How hard to reverse engineer .pyd files?

How hard to reverse engineer .pyd files? - python

After reading How do I protect Python code? , I decided to try a really simple extension module on Windows. I compiled my own extension module on Linux before, but this is the first time I compiled it on Windows. I was expecting to get a .dll file, but instead, I got a .pyd file. Docs says they are kind of same, but it must have an init[insert-module-name]() function.
Is it safe to assume, it is as hard to reverse engineer them as dll files. If not, what is their hardness to reverse engineer in a scale from .pyc file to .dll files?

They are, as you already found out, equivalent to DLL files with a certain structure. In principle, they are equally hard to reverse-engineer, they are machine code, need very little metadata, and the code may have been optimized beyond recognition.
However, the required structure, and knowing that many functions will be handling PyObject *s and other well-defined CPython types, may have some effect. It won't really help with mapping the assembly code to C (if anything, it gets harder due to CPython-specific macros). Code that mostly interacts with Python types will look quite different from code manipulating C structs (and comparatively bloated). This may make it even harder to comprehend, or it may give away code which does nothing interesting and allows an reverse engineer to skip over it and get to your trade secrets earlier.
None of these concerns apply to pieces of code which are pure C code (i.e. do not interact with Python). And you probably have a lot of those. So it shouldn't make a significant difference in the end.

They are basically native code. But because every function have funny argument lists, it might be harder to see what each function does. I would say they are as hard as dll, if not harder.

Related

How to not give away source code with command line application in Python? [duplicate]

I am developing a piece of software in Python that will be distributed to my employer's customers. My employer wants to limit the usage of the software with a time-restricted license file.
If we distribute the .py files or even .pyc files it will be easy to (decompile and) remove the code that checks the license file.
Another aspect is that my employer does not want the code to be read by our customers, fearing that the code may be stolen or at least the "novel ideas".
Is there a good way to handle this problem?

"Is there a good way to handle this problem?" No. Nothing can be protected against reverse engineering. Even the firmware on DVD machines has been reverse engineered and the AACS Encryption key exposed. And that's in spite of the DMCA making that a criminal offense.
Since no technical method can stop your customers from reading your code, you have to apply ordinary commercial methods.
Licenses. Contracts. Terms and Conditions. This still works even when people can read the code. Note that some of your Python-based components may require that you pay fees before you sell software using those components. Also, some open-source licenses prohibit you from concealing the source or origins of that component.
Offer significant value. If your stuff is so good -- at a price that is hard to refuse -- there's no incentive to waste time and money reverse engineering anything. Reverse engineering is expensive. Make your product slightly less expensive.
Offer upgrades and enhancements that make any reverse engineering a bad idea. When the next release breaks their reverse engineering, there's no point. This can be carried to absurd extremes, but you should offer new features that make the next release more valuable than reverse engineering.
Offer customization at rates so attractive that they'd rather pay you to build and support the enhancements.
Use a license key which expires. This is cruel, and will give you a bad reputation, but it certainly makes your software stop working.
Offer it as a web service. SaaS involves no downloads to customers.

Python, being a byte-code-compiled interpreted language, is very difficult to lock down. Even if you use a exe-packager like py2exe, the layout of the executable is well-known, and the Python byte-codes are well understood.
Usually in cases like this, you have to make a tradeoff. How important is it really to protect the code? Are there real secrets in there (such as a key for symmetric encryption of bank transfers), or are you just being paranoid? Choose the language that lets you develop the best product quickest, and be realistic about how valuable your novel ideas are.
If you decide you really need to enforce the license check securely, write it as a small C extension so that the license check code can be extra-hard (but not impossible!) to reverse engineer, and leave the bulk of your code in Python.

Python is not the tool you need
You must use the right tool to do the right thing, and Python was not designed to be obfuscated. It's the contrary; everything is open or easy to reveal or modify in Python because that's the language's philosophy.
If you want something you can't see through, look for another tool. This is not a bad thing, it is important that several different tools exist for different usages.
Obfuscation is really hard
Even compiled programs can be reverse-engineered so don't think that you can fully protect any code. You can analyze obfuscated PHP, break the flash encryption key, etc. Newer versions of Windows are cracked every time.
Having a legal requirement is a good way to go
You cannot prevent somebody from misusing your code, but you can easily discover if someone does. Therefore, it's just a casual legal issue.
Code protection is overrated
Nowadays, business models tend to go for selling services instead of products. You cannot copy a service, pirate nor steal it. Maybe it's time to consider to go with the flow...

Compile python and distribute binaries!
Sensible idea:
Use Cython, Nuitka, Shed Skin or something similar to compile python to C code, then distribute your app as python binary libraries (pyd) instead.
That way, no Python (byte) code is left and you've done any reasonable amount of obscurification anyone (i.e. your employer) could expect from regular Code, I think. (.NET or Java less safe than this case, as that bytecode is not obfuscated and can relatively easily be decompiled into reasonable source.)
Cython is getting more and more compatible with CPython, so I think it should work. (I'm actually considering this for our product.. We're already building some thirdparty libs as pyd/dlls, so shipping our own python code as binaries is not a overly big step for us.)
See This Blog Post (not by me) for a tutorial on how to do it. (thx #hithwen)
Crazy idea:
You could probably get Cython to store the C-files separately for each module, then just concatenate them all and build them with heavy inlining. That way, your Python module is pretty monolithic and difficult to chip at with common tools.
Beyond crazy:
You might be able to build a single executable if you can link to (and optimize with) the python runtime and all libraries (dlls) statically. That way, it'd sure be difficult to intercept calls to/from python and whatever framework libraries you use. This cannot be done if you're using LGPL code though.

