upx VS rust

According to this source:

Following optimization, tools like UPX can compress the resulting binary, significantly reducing file size. This compression is invaluable for resource-constrained environments but adds a decompression step during binary execution.

I have been using UPX but I'm quite sure if there's something out there that offers better compression.

Ah that's nice, long ago I used parchment.js to load a inform7 created z5 file on my website. You could try to compress your executable with upx https://upx.github.io/

In this process, the given packer tool embeds a natively compiled PE into another executable that contains the information needed to unpack the original content and execute it. Perhaps the most well known packer, which is not even for malicious purposes, is Golang's UPX package.

Rewrite in C#, and use an obfuscator on the DLL. You can also write some parts in C++ as many variable and function names are forgotten when compiling. You should also encrypt the PCK, and see if you can embed it. If it's embedded, you can make it more annoying to deal with by packing it with https://upx.github.io/

Another good example of false positives like this would be binaries that are compressed with UPX - the way it works is apparently very similar to how stub-loader malware operates and signature detection tools will flag it as malicious.

This will optimise the release binary to be as small as possible. Additionally with upx we can create really small docker image !

Then I compressed it with upx, cp small.exe smallUpx.exe && upx --brute smallUpx.exe, got a 10752 bytes executable, half the size, but still pretty large

Here's an example of someone citing a disagreement between CRT and shell32:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44650

This in addition to the Rust CVE mentioned elsewhere in the thread which was rooted in this issue:

https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/04/09/cve-2024-24576.html

Here are some quick programs to test contrasting approaches. I don't have examples of inputs where they parse differently on hand right now, but I know they exist. This was also a problem that was frequently discussed internally when I worked at MSFT.

    #include 

> instead of choosing a certain numbered version of the random library (if I remember correctly) I let cargo download the latest version which had a completely different API.

Yeah, they didn't follow the instructions and got burned. I still think that multiple things went wrong simultaneously for that experience. I wonder if more prevalent uses of `#[doc(alias = "name")]` being leveraged by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120730 (which now that I check only accounts for methods and not functions, I should get on that!) so that when changing APIs around people at least get a slightly better experience.

Almost fixed the compiler: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123325

Rust: A secure, efficient, and modern programming language (omitting ten thousand words). You can simply follow the installation instructions provided on the official website.

Recently did something similar in Rust but for generating SVGs. We've adopted it for snapshot testing of cargo and rustc's output. Don't have a good PR handy for showing Github's rendering of changes in the SVG (text, side-by-side, swiping) but https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121877/files has newly added SVGs.

To see what is supported, see the screenshot in the docs: https://docs.rs/anstyle-svg/latest/anstyle_svg/

We strongly believe in Rust as a powerful language for building production-grade software, especially for systems like ours that run alongside Kubernetes.

The above Assert<{N % 2 == 1}> requires #![feature(generic_const_exprs)] and the nightly toolchain. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/76560 for more info.