If your love letter isn't given in the form of highly obfuscated C, is it really a love letter?
I don't know, but what I do know is that I love you! <3
I don't know if this will work or even compile, but I feel like I'm pretty close.
long main () {
char output;
unsigned char shift;
long temp;
if (i < 152) {
shift = (i & 1) * 7;
temp = b[i >> 1] >> shift;
i++;
output = (char)(64 & temp);
output += (char)((n >> (temp & 63)) & main());
printf("%c", output);
}
return 63;
}
I guess I should have kept the recursion and straightened it out in the next step, but now that it's done...
The next step will just have an array of the characters that would be printed, so I'll leave it here.
Some kind of Caesar cipher you made?
fIy uo rolevl teet rsi'n tigev nnit ehf ro mfoh gilh yboufcstadeC ,sii terlayla l vo eelttre
? Iod'n tnkwo ,ub thwtaI d onkwoi shttaI l vo eoy!u<
3%
Whoops! When I looked at the second time that the shift value is calculated, I wondered if it would be inverted from the first time, but for some reason I decided that it wouldn't be. But looking at it again it's clear now that (1 - i) = (-i + 1) = ((~i + 1) + 1), making bit 0 the inverse. Then I wondered why there wasn't more corruption and realized that the author's compiler must perform postfix increments and decrements immediately after the variable is used, so the initial shift is also inverted. That's why the character pairs are flipped, but they still decode correctly otherwise. I hope this version works better:
long main () {
char output;
unsigned char shift;
long temp;
if (i < 152) {
shift = (~i & 1) * 7;
temp = b[i >> 1] >> shift;
i++;
output = (char)(64 & temp);
output += (char)((n >> (temp & 63)) & main());
printf("%c", output);
}
return 63;
}
EDIT: I just got a chance to compile it and it does work.
return 69
; }
As a rust fan I can say:
Don't be sorry, cause the code is in C!
Be sorry for what you did in C!
I mean, of course it wouldn't be fair to expect everyone to be migrated over yet, but at some point it's going to be an obsolete language. Memory unsafety is a pretty nasty quirk; just one that was previously unavoidable, as far as I know.
at some point it’s going to be an obsolete language.
Yeah, COBOL went the way of the dodo too.
Exactly. COBOL still gets used in legacy stuff, but at this point you'd have to be either insane or a historical re-enactor to build something new in it.
I've used C more than anything else, for reference.
COBOL is on my to-learn list...
I really want to build and learn to use a medieval-style pole lathe.
The code is even wink at u
If there was ever a time to replace this Drake format with the Geordi LaForge alternative, this was it.
If anyone wants to actually run this, here ya go:
Bonus points if you can deobfuscate it!
I don't know if this will work or even compile, but I feel like I'm pretty close.
Here's it with some amount of de-obfuscation:
Needless to say, the return value doesn't matter any more. So you can change it to
0or69depending upon your preferences.And more de-obf:
I guess I should have kept the recursion and straightened it out in the next step, but now that it's done...
The next step will just have an array of the characters that would be printed, so I'll leave it here.
Some kind of Caesar cipher you made?
Whoops! When I looked at the second time that the shift value is calculated, I wondered if it would be inverted from the first time, but for some reason I decided that it wouldn't be. But looking at it again it's clear now that (1 - i) = (-i + 1) = ((~i + 1) + 1), making bit 0 the inverse. Then I wondered why there wasn't more corruption and realized that the author's compiler must perform postfix increments and decrements immediately after the variable is used, so the initial shift is also inverted. That's why the character pairs are flipped, but they still decode correctly otherwise. I hope this version works better:
EDIT: I just got a chance to compile it and it does work.
As a rust fan I can say:
Don't be sorry, cause the code is in C!
Be sorry for what you did in C!
I mean, of course it wouldn't be fair to expect everyone to be migrated over yet, but at some point it's going to be an obsolete language. Memory unsafety is a pretty nasty quirk; just one that was previously unavoidable, as far as I know.
Yeah, COBOL went the way of the dodo too.
Exactly. COBOL still gets used in legacy stuff, but at this point you'd have to be either insane or a historical re-enactor to build something new in it.
I've used C more than anything else, for reference.
COBOL is on my to-learn list...
I really want to build and learn to use a medieval-style pole lathe.
The code is even wink at u
If there was ever a time to replace this Drake format with the Geordi LaForge alternative, this was it.
On it.