I understand that you want your customers to use the power of python but do not want expose the source code.
Here are my suggestions:
(a) Write the critical pieces of the code as C or C++ libraries and then use SIP or swig to expose the C/C++ APIs to Python namespace.
(b) Use cython instead of Python
(c) In both (a) and (b), it should be possible to distribute the libraries as licensed binary with a Python interface.

Have you had a look at pyminifier? It does Minify, obfuscate, and compress Python code. The example code looks pretty nasty for casual reverse engineering.
$ pyminifier --nonlatin --replacement-length=50 /tmp/tumult.py
#!/usr/bin/env python3
ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲמּ=ImportError
ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ燱=print
ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ巡=False
ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ澨=object
try:
import demiurgic
except ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲמּ:
ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ燱("Warning: You're not demiurgic. Actually, I think that's normal.")
try:
import mystificate
except ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲמּ:
ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ燱("Warning: Dark voodoo may be unreliable.")
ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲﺬ=ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ巡
class ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ𐦚(ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ澨):
def __init__(self,*args,**kwargs):
pass
def ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ클(self,dactyl):
ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ퐐=demiurgic.palpitation(dactyl)
ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ𠛲=mystificate.dark_voodoo(ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ퐐)
return ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ𠛲
def ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ𐠯(self,whatever):
ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ燱(whatever)
if __name__=="__main__":
ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ燱("Forming...")
ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲﺃ=ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ𐦚("epicaricacy","perseverate")
ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲﺃ.ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ𐠯("Codswallop")
# Created by pyminifier (https://github.com/liftoff/pyminifier)

Is your employer aware that he can "steal" back any ideas that other people get from your code? I mean, if they can read your work, so can you theirs. Maybe looking at how you can benefit from the situation would yield a better return of your investment than fearing how much you could lose.
[EDIT] Answer to Nick's comment:
Nothing gained and nothing lost. The customer has what he wants (and paid for it since he did the change himself). Since he doesn't release the change, it's as if it didn't happen for everyone else.
Now if the customer sells the software, they have to change the copyright notice (which is illegal, so you can sue and will win -> simple case).
If they don't change the copyright notice, the 2nd level customers will notice that the software comes from you original and wonder what is going on. Chances are that they will contact you and so you will learn about the reselling of your work.
Again we have two cases: The original customer sold only a few copies. That means they didn't make much money anyway, so why bother. Or they sold in volume. That means better chances for you to learn about what they do and do something about it.
But in the end, most companies try to comply to the law (once their reputation is ruined, it's much harder to do business). So they will not steal your work but work with you to improve it. So if you include the source (with a license that protects you from simple reselling), chances are that they will simply push back changes they made since that will make sure the change is in the next version and they don't have to maintain it. That's win-win: You get changes and they can make the change themselves if they really, desperately need it even if you're unwilling to include it in the official release.

Use Cython. It will compile your modules to high-performant C files, which can then be compiled to native binary libraries. This is basically un-reversable, compared to .pyc bytecode!
I've written a detailed article on how to set up Cython for a Python project, check it out:
Protecting Python Sources With Cython

Do not rely on obfuscation. As You have correctly concluded, it offers very limited protection.
UPDATE: Here is a link to paper which reverse engineered obfuscated python code in Dropbox. The approach - opcode remapping is a good barrier, but clearly it can be defeated.
Instead, as many posters have mentioned make it:
Not worth reverse engineering time (Your software is so good, it makes sense to pay)
Make them sign a contract and do a license audit if feasible.
Alternatively, as the kick-ass Python IDE WingIDE does: Give away the code. That's right, give the code away and have people come back for upgrades and support.

Shipping .pyc files has its problems - they are not compatible with any other python version than the python version they were created with, which means you must know which python version is running on the systems the product will run on. That's a very limiting factor.

In some circumstances, it may be possible to move (all, or at least a key part) of the software into a web service that your organization hosts.
That way, the license checks can be performed in the safety of your own server room.

Though there's no perfect solution, the following can be done:
Move some critical piece of startup code into a native library.
Enforce the license check in the native library.
If the call to the native code were to be removed, the program wouldn't start anyway. If it's not removed then the license will be enforced.
Though this is not a cross-platform or a pure-Python solution, it will work.

I was surprised in not seeing pyconcrete in any answer. Maybe because it's newer than the question?
It could be exactly what you need(ed).
Instead of obfuscating the code, it encrypts it and decrypts at load time.
From pypi page:
Protect python script work flow
your_script.py import pyconcrete
pyconcrete will hook import module
when your script do import MODULE,
pyconcrete import hook will try to find MODULE.pye first and then
decrypt MODULE.pye via _pyconcrete.pyd and execute decrypted data (as
.pyc content)
encrypt & decrypt secret key record in _pyconcrete.pyd
(like DLL or SO) the secret key would be hide in binary code, can’t
see it directly in HEX view

The reliable only way to protect code is to run it on a server you control and provide your clients with a client which interfaces with that server.

