I am looking for a method to change an ini file but keep the checksum as it was before.
I know I can try to change some bytes until the result fits.
But I would like go an programmatical way.
Any ideas are very appreciated.
Background:
program checks the crc of the ini, if it does not fit, shows a messagebox and the user has to click "ok".
The program is launched from a batch and quits automatically when its done.
Very often, there is no user, so the programm can not do his job.
Autoit or similar can not be installed.
The crc check is obsolete in the meantime.
The Program is > 10 years old and we can not reach the developer and have no sources.
Yes, it is relatively easy to modify data to get a chosen CRC, since CRCs are linear functions. My spoof program will do this for you. You choose what CRC you want and the bits in the message you will permit to be changed, and spoof will tell you which of those bits to invert.
Related
I'm considering overwriting the same small file 1,000's - 100,000's of times in an iOS app. Are there any downsides to this, given that flash memory is rated for 1000's of writes (but not, say, 100,000's)?
Will the system file cache save me if I stick to standard FileHandle operations? (without me having to implement my own such cache)
This has been addressed before: Reading/Writing to/from iPhone's Documents folder performance
Any new insights?
Update in response to some comments below: in general I agree with you that sometimes examining the choice of solution is more critical than helping with the proposed solution itself.
However, for this case, I feel the question is legit. Basically, it applies to any program where there is a small amount of very volatile data that needs to be persisted often: say, a position in a game, or a stock tick, or some counter, or the last key pressed, or something like that. It needs to be reliably read after process restart, so the app can pick up where it left off, hence the question:
Can I use the iOS file system for that? I know I can't write 10,000's of times to actual flash memory - that would burn it out. But will file system operations solve this for me, through some form of caching? Or do I need to do that myself, 'by hand'?
I sort of assume 'yes' (file system will solve) - otherwise other apps that do this (there must be some) would be burning out phones all the time! But: hard to know for sure...
Update again: asked this question on apple forums:
https://forums.developer.apple.com/thread/116740
Still no clear answer. Some answers are: just cache it yourself to avoid any such potential problems (and there can be: a file write can fail, and increasing the frequency increases the probability of failure in weird ways). Another is: iOS logs so much stuff, there's no way I can write more frequently than that, and that's fine, so no worries... I guess I'll leave this question open for now.
I am transmitting and receiving data using aux cable and GNU RADIO between two laptops.
I have implemented DQPSK using PSK mod block.
The problem is that while receiving I have to provide a delay, some integer value e.g 0,1,2 etc.
It is different every time.
Is there a way to dynamically check for the right delay value or any other workaround to this situation?
I have written 'start.' at the start of data being transmitted and 'end.' at the end.
I have to give a demo for this project and I dont want to manually change the delay at runtime.
I cannot find the .cc file of file sink in GNU RADIO, I can change the C++ code according my requirement but there is no such file.
Below is the screenshot of the grc file on the receive side.
Any help will be appreciated.
Since there's no way for the receiver to know when the transmitter started transmitting, it decodes stuff before there's actually anything to decode.
In essence, you need some kind of preamble or so to tell your receiver when to start – side effect of having something like that would be that you could correct some things (the two sound cards don't share the same oscillator, which leads to a symbol rate offset, and a center frequency offset).
You basically added that framing - your start. and end. strings.
I cannot find the .cc file of file sink in GNU RADIO, I can change the C++ code according my requirement but there is no such file.
It's in gr-blocks/lib; however, you shouldn't modify the file sink. Really,
I'd recommend you take the time to go through the guided tutorials, use gr_modtool to generate a general block which has a state machine that looks for the bits of your start string and drops everything before and including those, and then passes everything till it sees the stop string. That all can be done with a single state machine, and a bit of python or C++ code.
I am using IdHTTP.Post in my application to upload data to a server in the cloud. A DLL in the cloud saves the data to a SQL server database, and returns a simple message back to the application.
The uploaded data is simply a bunch of long strings uploaded in a loop (won't go into why here). Each string in the loop is pretty much always the same length.
For example:
For I:=1 to 10 do
begin
...
Reply:=IdHTTP.Post(URL,String);
...
end;
This works perfectly well 98% of the time. Sometimes, when the loop is more than 100 say, then 'Reply' will be blank. If I try again, then it works fine.
I tried various things, one of which is to add
Sleep(2000);
after each iteration of the loop, this also seems to do the trick!
So, in short, my upload seems to be tying itself into a knot every now and then when the upload is on the large size. Any recommendations as to how to handle this better than 'Sleep' would be appreciated.
I have not made any changes to the IdHTTP component from the default settings, apart from:
IdHTTP.ConnectTimeout:=5000;
IdHTTP.ReadTimeout :=5000;
I am using Delphi 2010.
Note that the string lengths are the same for each iteration, whether I am looping 10 times, or 100 times. So the string length itself does not seem to be the issue.
