lightwave plugin in C, and start in. It will be fewer headaches and legal issues, and less time spent.
Click to expand...
[I deleted my original post about modifying a freeware program to suit my needs at the time (20+ years ago)]

I obtained the software many years ago via a CD coverdisk attached to a magazine I bought. The software's About blurb lists the copyright date 1991-1998. The listed copyright holder was not Newtek. The software was fully legal and included a license code. There were no Terms And Conditions Of Use included with the software AT ALL. It was freeware, because, uh, it was free to me with no limiting terms and conditions. This particular release may also qualify as public domain (or abandonware) too since it is a 25+ year old 32bit program long out of development. As I understand US copyright law, for "freeware" or "public domain" software, one can modify the software as they wish. If have this wrong, by all means let me know.

And the above really is all moot because I stopped using the program something like over 15 years ago.

But I need to point out...

Modifying a Lightwave plugin file is a different story. It would be a violation of the software owner's copyright protections to modify a commercial Lightwave plugin that was not freeware or public domain.

If the plugin is shareware or opensource, then it would be possible to make modifications - so long as you got the OK from the author(s), or, no problem if the opensource license allowed mods without permission. Then again, if the plugin is being actively developed you could reach out to the developer to see if they could make the change(s). But if the plugin was effectively abandoned by the author/owner many years ago, I'm not sure how copyright applies in that case.
 
Last edited:
I haven't taken time to read all of the context of this discussion, but obviously hacking AuraDV (which I remember quite well, of course) would be a violation of intellectual property rights that, back then, belonged to NewTek and now devolve to Vizrt. Let's presume the above is meant to be viewed as a thought experiment. (Anyone who would like to apply this approach to any of our protected IP in the real world is warmly invited to contact me so I can introduce you to our lawyer.)
 
Last edited:
Hmm, if you want to do something with someone else's work, you should do a fair deal with the author. If you neglect to do that, ultimately, no one will try to create anything new, not just software or paintings.
 
eo_neo said:
If have this wrong, by all means let me know.

And the above really is all moot because I stopped using the program something like over 15 years ago.
Click to expand...
I understand this is what passes for ancient history, and I can't say I have a floppy disk with AuraDV kicking around anywhere these days, but the typical approach to such things was to embed the EULA in the installer. I appreciate that you made an effort to be ethical, but It does not greatly surprise me that printed matter with a cover disk was not exhaustive. I can, however, assure you that NewTek owned it, as contemporary references imply (although there is a good deal of misinformation online about related topics):

(etc.)

As to the complexities of copyright validity after so long. etc., these things can be very complex, and often seems to boil down to whether the costs and effort involved in pursuing or defending a claim are deemed worthwhile. Personally, I'd prefer not to put such matters to the test.
 
eo_neo said:
...But if the plugin was effectively abandoned by the author/owner many years ago, I'm not sure how copyright applies in that case.
Click to expand...
Nothing is abandoned. Copyright means you as the author have the right to control whether your creation is copied. If you discontinue sales/distribution of your creation, you are exercising your copyright. You are not abandoning it.

"Open source" does not necessarily mean free. Free software is still covered by a license or inherent copyright. Hacking Aura DV, as you described, was never legal 15 years ago or now.


SBowie said:
...I can, however, assure you that NewTek owned it...
Click to expand...

Correction: "NewTek owns it". NewTek has not ended or abandoned ownership of it.

Those archived links indicate a "free" version offered as a promotional gift, just as it was on the magazine coverdisc. There was still an exchange and there was still a copyright & license. Even if a EULA only appeared in the installer or only appeared in accompanying documentation, any creation holds an inherent copyright protection. It is not a failure of the author if the user cannot find licensing terms. Someone wanting to modify the creative work would need an explicit license to do so. NewTek never offered such permission.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top