I think there is one more method to protect your Python code; part of the Obfuscation method. I believe there was a game like Mount and Blade or something that changed and recompiled their own python interpreter (the original interpreter which i believe is open source) and just changed the OP codes in the OP code table to be different then the standard python OP codes.
So the python source is unmodified but the file extensions of the *.pyc files are different and the op codes don't match to the public python.exe interpreter. If you checked the games data files all the data was in Python source format.
All sorts of nasty tricks can be done to mess with immature hackers this way. Stopping a bunch of inexperienced hackers is easy. It's the professional hackers that you will not likely beat. But most companies don't keep pro hackers on staff long I imagine (likely because things get hacked). But immature hackers are all over the place (read as curious IT staff).
You could for example, in a modified interpreter, allow it to check for certain comments or doc strings in your source. You could have special OP codes for such lines of code. For example:
OP 234 is for source line "# Copyright I wrote this"
or compile that line into op codes that are equivalent to "if False:" if "# Copyright" is missing. Basically disabling a whole block of code for what appears to be some obscure reason.
One use case where recompiling a modified interpreter may be feasible is where you didn't write the app, the app is big, but you are paid to protect it, such as when you're a dedicated server admin for a financial app.
I find it a little contradictory to leave the source or opcodes open for eyeballs, but use SSL for network traffic. SSL is not 100% safe either. But it's used to stop MOST eyes from reading it. A wee bit precaution is sensible.
Also, if enough people deem that Python source and opcodes are too visible, it's likely someone will eventually develop at least a simple protection tool for it. So the more people asking "how to protect Python app" only promotes that development.

Depending in who the client is, a simple protection mechanism, combined with a sensible license agreement will be far more effective than any complex licensing/encryption/obfuscation system.
The best solution would be selling the code as a service, say by hosting the service, or offering support - although that isn't always practical.
Shipping the code as .pyc files will prevent your protection being foiled by a few #s, but it's hardly effective anti-piracy protection (as if there is such a technology), and at the end of the day, it shouldn't achieve anything that a decent license agreement with the company will.
Concentrate on making your code as nice to use as possible - having happy customers will make your company far more money than preventing some theoretical piracy..

Another attempt to make your code harder to steal is to use jython and then use java obfuscator.
This should work pretty well as jythonc translate python code to java and then java is compiled to bytecode. So ounce you obfuscate the classes it will be really hard to understand what is going on after decompilation, not to mention recovering the actual code.
The only problem with jython is that you can't use python modules written in c.

You should take a look at how the guys at getdropbox.com do it for their client software, including Linux. It's quite tricky to crack and requires some quite creative disassembly to get past the protection mechanisms.

The best you can do with Python is to obscure things.
Strip out all docstrings
Distribute only the .pyc compiled files.
freeze it
Obscure your constants inside a class/module so that help(config) doesn't show everything
You may be able to add some additional obscurity by encrypting part of it and decrypting it on the fly and passing it to eval(). But no matter what you do someone can break it.
None of this will stop a determined attacker from disassembling the bytecode or digging through your api with help, dir, etc.

What about signing your code with standard encryption schemes by hashing and signing important files and checking it with public key methods?
In this way you can issue license file with a public key for each customer.
Additional you can use an python obfuscator like this one (just googled it).

Idea of having time restricted license and check for it in locally installed program will not work. Even with perfect obfuscation, license check can be removed. However if you check license on remote system and run significant part of the program on your closed remote system, you will be able to protect your IP.
Preventing competitors from using the source code as their own or write their inspired version of the same code, one way to protect is to add signatures to your program logic (some secrets to be able to prove that code was stolen from you) and obfuscate the python source code so, it's hard to read and utilize.
Good obfuscation adds basically the same protection to your code, that compiling it to executable (and stripping binary) does. Figuring out how obfuscated complex code works might be even harder than actually writing your own implementation.
This will not help preventing hacking of your program. Even with obfuscation code license stuff will be cracked and program may be modified to have slightly different behaviour (in the same way that compiling code to binary does not help protection of native programs).
In addition to symbol obfuscation might be good idea to unrefactor the code, which makes everything even more confusing if e.g. call graphs points to many different places even if actually those different places does eventually the same thing.
Logical signature inside obfuscated code (e.g. you may create table of values which are used by program logic, but also used as signature), which can be used to determine that code is originated from you. If someone decides to use your obfuscated code module as part of their own product (even after reobfuscating it to make it seem different) you can show, that code is stolen with your secret signature.

I have looked at software protection in general for my own projects and the general philosophy is that complete protection is impossible. The only thing that you can hope to achieve is to add protection to a level that would cost your customer more to bypass than it would to purchase another license.
With that said I was just checking google for python obsfucation and not turning up a lot of anything. In a .Net solution, obsfucation would be a first approach to your problem on a windows platform, but I am not sure if anyone has solutions on Linux that work with Mono.
The next thing would be to write your code in a compiled language, or if you really want to go all the way, then in assembler. A stripped out executable would be a lot harder to decompile than an interpreted language.
It all comes down to tradeoffs. On one end you have ease of software development in python, in which it is also very hard to hide secrets. On the other end you have software written in assembler which is much harder to write, but is much easier to hide secrets.
Your boss has to choose a point somewhere along that continuum that supports his requirements. And then he has to give you the tools and time so you can build what he wants. However my bet is that he will object to real development costs versus potential monetary losses.

Neiher Cython nor Nuitka were not the answer, because when running the solution that is compiled with Nuitka or Cython into .pyd or .exe files a cache directory is generated and all .pyc files are copied into the cache directory, so an attacker simply can decompile .pyc files and see your code or change it.

