remove password protection

[Henrik_Volkers]

rolfk,

again, you don't need to know how LabVIEW codes the diagram. All it might need is to find the branch in the code where LabVIEW decides that the diagram is password 'protected' OR the entered password is right or wrong OR ??

I remember an article in a PC magazine (c't) where modern tools for code reengineering, analyzing (disassembling, marking of subroutines, variables.... ) where explained. These tools are very powerful today.

There seems to be is a market to undongle (crack) software, tools and skilled geeks are there, so is just a question of motivation ($$ or just some fun and beer, why do people climb montains?).

Message Edited by Henrik Volkers on 04-21-2009 03:30 PM

[JonDJ]

In my current workplace the previous programmer left and he locked the VI, which caused me to rebuild the VI and this cost lots of money to the company for recreation of the VI.  I contact NI and no one can help. What a waste. Beautiful program but fragile. As the maker of the software NI actually can determine the genuine request of their customer who having problems. In near future I inted to migrate out of NI

[JonDJ]

In my current workplace the previous programmer left and he locked the VI, which caused me to rebuild the VI and this cost lots of money to the company for recreation of the VI.  I contact NI and no one can help. What a waste. Beautiful program but fragile. As the maker of the software NI actually can determine the genuine request of their customer who having problems. In near future I intend to migrate out of NI

[Dennis_Knutson]

That's laughable. You would actually prefer a much weaker protection scheme with a backdoor so anyone's code could be unlocked? That would be weak.

[JonDJ]

Nop,

Just imagine you are new comer and previous programmer left..... no info were left, etc what are you going to do. If using other language I can develope interface so people can't touch my core but has flexibility with their code. Thus I do not see that it is laughable....

[Dennis_Knutson]

And if the code was encrypted with some other program (i.e. pgp), you would blame them for having something unbreakable? That is what is laughable - you blaming the toolmaker for having a good tool instead of the employee who left or your company who perhaps did not manage the departure correctly.

[GregFreeman]

---

@JonDJ wrote:

 Beautiful program but fragile.

---

Oxymoron?

[JÞB]

---

@Johnner wrote:
In case anyone is alarmed at Waldemar's proposition, I report that my LabVIEW takes around 100 ms for one unsuccessful "Set lock state" attempt. Even with a reduced valid character set of around 75, it will take my poor computer 4,000,000 years to crack an 8-character password!

Probably not a problem for the folks at NSA, but I am fairly comfortable that no armchair LabVIEW hacker is going to brute-force his/her way into my password-protected VIs (if I had any password-protected VIs). Anyone using short passwords should definitely change their ways, though.

--John

---

Well you have a better than a %50 shot of cracking it in the first 1,587,280 years!

[RavensFan]

Maybe it was such poor quality code, he didn't want anyone to see it, that's why he password protected it.

And if that's the case, you are better off figuring out what it was supposed to do and rewriting it.

[JonDJ]

The problem: I request the tool maker for help, but I only got silent from them. At least if they offer some assistant or perhaps ways to help, it would be better. Yes, beautiful program but fragile.

I believe the tool maker must support and protect the customer too.