Has anyone ever tried using molebox with panda? so far the demo(pro) seems to be working for me, anything I should be wary of? …To bad I can’t post one of the files for people to test…it seems as if I’m not allowed to distribute with the demo version :frowning:

I kind of like the packpanda, I’ve never made a complete
installer before, so I was pretty happy with how easy it was.
Ive used some of the free c ++ compilers and it was quite a hassle!
Whats the difference between packpanda and molebox?
I guess you have more control probably with molebox eh?

molebox is a file protector, will pack all of your files into an exe…it does it fairly well, no unpacking upon run, but does require an exe so one needs first to compile their program with py2exe. I can get simple python file to work, but not panda files…I think it is more a problem with py2exe than molebox. Details for molebox can be found here:

Oh I see, it would be good for extra encryption!
This way you could have a bam file with a little extra
molebox encryption and really good code encryption on top of
any regular panda encryption! :wink:
Probably molebox isn’t human readable?

panda already does file encryption with multi files and it has a nice way to patch them too.

I never found such a thing in panda…I am talking more about source files than other things, the best packpanda seems to be able to do is “compile” them to .pyc, which is not secure enough for me.

pyc can be decompiled
i want to encrypt my pyc’s too

I’m working on a solution…right now panda is calling the .lib’s which py2exe turns into .pyo, and is causing a dll mount fail…any suggestions? Note that this is after py2exe, but no molebox. Based on other python compiles, I am about 90% certain that once I get panda working with py2exe it is a one step click to apply molebox :slight_smile:

Did you complete the process py2exe then molebox ?
I would like to do the same in the not too-distant future.