It is possible to have the py2exe byte-code in a crypted resource for a C launcher that loads and executes it in memory. Some ideas here and here.
Some have also thought of a self modifying program to make reverse engineering expensive.
You can also find tutorials for preventing debuggers, make the disassembler fail, set false debugger breakpoints and protect your code with checksums. Search for ["crypted code" execute "in memory"] for more links.
But as others already said, if your code is worth it, reverse engineers will succeed in the end.

Use the same way to protect binary file of c/c++, that is, obfuscate each function body in executable or library binary file, insert an instruction "jump" at the begin of each function entry, jump to special function to restore obfuscated code. Byte-code is binary code of Python script, so
First compile python script to code object
Then iterate each code object, obfuscate co_code of each code object as the following
0 JUMP_ABSOLUTE n = 3 + len(bytecode)
3
...
... Here it's obfuscated bytecode
...
n LOAD_GLOBAL ? (__pyarmor__)
n+3 CALL_FUNCTION 0
n+6 POP_TOP
n+7 JUMP_ABSOLUTE 0
Save obfuscated code object as .pyc or .pyo file
Those obfuscated file (.pyc or .pyo) can be used by normal python interpreter, when those code object is called first time
First op is JUMP_ABSOLUTE, it will jump to offset n
At offset n, the instruction is to call a PyCFunction. This function will restore those obfuscated bytecode between offset 3 and n, and put the original byte-code at offset 0. The obfuscated code can be got by the following code
char *obfucated_bytecode;
Py_ssize_t len;
PyFrameObject* frame = PyEval_GetFrame();
PyCodeObject *f_code = frame->f_code;
PyObject *co_code = f_code->co_code;
PyBytes_AsStringAndSize(co_code, &obfucated_bytecode, &len)
After this function returns, the last instruction is to jump to
offset 0. The really byte-code now is executed.
There is a tool Pyarmor to obfuscate python scripts by this way.

There is a comprehensive answer on concealing the python source code, which can be find here.
Possible techniques discussed are:
- use compiled bytecode (python -m compileall)
- executable creators (or installers like PyInstaller)
- software as an service (the best solution to conceal your code in my opinion)
- python source code obfuscators

using cxfreeze ( py2exe for linux ) will do the job.
http://cx-freeze.sourceforge.net/
it is available in ubuntu repositories

If we focus on software licensing, I would recommend to take a look at another Stack Overflow answer I wrote here to get some inspiration of how a license key verification system can be constructed.
There is an open-source library on GitHub that can help you with the license verification bit.
You can install it by pip install licensing and then add the following code:
pubKey = "<RSAKeyValue><Modulus>sGbvxwdlDbqFXOMlVUnAF5ew0t0WpPW7rFpI5jHQOFkht/326dvh7t74RYeMpjy357NljouhpTLA3a6idnn4j6c3jmPWBkjZndGsPL4Bqm+fwE48nKpGPjkj4q/yzT4tHXBTyvaBjA8bVoCTnu+LiC4XEaLZRThGzIn5KQXKCigg6tQRy0GXE13XYFVz/x1mjFbT9/7dS8p85n8BuwlY5JvuBIQkKhuCNFfrUxBWyu87CFnXWjIupCD2VO/GbxaCvzrRjLZjAngLCMtZbYBALksqGPgTUN7ZM24XbPWyLtKPaXF2i4XRR9u6eTj5BfnLbKAU5PIVfjIS+vNYYogteQ==</Modulus><Exponent>AQAB</Exponent></RSAKeyValue>"
res = Key.activate(token="WyIyNTU1IiwiRjdZZTB4RmtuTVcrQlNqcSszbmFMMHB3aWFJTlBsWW1Mbm9raVFyRyJd",\
rsa_pub_key=pubKey,\
product_id=3349, key="ICVLD-VVSZR-ZTICT-YKGXL", machine_code=Helpers.GetMachineCode())
if res[0] == None not Helpers.IsOnRightMachine(res[0]):
print("An error occured: {0}".format(res[1]))
else:
print("Success")
You can read more about the way the RSA public key, etc are configured here.

I documented how to obfuscate the python by converting it to .so file, and converting it to a python wheel file:
https://github.com/UM-NLP/python-obfuscation

How to create exe file from Python that is impossible to decode back to python? [duplicate]

I am developing a piece of software in Python that will be distributed to my employer's customers. My employer wants to limit the usage of the software with a time-restricted license file.
If we distribute the .py files or even .pyc files it will be easy to (decompile and) remove the code that checks the license file.
Another aspect is that my employer does not want the code to be read by our customers, fearing that the code may be stolen or at least the "novel ideas".
Is there a good way to handle this problem?

Python, being a byte-code-compiled interpreted language, is very difficult to lock down. Even if you use a exe-packager like py2exe, the layout of the executable is well-known, and the Python byte-codes are well understood.
Usually in cases like this, you have to make a tradeoff. How important is it really to protect the code? Are there real secrets in there (such as a key for symmetric encryption of bank transfers), or are you just being paranoid? Choose the language that lets you develop the best product quickest, and be realistic about how valuable your novel ideas are.
If you decide you really need to enforce the license check securely, write it as a small C extension so that the license check code can be extra-hard (but not impossible!) to reverse engineer, and leave the bulk of your code in Python.

