decompiling 2009 executable

[Christian Mergl]

Today I have learned something new, thank you LVProggy!

I thought you just have to add NIs EULA or your own and this copyright sentence in a readme file, but not in the about window.

[lvproggy]

I'm glad I could help. I wish others could help to solve the original issue here in stead of trying to make us believe it doesn't exist .

Maybe we could convince NI to build more security in the files or VIs in the EXE, such that they can't be opened seperately, that can't be to hard I would think.

[hecmar.arreola]

---

Christian_M wrote:

lvproggy said "...in the about box we must advertise that it's build with labview...."

This is not true. When distributing an application you are not required to include any extra copyright information concerning NI!

Christian

---

Isn't the NI LabVIEW Runtime required?  This is a tell-tell if the copyright information concerning NI is not.

Although these concerns do not apply to me and how I use my code (everything is kept in house), I do see other people's points and concerns as valid.  Also, decompiling a DLL is not just as easy as pulling VIs out of a compiled LabVIEW .exe and then using them so I disagree there.  I guess it comes down to intent, if you want to use a VI in a compiled EXE it is very accessable (as long as it isn't obscured).  If you want the original source block diagram then that is much harder to get to.

It wouldn't hurt anybody if LabVIEW had an obscure compiled code option.

[rolfk]

---

lvproggy wrote:

I'm glad I could help. I wish others could help to solve the original issue here in stead of trying to make us believe it doesn't exist .

Maybe we could convince NI to build more security in the files or VIs in the EXE, such that they can't be opened seperately, that can't be to hard I would think.

---

They can hide it so you won't find it. But it's still secuity through obscurity. And there are many more people that can crack a Windows executable to the point that they get actually to the equivalent of working source code, especially when you work with modern environments like .Net than there are who know how to get at the internals of a LabVIEW program.

Using obfuscating packers can add some obstacle to that but it does not prevent the determined to crack them anyhow.

[TCPlomp]

One of the first things I learned when looking at this.

If you think your software is worth stealing, it is allready stolen.

But the issue with a global VI visible, is that you created a security hole by having an FP that contains sensitive information open in the world somehow.

But I agree I consider a license like a lock in the real world.

If they want to break in into my house to take something, they can always through a brick through the window to get in.

A lock (or license) is more (IMHO) a statement like 'no trespassing'.

Ton

[Aashish_M]

This issue has been noted and filed as a corrective action report under CAR 201140.

R&D will be looking further into this issue of extracting LabVIEW executables.

Thank you all for the feedback.

Message Edited by Aashish_M on 01-05-2010 03:15 PM

[Sean_W]

If I'm not mistaken, this *.exe security hole has existed in LabVIEW for a long time - this is old news. The best suggestion I can offer is to hide (make invisible) all of the controls and indicators on your sub-vi's. Even after taking this action, a bad guy can still figure out the fundamental architecture of your program if you use a half-way intelligent naming scheme for your sub-vi's.

I also avoid attaching names to my queues and notifiers, because it seems to me that would be a swell way for a bad guy to snoop on the internal data communication going on within your program.

[Thomas_robertson]

I tried opening my LabVIEW 2010 application in WinRar and got the message "The archive is either in unknown format or damaged".  Has something changed in LV 2010?  

In a seperate thread I was told that you can still extract vis from LV 2010 exe's.  I'm trying to extract some of our new algorithms to see if our copyprotection mechanism works if I drop them into a separate program.

[Joe D.]

LabVIEW R&D fixed part of this in the above corrective action request.

[Thomas_robertson]

So... Can I still extract the VI's from my executable?  The rumor is that you can over here:

http://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW/Strings-being-obfuscated-in-exe-s-produced-in-LabVIEW-2010/m-p/14054...