I don't recall saying that, but maybe I did I guess. Maybe you have confused me with Pine??? You can explain to people who don't know python that your python script is not backdoored. I could explain to people that | #{[105, 114, 98].pack("c*") sets the formatting of the text, I don't expect them to analyze every single line of what I write simply because they would essentially be learning Ruby to make sure I did not do anything sketchy. Wouldn't it make more sense for me to release the code here, then if anyone who knows Ruby looks at it they might realize what is going on and warn others. And if they know Ruby why are they going to buy something like this?? Hm maybe I will although to be honest right now I am pretty busy working on other things that I will release publicly and not expect people to blindly trust. Ruby is same written in C with much of the modules also C. The primary difference seems to be that python has made it easy to get bytecode for running later without being parsed by the interpreter. That is coming in ruby 2.0 . I am not at all worried that the primary python interpreters are going to be exploited anymore than I am that firefox is. What I am worried about is the fact that someone buying a script like this is not going to recognize | #{[105, 114, 98].pack("c*") is the difference between secure and backdoored. To recognize that you would need to know about both pack and unpack as well as ways of encoding data as well as what the pipe symbol does on the terminal as well as what back ticks do in ruby. The actual program distributed would have no networking code, would make a single call to GPG using the users own key, and could even be made more sneaky by removing the need for an if else statement.