Runtime version of 4DOS, BATCOMP and batch file encryption

[Luchezar Georgiev]

Hello!

I have a couple of questions to the more knowledgeable / experienced 4DOS
regarding batch file encryption.

1) What is the runtime version of 4DOS, and why did it support batch file
encryption, whereas the "normal" version of 4DOS at that time didn't?

2) Today's 4DOS does support encryption. BATCOMP.C (the BATCOMP source) -
too. But BATCOMP.EXE from the free 4DOS (August 2004) does not. Albeit it
doesn't build correctly from source code, this could be fixed, so I could
provide a new BATCOMP.EXE that does support encryption. Is it worth to do
that? I'm not an expert but don't regard this encryption as serious - the
password is placed... in the batch file itself, albeit in encrypted form!

Regards,
Lucho

[Klaus Meinhard]

Hi Lucho

Post by Luchezar Georgiev
I have a couple of questions to the more knowledgeable / experienced
4DOS regarding batch file encryption.
1) What is the runtime version of 4DOS, and why did it support batch
file encryption, whereas the "normal" version of 4DOS at that time
didn't?

There was for a time some demand for a runtime version of 4DOS, to be
able to distribute btms to people without 4DOS. The logical extension
was that the distributed btms had to be encrypted to avoid copying of
code and tampering by users.

That demand tapered off quickly once the runtime version existed...

Post by Luchezar Georgiev
2) Today's 4DOS does support encryption. BATCOMP.C (the BATCOMP
source) - too. But BATCOMP.EXE from the free 4DOS (August 2004) does
not. Albeit it doesn't build correctly from source code, this could
be fixed, so I could provide a new BATCOMP.EXE that does support
encryption. Is it worth to do that? I'm not an expert but don't
regard this encryption as serious - the password is placed... in the
batch file itself, albeit in encrypted form!

The original idea is still valid (and independant of the above): keep
inexperienced users from poking and changing and tampering.

[Luchezar Georgiev]

Post by Klaus Meinhard
The original idea is still valid (and independant of the above): keep
inexperienced users from poking and changing and tampering.

So, the idea of providing an encryption-capable BATCOMP is worth realising.
Thank you for your answer.

Regards,
Lucho