Update
So ignore pretty much most of what I thought was happening above. #Remy Lebeau correctly identified that the problem was that the reply was not being decoded correctly, and that is because IdHTTPOptions.[hoForceEncodeParams] was set to false.
The reason for this is outlined in a previous question:
Delphi TIdHTTP POST does not encode plus sign
#Remy, my version of Indy, as you pointed out in the old question, and in response to this one, is certainly outdated. I was a bit hesitant to install a later version as the install instructions looked a bit scary, and so I opted to encode manually instead in the meantime. This looks to have backfired, so will look at it now for sure.
At least now I know what is causing my problem.
I have a few follow up questions that you might be able to help me with:
I think I might be doing something wrong, but even if I set hoForceEncodeParams to True or False on the component, when looking at Fiddler, it doesn't always seem to be consistent in terms of the encoding going through to the server. I have only picked this up now because I'm looking at it in detail. The only way to be SURE of the encoding either way is to set it in the code right before posting, in other words ignore the setting on the component. Can this be correct, or what am I missing? This is why I understood the problem incorrectly in the first place, as the encoding was correct on the first iteration of the loop, but then inexplicably changed on the subsequent iterations.
With a IdHTTP.Get, I DO get a reply even if hoForceEncodeParams is set to false. Does this make sense?
I am using the following few lines of code to write and read from an external Modem/Router (aka device) via IP.
TCPClient.IOHandler.Write(MsgStr);
TCPClient.IOHandler.InputBuffer.Clear;
TCPClient.IOHandler.ReadBytes(Buffer, 10, True);
MsgStr is a string type which contains the text that I am sending to my device.
Buffer is declared as TIdBytes.
I can confirm that IOHandler.InputBufferIsEmpty returns True immediately prior to calling ReadBytes.
I'm expecting the first 10 bytes received to be very specific hence from my point of view I am only interested in the first 10 bytes received after I've sent my string.
The trouble I am having is, when talking to certain devices, the first byte returned the first time I've sent a string after establishing a connection puts a rogue (random) byte in my Buffer output. The subsequent bytes following are correct.
eg 10 bytes I'm expecting might be: #6A1EF1090#3 but what I get is .#6A1EF1090. in this example I have a full stop where there shouldn't be one.
If I try to send again, it works fine. (ie the 2nd Write sent after a connection has been established). What's weird (to me) is using a Socket Sniffer doesn't show the random byte being returned. If I create my own "server" to receive the response and send something back it works fine 100% of the time. Other software - ie, not my software - communicates fine with the device (but of course I have no idea how they're parsing the data).
Is there anything that I'm doing incorrectly above that would cause this - bearing in mind it only occurs the first time I'm using Write after establishing a connection?
Thanks
EDIT
I'm using Delphi 7 and Indy 10.5.8
UPDATE
Ok. After much testing and looking, I am no closer to finding this solution. I am getting two main scenarios. 1 - First byte missing and 2 - "introduced" byte at the start of received packet. Using TIdLogEvent and TIdLogDebug both either show the missing byte or the initial introduced byte as appropriate. So my ReadBytes statement above is showing consistently what Indy believes is there (in my opinion).
Also, to test it further, I downloaded and installed ICS components. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it) this didn't show the same issues as Indy. This didn't show the first byte missing nor did it show an introduced byte at the beginning. However, I have only done superficial testing, but Indy produces the behaviour "pretty much straight away" whereas ICS hasn't produced it at all yet.
If anyone is interested I can supply a small demo app illustrating the issue and IP I connect to - it's a public IP so anyone can access it. Otherwise for now, I'll just have to work around it. I'm reluctant to switch to ICS as ICS may work fine in this instance and given the use of this socket stuff is pretty much the whole crux of the program, it would be nasty to have to entirely replace Indy with ICS.
The last parameter (True)
TCPClient.IOHandler.ReadBytes(Buffer, 10, True);
causes the read to append instead of replace the buffer content.
This requires that size and content of the buffer are set up correctly first.
If the parameter is False, the buffer content will be replaced for the given number of bytes.
ReadBytes() does not inject rogue bytes into the buffer, so there are only two possibilities I can think of right now given the limited information you have provided:
The device really is sending an extra byte upon initial connection, like mj2008 suggested. If a packet sniffer is not detecting it, try attaching one of Indy's own TIdLog... components to your TIdTCPClient, such as TIdLogFile or TIdLogEvent, to verify what TIdTCPClient is actually receiving from the socket.
you have another thread reading from the same connection at the same time, corrupting the InputBuffer. Even a call to TIdTCPClient.Connected() will perform a read. Don't perform reads in multiple threads at the same time, if you are using the threads.
I'm looking to add a 14-Day trial limit to my software. The program has been written in Delphi 7.
Any help would be much appreciated.
You could try Turbopower OnGuard. This is now opensource.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/tponguard/
There are several tricks you can use, but none of them 100% fail save.