Python is not the tool you need
You must use the right tool to do the right thing, and Python was not designed to be obfuscated. It's the contrary; everything is open or easy to reveal or modify in Python because that's the language's philosophy.
If you want something you can't see through, look for another tool. This is not a bad thing, it is important that several different tools exist for different usages.
Obfuscation is really hard
Even compiled programs can be reverse-engineered so don't think that you can fully protect any code. You can analyze obfuscated PHP, break the flash encryption key, etc. Newer versions of Windows are cracked every time.
Having a legal requirement is a good way to go
You cannot prevent somebody from misusing your code, but you can easily discover if someone does. Therefore, it's just a casual legal issue.
Code protection is overrated
Nowadays, business models tend to go for selling services instead of products. You cannot copy a service, pirate nor steal it. Maybe it's time to consider to go with the flow...

Compile python and distribute binaries!
Sensible idea:
Use Cython, Nuitka, Shed Skin or something similar to compile python to C code, then distribute your app as python binary libraries (pyd) instead.
That way, no Python (byte) code is left and you've done any reasonable amount of obscurification anyone (i.e. your employer) could expect from regular Code, I think. (.NET or Java less safe than this case, as that bytecode is not obfuscated and can relatively easily be decompiled into reasonable source.)
Cython is getting more and more compatible with CPython, so I think it should work. (I'm actually considering this for our product.. We're already building some thirdparty libs as pyd/dlls, so shipping our own python code as binaries is not a overly big step for us.)
See This Blog Post (not by me) for a tutorial on how to do it. (thx #hithwen)
Crazy idea:
You could probably get Cython to store the C-files separately for each module, then just concatenate them all and build them with heavy inlining. That way, your Python module is pretty monolithic and difficult to chip at with common tools.
Beyond crazy:
You might be able to build a single executable if you can link to (and optimize with) the python runtime and all libraries (dlls) statically. That way, it'd sure be difficult to intercept calls to/from python and whatever framework libraries you use. This cannot be done if you're using LGPL code though.

I understand that you want your customers to use the power of python but do not want expose the source code.
Here are my suggestions:
(a) Write the critical pieces of the code as C or C++ libraries and then use SIP or swig to expose the C/C++ APIs to Python namespace.
(b) Use cython instead of Python
(c) In both (a) and (b), it should be possible to distribute the libraries as licensed binary with a Python interface.

Have you had a look at pyminifier? It does Minify, obfuscate, and compress Python code. The example code looks pretty nasty for casual reverse engineering.
$ pyminifier --nonlatin --replacement-length=50 /tmp/tumult.py
#!/usr/bin/env python3
ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲמּ=ImportError
ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ燱=print
ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ巡=False
ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ澨=object
try:
import demiurgic
except ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲמּ:
ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ燱("Warning: You're not demiurgic. Actually, I think that's normal.")
try:
import mystificate
except ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲמּ:
ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ燱("Warning: Dark voodoo may be unreliable.")
ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲﺬ=ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ巡
class ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ𐦚(ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ澨):
def __init__(self,*args,**kwargs):
pass
def ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ클(self,dactyl):
ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ퐐=demiurgic.palpitation(dactyl)
ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ𠛲=mystificate.dark_voodoo(ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ퐐)
return ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ𠛲
def ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ𐠯(self,whatever):
ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ燱(whatever)
if __name__=="__main__":
ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ燱("Forming...")
ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲﺃ=ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ𐦚("epicaricacy","perseverate")
ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲﺃ.ﺭ异𞸐𐤔ﭞﰣﺁں𝕌𨿩𞸇뻛𐬑𥰫嬭ﱌ𢽁𐡆𧪮Ꝫﴹ뙫𢤴퉊ﳦﲣפּܟﺶ𐐤ﶨࠔ𐰷𢡶𧐎𐭈𞸏𢢘𦘼ﶻ𩏃𦽨𞺎𠛘𐠲䉊ﰸﭳᣲ𐠯("Codswallop")
# Created by pyminifier (https://github.com/liftoff/pyminifier)

Is your employer aware that he can "steal" back any ideas that other people get from your code? I mean, if they can read your work, so can you theirs. Maybe looking at how you can benefit from the situation would yield a better return of your investment than fearing how much you could lose.
[EDIT] Answer to Nick's comment:
Nothing gained and nothing lost. The customer has what he wants (and paid for it since he did the change himself). Since he doesn't release the change, it's as if it didn't happen for everyone else.
Now if the customer sells the software, they have to change the copyright notice (which is illegal, so you can sue and will win -> simple case).
If they don't change the copyright notice, the 2nd level customers will notice that the software comes from you original and wonder what is going on. Chances are that they will contact you and so you will learn about the reselling of your work.
Again we have two cases: The original customer sold only a few copies. That means they didn't make much money anyway, so why bother. Or they sold in volume. That means better chances for you to learn about what they do and do something about it.
But in the end, most companies try to comply to the law (once their reputation is ruined, it's much harder to do business). So they will not steal your work but work with you to improve it. So if you include the source (with a license that protects you from simple reselling), chances are that they will simply push back changes they made since that will make sure the change is in the next version and they don't have to maintain it. That's win-win: You get changes and they can make the change themselves if they really, desperately need it even if you're unwilling to include it in the official release.

Use Cython. It will compile your modules to high-performant C files, which can then be compiled to native binary libraries. This is basically un-reversable, compared to .pyc bytecode!
I've written a detailed article on how to set up Cython for a Python project, check it out:
Protecting Python Sources With Cython

Do not rely on obfuscation. As You have correctly concluded, it offers very limited protection.
UPDATE: Here is a link to paper which reverse engineered obfuscated python code in Dropbox. The approach - opcode remapping is a good barrier, but clearly it can be defeated.
Instead, as many posters have mentioned make it:
Not worth reverse engineering time (Your software is so good, it makes sense to pay)
Make them sign a contract and do a license audit if feasible.
Alternatively, as the kick-ass Python IDE WingIDE does: Give away the code. That's right, give the code away and have people come back for upgrades and support.

