update

Author: MushStory

_posts/en/2026-08-08-shc-vs-himitsushell.md

@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ title: "Comparing Shell Script Protection Tools: shc vs HimitsuShell (Binary Com
 Now let's walk through the comparison item by item.
 
 ## Test Environment
-The following shell script is used on Ubuntu 24.04.
+The following shell script was tested on Ubuntu 24.04.
 
 ![Test shell script](/assets/images/shc-vs-himitsushell/1.png)
 
@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ As shown above, there's a clear difference in security strength between shc and
 
 ## Additional Comparison
 There's also [ssc](https://github.com/liberize/ssc), which improves on shc.  
-It addresses some of the issues (dynamic library hooking defense, string obfuscation), but still has limitations around advanced obfuscation and OS-level logging/hooking defense.
+It addresses some of the issues (protection against dynamic library hooking, string obfuscation), but still has limitations around advanced obfuscation and protection against OS-level logging/hooking.
 
 **Notably, while ssc doesn't depend on the system shell, at runtime it extracts the interpreter (e.g., /bin/sh) to the path /tmp/ssc/XXXXXX and passes the shell script to it. This means logging or hooking that path leaves the shell script vulnerable to extraction.**
 

_posts/en/2026-08-09-shc-security-analysis.md

@@ -16,11 +16,11 @@ A binary built with shc runs the shell script by passing it to the system shell
 Let's actually test this and confirm the vulnerability.
 
 ## Test Environment
-The following shell script is used on ubuntu 24.04.
+The following shell script was tested on Ubuntu 24.04.
 
 ![Shell script used for testing](/assets/images/shc-security-analysis/2.png)
 
-Proceed with [maximum security strength](https://github.com/neurobin/shc/blob/master/man.md) as shown below.
+Build the binary at [maximum security level](https://github.com/neurobin/shc/blob/master/man.md) as shown below.
 
 ```shell
 shc -Uf launcher.sh -o shc_binary

_posts/en/2026-08-10-ssc-security-analysis.md

@@ -18,11 +18,11 @@ A binary built with ssc briefly drops the embedded shell interpreter (e.g., Busy
 Let's test this directly and confirm the vulnerability.
 
 ## Test Environment
-We'll use the shell script below on ubuntu 24.04.
+The following shell script was tested on Ubuntu 24.04.
 
 ![Test shell script](/assets/images/ssc-security-analysis/2.png)
 
-We'll proceed with the [shell interpreter (BusyBox) embedded](https://github.com/liberize/ssc/tree/master/examples/4_embed_interpreter) as shown below.
+We'll build the binary with the [shell interpreter (BusyBox) embedded](https://github.com/liberize/ssc/tree/master/examples/4_embed_interpreter), as shown below.
 
 ```shell
 ./ssc test ssc_binary -s -r -e busybox -c
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ sudo bpftrace -e 'tracepoint:syscalls:sys_enter_write /comm == "ssc_binary"/ { p
 ./ssc_binary
 ```
 
-**As shown in the red box in the image below, bpftrace (kernel tracing tool) makes it easy to capture the shell script.**
+**As shown in the red box in the image below, bpftrace (a kernel tracing tool) makes it easy to capture the shell script.**
 
 ![Terminal 2 monitoring result](/assets/images/ssc-security-analysis/3.png)