Date:         Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:32:59 -0700
Reply-To:     RolandRB <rolandberry@HOTMAIL.COM>
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         RolandRB <rolandberry@HOTMAIL.COM>
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Subject:      Re: "Because you cannot re-create the source statements from a
Comments: To: sas-l@uga.edu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Mar 29, 4:32 pm, datan...@GMAIL.COM ("data _null_,") wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 9:04 AM, RolandRB <rolandbe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I can read the documentation on sas 9.2 as can any monkey, as you have
> > discovered, but I fail to be able to reconcile the statement for the
> > sas 9.1.3 documentation where it states "Because you cannot re-create
> > the source statements from a compiled macro" with the very obvious
> > fact that all the source statements are still there if you use a
> > simple text editor to browse the macro you have compiled under sas
> > 9.1.3. I find it a little annoying to use this crap software named
> > "sas" with its associated misleading documentation. I pray for the day
> > when this mess is taken over by CA and sold for a fair price like $50.
>
> You are confusing security with convenience.  The documentation you
> mention states that you should use the SOURCE option if you want to be
> able to later retrieve the SOURCE using the %COPY statement.  There is
> no mention of encryption or other facility to secure the macro code
> that is stored from being hacked.
>
> Applications are easy enough to develop in SAS why would anyone try to
> hack a stored macro when you can just "write it" in the time it takes
> to hack it.  Although hacking a macro store might be an interesting
> exercise.

It's the "how it works" aspect that needs protecting. A lot of the
time in writing code is done before you code a line in first working
out how it ought to be written. This can take far longer than actually
writing the code. But the thinking is obvious from the code so it is
worth protecting. Besides, that is what the SAS Institute have decided
to do for sas version 9.2. Do you dare challenge their authority?