Shipping .pyc files has its problems - they are not compatible with any other python version than the python version they were created with, which means you must know which python version is running on the systems the product will run on. That's a very limiting factor.

In some circumstances, it may be possible to move (all, or at least a key part) of the software into a web service that your organization hosts.
That way, the license checks can be performed in the safety of your own server room.

Though there's no perfect solution, the following can be done:
Move some critical piece of startup code into a native library.
Enforce the license check in the native library.
If the call to the native code were to be removed, the program wouldn't start anyway. If it's not removed then the license will be enforced.
Though this is not a cross-platform or a pure-Python solution, it will work.

I was surprised in not seeing pyconcrete in any answer. Maybe because it's newer than the question?
It could be exactly what you need(ed).
Instead of obfuscating the code, it encrypts it and decrypts at load time.
From pypi page:
Protect python script work flow
your_script.py import pyconcrete
pyconcrete will hook import module
when your script do import MODULE,
pyconcrete import hook will try to find MODULE.pye first and then
decrypt MODULE.pye via _pyconcrete.pyd and execute decrypted data (as
.pyc content)
encrypt & decrypt secret key record in _pyconcrete.pyd
(like DLL or SO) the secret key would be hide in binary code, can’t
see it directly in HEX view

The reliable only way to protect code is to run it on a server you control and provide your clients with a client which interfaces with that server.

Depending in who the client is, a simple protection mechanism, combined with a sensible license agreement will be far more effective than any complex licensing/encryption/obfuscation system.
The best solution would be selling the code as a service, say by hosting the service, or offering support - although that isn't always practical.
Shipping the code as .pyc files will prevent your protection being foiled by a few #s, but it's hardly effective anti-piracy protection (as if there is such a technology), and at the end of the day, it shouldn't achieve anything that a decent license agreement with the company will.
Concentrate on making your code as nice to use as possible - having happy customers will make your company far more money than preventing some theoretical piracy..

Another attempt to make your code harder to steal is to use jython and then use java obfuscator.
This should work pretty well as jythonc translate python code to java and then java is compiled to bytecode. So ounce you obfuscate the classes it will be really hard to understand what is going on after decompilation, not to mention recovering the actual code.
The only problem with jython is that you can't use python modules written in c.

You should take a look at how the guys at getdropbox.com do it for their client software, including Linux. It's quite tricky to crack and requires some quite creative disassembly to get past the protection mechanisms.

The best you can do with Python is to obscure things.
Strip out all docstrings
Distribute only the .pyc compiled files.
freeze it
Obscure your constants inside a class/module so that help(config) doesn't show everything
You may be able to add some additional obscurity by encrypting part of it and decrypting it on the fly and passing it to eval(). But no matter what you do someone can break it.
None of this will stop a determined attacker from disassembling the bytecode or digging through your api with help, dir, etc.

What about signing your code with standard encryption schemes by hashing and signing important files and checking it with public key methods?
In this way you can issue license file with a public key for each customer.
Additional you can use an python obfuscator like this one (just googled it).

I have looked at software protection in general for my own projects and the general philosophy is that complete protection is impossible. The only thing that you can hope to achieve is to add protection to a level that would cost your customer more to bypass than it would to purchase another license.
With that said I was just checking google for python obsfucation and not turning up a lot of anything. In a .Net solution, obsfucation would be a first approach to your problem on a windows platform, but I am not sure if anyone has solutions on Linux that work with Mono.
The next thing would be to write your code in a compiled language, or if you really want to go all the way, then in assembler. A stripped out executable would be a lot harder to decompile than an interpreted language.
It all comes down to tradeoffs. On one end you have ease of software development in python, in which it is also very hard to hide secrets. On the other end you have software written in assembler which is much harder to write, but is much easier to hide secrets.
Your boss has to choose a point somewhere along that continuum that supports his requirements. And then he has to give you the tools and time so you can build what he wants. However my bet is that he will object to real development costs versus potential monetary losses.

Neiher Cython nor Nuitka were not the answer, because when running the solution that is compiled with Nuitka or Cython into .pyd or .exe files a cache directory is generated and all .pyc files are copied into the cache directory, so an attacker simply can decompile .pyc files and see your code or change it.

It is possible to have the py2exe byte-code in a crypted resource for a C launcher that loads and executes it in memory. Some ideas here and here.
Some have also thought of a self modifying program to make reverse engineering expensive.
You can also find tutorials for preventing debuggers, make the disassembler fail, set false debugger breakpoints and protect your code with checksums. Search for ["crypted code" execute "in memory"] for more links.
But as others already said, if your code is worth it, reverse engineers will succeed in the end.

