Nanodesu! 1.6.1

Nanodesu! 1.6.1

A boundary notice, and the false sentence it caught in its own first draft.

What was missing

The tool unpacks unknown executables and reported what it found without ever saying what it does
not establish. That is the same over-reading the project refuses elsewhere, arrived at from the
other side: extract succeeded, therefore I have the source; the repack is byte-identical, therefore
it is clean; nothing errored, therefore nothing is hidden.

BOUNDARY_NOTICE is now one constant attached to every result, printed by info and readable
directly with --boundary. Not a paragraph in a README that nobody opens — a structure that travels
with the output.

The false line, and why it is worth reporting

The first draft began:

"Nothing here creates a process, and no path in it can be made to."

That was untrue, and the test written to check it is what found out. _magic_for launches a
Python interpreter to ask for its own bytecode magic number, whenever a .pyc header is needed. It
never touches the archive under audit — but a subprocess is a subprocess, and a boundary notice that
is false in its first line is worse than no notice at all.

The line now says what actually happens, and the claim is checkable rather than merely worded
carefully: a test walks every subprocess.run call site and requires each to pass -c with a
magic-number query, and a second test requires that the archive under audit never reaches a
subprocess at all.

What it now says

• It never executes, loads or launches the archive it reads — and names the one process it can
  create.
• It does NOT address whether the program is safe, what it does when run, or whether the
  extracted bytes are what the author intended. Extraction reports structure, not intent.
• It reads [the table of contents, stored entry bytes, the PYZ]. It is NOT a decompiler, NOT a
  malware detector, and NOT a packer for anything but the archive it came from.
• A clean extraction is NOT proof of anything. A byte-identical repack proves fidelity and not
  safety; a bare marshalled code object is not source; and content that never appears in the
  table of contents is invisible to this tool entirely.

Every line names a specific over-reading, because a general caution gets skimmed.

Where this came from

The shape is taken from the Tor/Firefox posture auditor (Aragami), which attaches its own notice
verbatim to every return path — error paths included, for the reason that a failed query
returning an empty list looks a great deal like "nothing found".

Testing

141 tests (was 124), green on Python 3.9, 3.12, 3.13 and 3.14. test_boundary.py adds 17: the
notice is a list of complete sentences, it names each specific over-reading, the wrapper does not
mutate its caller's dict, the constant is one shared object rather than a copy per call, info
carries it, the source never claims the output is safe — and the process claim is verified against
the actual call sites.

---

The standalone .exe from this workflow is unsigned

The published .whl and .tar.gz on PyPI are the primary artifact and need no
signature: pip verifies them against the index hashes. The Windows executable
attached here is built by CI and carries no Authenticode signature, because the
signing certificate's private key deliberately does not exist in CI.

Signed builds are produced locally through the project's own signing pipeline. If a
signature matters for your use, build from source or use the PyPI package.