of     1   

#228425076Monday, December 04, 2017 1:47 PM GMT

I'm experienced with this kind of thing, and I might've actually forgotten, but I still ask myself to this day: What is the accomplishment of nuking a ModuleScript's enviroment? Why is it necessary to set variables that I need from the enviroment into local variables afterwards? If there were any reasons, why not just: local e=getfenv() e.print("Hello, world!") or script = nil
#228425600Monday, December 04, 2017 2:24 PM GMT

Because if someone would manage to get your modulescript's env, they wouldnt be able to access local variables, as they arent saved in the env, but in the scope.
#228426530Monday, December 04, 2017 3:12 PM GMT

if you set the parent to nil it can still be accessable by a exploit that has getnilinstances so its not really nuking the env if you really wanted to nuke you would have to unsandbox the env probably idk but you could like use every lua variable like _G and nil it idk
#228426765Monday, December 04, 2017 3:23 PM GMT

^ Ignore that cancer. "What is the accomplishment of nuking a ModuleScript's enviroment?" Nothing. It is a panic response to a problem you don't understand. If you really want to protect your private modules you have to understand how they work and how they can be stolen.

    of     1