Use the same way to protect binary file of c/c++, that is, obfuscate each function body in executable or library binary file, insert an instruction "jump" at the begin of each function entry, jump to special function to restore obfuscated code. Byte-code is binary code of Python script, so
First compile python script to code object
Then iterate each code object, obfuscate co_code of each code object as the following
0 JUMP_ABSOLUTE n = 3 + len(bytecode)
3
...
... Here it's obfuscated bytecode
...
n LOAD_GLOBAL ? (__pyarmor__)
n+3 CALL_FUNCTION 0
n+6 POP_TOP
n+7 JUMP_ABSOLUTE 0
Save obfuscated code object as .pyc or .pyo file
Those obfuscated file (.pyc or .pyo) can be used by normal python interpreter, when those code object is called first time
First op is JUMP_ABSOLUTE, it will jump to offset n
At offset n, the instruction is to call a PyCFunction. This function will restore those obfuscated bytecode between offset 3 and n, and put the original byte-code at offset 0. The obfuscated code can be got by the following code
char *obfucated_bytecode;
Py_ssize_t len;
PyFrameObject* frame = PyEval_GetFrame();
PyCodeObject *f_code = frame->f_code;
PyObject *co_code = f_code->co_code;
PyBytes_AsStringAndSize(co_code, &obfucated_bytecode, &len)
After this function returns, the last instruction is to jump to
offset 0. The really byte-code now is executed.
There is a tool Pyarmor to obfuscate python scripts by this way.

There is a comprehensive answer on concealing the python source code, which can be find here.
Possible techniques discussed are:
- use compiled bytecode (python -m compileall)
- executable creators (or installers like PyInstaller)
- software as an service (the best solution to conceal your code in my opinion)
- python source code obfuscators

using cxfreeze ( py2exe for linux ) will do the job.
http://cx-freeze.sourceforge.net/
it is available in ubuntu repositories

If we focus on software licensing, I would recommend to take a look at another Stack Overflow answer I wrote here to get some inspiration of how a license key verification system can be constructed.
There is an open-source library on GitHub that can help you with the license verification bit.
You can install it by pip install licensing and then add the following code:
pubKey = "<RSAKeyValue><Modulus>sGbvxwdlDbqFXOMlVUnAF5ew0t0WpPW7rFpI5jHQOFkht/326dvh7t74RYeMpjy357NljouhpTLA3a6idnn4j6c3jmPWBkjZndGsPL4Bqm+fwE48nKpGPjkj4q/yzT4tHXBTyvaBjA8bVoCTnu+LiC4XEaLZRThGzIn5KQXKCigg6tQRy0GXE13XYFVz/x1mjFbT9/7dS8p85n8BuwlY5JvuBIQkKhuCNFfrUxBWyu87CFnXWjIupCD2VO/GbxaCvzrRjLZjAngLCMtZbYBALksqGPgTUN7ZM24XbPWyLtKPaXF2i4XRR9u6eTj5BfnLbKAU5PIVfjIS+vNYYogteQ==</Modulus><Exponent>AQAB</Exponent></RSAKeyValue>"
res = Key.activate(token="WyIyNTU1IiwiRjdZZTB4RmtuTVcrQlNqcSszbmFMMHB3aWFJTlBsWW1Mbm9raVFyRyJd",\
rsa_pub_key=pubKey,\
product_id=3349, key="ICVLD-VVSZR-ZTICT-YKGXL", machine_code=Helpers.GetMachineCode())
if res[0] == None not Helpers.IsOnRightMachine(res[0]):
print("An error occured: {0}".format(res[1]))
else:
print("Success")
You can read more about the way the RSA public key, etc are configured here.

I documented how to obfuscate the python by converting it to .so file, and converting it to a python wheel file:
https://github.com/UM-NLP/python-obfuscation

Create irreversible exe file from python [duplicate]

I'm creating a program in python (2.7) and I want to protect it from reverse engineering.
I compiled it using cx_freeze (supplies basic security- obfuscation and anti-debugging)
How can I add more protections such as obfuscation, packing, anti-debugging, encrypt the code recognize VM.
I thought maybe to encrypt to payload and decrypt it on run time, but I have no clue how to do it.

Generally speaking, it's almost impossible for you to make your program unbreakable as long as there's enough motive for the hackers.
But still you can make it harder to be reverse engineered, try to use cython to compile your core codes into pyd or so files.

There's no way to make anything digital safe nowadays.
What you CAN do is making it hard to a point where it's frustrating to do it, but I admit I don't know python specific ways to achieve that. The amount of security of your program is not actually a function of programsecurity, but of psychology.
Yes, psychology.
Given the fact that it's an arms race between crackers and anti-crackers, where both continuously attempt to top each other, the only thing one can do is trying to make it as frustrating as possible. How do we achieve that?
By being a pain in the rear!
Every additional step you take to make sure your code is hard to decipher is a good one.
For example could you turn your program into a single compiled block of bytecode, which you call from inside your program. Use an external library to encrypt it beforehand and decrypt it afterwards. Do the same with extra steps for codeblocks of functions. Or, have functions in precompiled blocks ready, but broken. At runtime, utilizing byteplay, repair the bytecode with bytes depending on other bytes of different functions, which would then stop your program from working when modified.
There are lots of ways of messing with people's heads and while I can't tell you any python specific ways, if you think in context of "How to be difficult", you'll find the weirdest ways of making it a mess to deal with your code.
Funnily enough this is much easier in assembly, than python, so maybe you should look into executing foreign code via ctypes or whatever.
Summon your inner Troll!