You can use some kind of licensing mechanism.
You can store the setup time somewhere hidden in the registry.
You can store the setup time in a file (possibly an executable file or dll).
You can store the IP address in a central database and check each time if the 14 days are passed (you need a internet connection for that).
You can create a file (for example a dll) dynamically on your server and have the installer retreive that file. (Be sure to log the IP so a second attempt will not be possible).
But I think the best way, is to give trial versions with limited functionality. For example: No printing, no save of project, or only small projects can be saved.
That way you avoid the hassle and possible clients can take the time to evaluate your project.
EDIT: If you build a mechanism to check against roling back the clock. Be sure to build in a margin, else the program will be locked if you travel back to an other timezone. Or put the clock back in wintertime. I think a margin of 25 hour will cover everything. (And to be at the save side, you can build in a limit else, the user can roll back the time each day.).
But the best way to keep paying customers, is giving good support. I discontinue products if the service is bad.
One of the things you need to guard against with a time-limited application is users' rolling their calendar back so the application still works. One way around this is to store in your hidden registry place (or wherever) a timestamp whenever the application is started up. If the current date/time is ever earlier than the last timestamp recorded by your app, that means the user has rolled the calendar back and you should disable the application.
Time-limitation is a real pain, though, both for the programmer and the user. It's also not a great marketing idea: why go to the trouble of distributing promotional material (which is what your trial version is) that has an expiration date? It would be like a company mailing out advertisements on paper designed to disintegrate after two weeks.
If your trial version is functionally crippled instead, you might still get sales out of it even months or years later.
You can find the similar question here.
On general note i find time restriction much more useful than functionality restriction. As i explained in the comment to Gamecat post
something to be aware of when performing any of these checks. That the date is never GREATER than 14 days from the date you entered in either direction. A common method around most of these types of limits is to set the date a few years in advance, install and run your software, then set the date back to the current time. If you are hard coded to die 14 days from the original start date, then the user has a few years to try your software. Checking the other direction also gives the user at most 28 days.
I have used Armadillo, Asprotect and Winlicense. Both Armadillo and Asprotect have had serious problems, such as being considered viruses/trojans by some AVs, incompatibility problems, etc.
I haven't used Winlicense enough to have much of an opinion, but support is pretty great.
Obviously both are more complete solutions than what you are asking for - they include protection, licensing, keys, etc.
As mentioned by others, sometimes limiting a feature or adding a watermark is the best option. I've added a watermark to one of my programs (STGThumb) and sales went up about 400%...
I would recommend making a trial serial number with timestamp and force user to enter it into software when its installed. You can even automate it by calling server side page after setup is done.
Timestamp in trial serial key allows you to extend their trial if needed.
In addition you can count backwards to avoid user from changing year when installing:
e.g. if you have 14 days trial generated at 15.11.2008 (server time), you can check that locate date must be greater than 1.11.2008 or less than 24.11.2008 always when serial is used or entered.
You can use a professional tool as SoftwareShield.
I use it in our apps and it provides several licence's models, including timelimited demo.
I created my own key generater (separate program for creating keys). The key values are stored in a binary file with the same name as my program, just a different ext. Example: myprogram.key
I store:
Name
Email
RegType (REG, TRIAL)
RegDate
FirstRun (0 OR 1)
The program looks for the file. If it is not there, it throws a message to the user and closes. The key file generator writes the values in encrypted strings which are then written using the built in stream routines.
I create a TRIAL Key that i distribute with the program. If someone registers, i then create them an official REG key.
Anway, if they are running my program, it first looks for the key file. if found, it checks the reg type, if its a regitered version, then the program loads, and the registration info is displayed. I also store a regdate, which i compare with the day the program runs and - if the regdate is greater than or equal to todays date, the user get sprompted to re-register.
If it finds that the key file stores a RegType of TRIAL, then the date they first ran it is stored in the keyfile, and the flag first run is set to 1. They can then use it for 14 days. Each time they run the program, the date stored is compared with the running date.
Very simple process to write. Is it fool proof? NO, nothing is! I have had great success with my app. Its not wide known, so there are no hackers lookijng to hack it.
The best would be to get the registration info from your server.
The big drawback: 1. The server must be ALWAYS online! 2. The user must be connected to internet (when it uses your app).
To get you started you can use a Delphi license management library to help you encrypt the license info and generate a string-based key that you can send to your customers upon registration. There are quite few libraries out there.
Anyway, whatever you send to your server needs to be based on the hardware fingerprint of that computer. Otherwise your license key will leak out on some warez website and everyone will be able to use that key. But if the key is hardware-based it would be useless if it is leaked on Internet.
And don't over do it! There is no such thing as unbreakable software protection. If Microsoft could not do it, you will not do it. Concentrate on adding nice features to your app instead of creating a bullet proof protection system (which is not possible).