Story time: I was a Python programmer for a long time. Recently I joined in a company as a Python programmer. My manager was a Java programmer for a decade I guess. He gave me a project and at the initial review, he asked me that are we obfuscating the code? and I said, we don't do that kind of thing in Python. He said we do that kind of things in Java and we want the same thing to be implemented in python. Eventually I managed to obfuscate code just removing comments and spaces and renaming local variables) but entire python debugging process got messed up.
Then he asked me, Can we use ProGuard? I didn't know what the hell it was. After some googling I said it is for Java and cannot be used in Python. I also said whatever we are building we deploy in our own servers, so we don't need to actually protect the code. But he was reluctant and said, we have a set of procedures and they must be followed before deploying.
Eventually I quit my job after a year tired of fighting to convince them Python is not Java. I also had no interest in making them to think differently at that point of time.
TLDR; Because of the open source nature of the Python, there are no viable tools available to obfuscate or encrypt your code. I also don't think it is not a problem as long as you deploy the code in your own server (providing software as a service). But if you actually provide the product to the customer, there are some tools available to wrap up your code or byte code and give it like a executable file. But it is always possible to view your code if they want to. Or you choose some other language that provides better protection if it is absolutely necessary to protect your code. Again keep in mind that it is always possible to do reverse engineering on the code.

protect python code from reverse engineering

I'm creating a program in python (2.7) and I want to protect it from reverse engineering.
I compiled it using cx_freeze (supplies basic security- obfuscation and anti-debugging)
How can I add more protections such as obfuscation, packing, anti-debugging, encrypt the code recognize VM.
I thought maybe to encrypt to payload and decrypt it on run time, but I have no clue how to do it.

Generally speaking, it's almost impossible for you to make your program unbreakable as long as there's enough motive for the hackers.
But still you can make it harder to be reverse engineered, try to use cython to compile your core codes into pyd or so files.

Compilers targeting .pyc files?

Out of curiosity, are there many compilers out there which target .pyc files?
After a bit of Googling, the only two I can find are:
unholy: why_'s Ruby-to-pyc compiler
Python: The PSF's Python to pyc compiler
So… Are there any more?
(as a side note, I got thinking about this because I want to write a Scheme-to-pyc compiler)
(as a second side note, I'm not under any illusion that a Scheme-to-pyc compiler would be useful, but it would give me an incredible excuse to learn some internals of both Scheme and Python)

"I want to write a Scheme-to-pyc compiler".
My brain hurts! Why would you want to do that? Python byte code is an intermediate language specifically designed to meet the needs of the Python language and designed to run on Python virtual machines that, again, have been tailored to the needs of Python. Some of the most important areas of Python development these days are moving Python to other "virtual machines", such as Jython (JVM), IronPython (.NET), PyPy and the Unladen Swallow project (moving CPython to an LLVM-based representation). Trying to squeeze the syntax and semantics of another, very different language (Scheme) into the intermediate representation of another high-level language seems to be attacking the problem (whatever the problem is) at the wrong level. So, in general, it doesn't seem like there would be many .pyc compilers out there and there's a good reason for that.

I wrote a compiler several years ago which accepted a lisp-like language called "Noodle" and produced Python bytecode. While it never became particularly useful, it was a tremendously good learning experience both for understanding Common Lisp better (I copied several of its features) and for understanding Python better.
I can think of two particular cases when it might be useful to target Python bytecode directly, instead of producing Python and passing it on to a Python compiler:
Full closures: in Python before 3.0 (before the nonlocal keyword), you can't modify the value of a closed-over variable without resorting to bytecode hackery. You can mutate values instead, so it's common practice to have a closure referencing a list, for example, and changing the first element in it from the inner scope. That can get real annoying. The restriction is part of the syntax, though, not the Python VM. My language had explicit variable declaration, so it successfully provided "normal" closures with modifiable closed-over values.
Getting at a traceback object without referencing any builtins. Real niche case, for sure, but I used it to break an early version of the "safelite" jail. See my posting about it.
So yeah, it's probably way more work than it's worth, but I enjoyed it, and you might too.

I suggest you focus on CPython.
http://www.network-theory.co.uk/docs/pytut/CompiledPythonfiles.html
Rather than a Scheme to .pyc translator, I suggest you write a Scheme to Python translator, and then let CPython handle the conversion to .pyc. (There is precedent for doing it this way; the first C++ compiler was Cfront which translated C++ into C, and then let the system C compiler do the rest.)
From what I know of Scheme, it wouldn't be that difficult to translate Scheme to Python.
One warning: the Python virtual machine is probably not as fast for Scheme as Scheme itself. For example, Python doesn't automatically turn tail recursion into iteration; and Python has a relatively shallow stack, so you would actually need to turn tail recursion to iteration for your translator.
As a bonus, once Unladen Swallow speeds up Python, your Scheme-to-Python translator would benefit, and at that point might even become practical!
If this seems like a fun project to you, I say go for it. Not every project has to be immediately practical.
P.S. If you want a project that is somewhat more practical, you might want to write an AWK to Python translator. That way, people with legacy AWK scripts could easily make the leap forward to Python!

Just for your interest, I have written a toy compiler from a simple LISP to Python. Practically, this is a LISP to pyc compiler.
Have a look: sinC - The tiniest LISP compiler

Probably a bit late at the party but if you're still interested the clojure-py project (https://github.com/halgari/clojure-py) is now able to compile a significant subset of clojure to python bytecode -- but some help is always welcome.
Targeting bytecode is not that hard in itself, except for one thing: it is not stable across platforms (e.g. MAKE_FUNCTION pops 2 elements from the stack in Python 3 but only 1 in Python 2), and these differences are not clearly documented in a single spot (afaict) -- so you probably have some abstraction layer needed.

We Keep Coding

Python is a programming language that lets you work quickly and integrate systems more effectively.