1. Patching distributed EXE's
- Posted by chris bensler <bensler at mailops.com> Jan 24, 2001
- 606 views
Hi all, Just curious, is it possible to patch an EXE file created with EU? Chris ________________________________________________________________
2. Re: Patching distributed EXE's
- Posted by Kat <gertie at PELL.NET> Jan 24, 2001
- 542 views
On 24 Jan 2001, at 12:18, chris bensler wrote: > Hi all, > > Just curious, is it possible to patch an EXE file created with EU? Depends on what you mean by "patch". Since everything is a file of bytes, you can always replace bytes, but the code may or maynot do what you expect afterwards. Just look at microsoft, they haveto send out patches *all* the time. Kat
3. Re: Patching distributed EXE's
- Posted by Chris Bensler <bensler at MAILOPS.COM> Jan 24, 2001
- 544 views
hi, I know I can modify the binary, but I don't like that idea. Not that I have any particular need for it now, but in the future, if I want to distribute an exe, and by chance it contains an error. I would like to be able to fix it without the user having to download the entire file again, or something of similar size. I'm wondering if there's a way to re-include a source file that contains the bug fix without having to recompile the exe. Or will the patch just end up being too big? Would I have to include the compiler to do so? Do I make sense? LOL Chris Kat wrote: >On 24 Jan 2001, at 12:18, chris bensler wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Just curious, is it possible to patch an EXE file created with EU? > >Depends on what you mean by "patch". Since everything is a file of bytes, >you can always replace bytes, but the code may or maynot do what you >expect afterwards. Just look at microsoft, they haveto send out patches >*all* the time. > >Kat
4. Re: Patching distributed EXE's
- Posted by Kat <gertie at PELL.NET> Jan 24, 2001
- 530 views
On 24 Jan 2001, at 13:25, Chris Bensler wrote: > hi, > > I know I can modify the binary, but I don't like that idea. Not that I have > any particular need for it now, but in the future, if I want to distribute an > exe, and by chance it contains an error. I would like to be able to fix it > without the user having to download the entire file again, or something of > similar size. I'm wondering if there's a way to re-include a source file that > contains the bug fix without having to recompile the exe. Or will the patch > just end up being too big? Would I have to include the compiler to do so? Do I > make sense? LOL Just send them a new exe, it's safer, and will likely be smaller. MS sent out one patch that was bigger than the whole OS was. And it didn't work right. Split out the pics from the exe, and make it modular, if you want, to reduce the size of the exe, pics in one dir and exe's in another dir, then just replace everything in one directory on the hd. Kat > > Chris > > Kat wrote: > > >On 24 Jan 2001, at 12:18, chris bensler wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Just curious, is it possible to patch an EXE file created with EU? > > > >Depends on what you mean by "patch". Since everything is a file of bytes, you > >can always replace bytes, but the code may or maynot do what you expect > >afterwards. Just look at microsoft, they haveto send out patches *all* the > >time. > > > >Kat >
5. Re: Patching distributed EXE's
- Posted by "CK's Yahoo Mail" <cklester at YAHOO.COM> Jan 24, 2001
- 556 views
I don't see how sending out a new .exe is so complex. You make the fix and tell everybody it's available for download at www.such-n-such-website.com... > I know I can modify the binary, but I don't like that idea. Not that I > have any particular need for it now, but in the future, if I want to > distribute an exe, and by chance it contains an error. I would like to be > able to fix it without the user having to download the entire file again, > or something of similar size. I'm wondering if there's a way to re-include > a source file that contains the bug fix without having to recompile the > exe. Or will the patch just end up being too big? Would I have to include > the compiler to do so? _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
6. Re: Patching distributed EXE's
- Posted by Ray Smith <smithr at IX.NET.AU> Jan 24, 2001
- 536 views
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:18:46 -0500, chris bensler <bensler at MAILOPS.COM> wrote: Hi Chris, > Just curious, is it possible to patch an EXE file created with EU? One possible solution which could work in specific situations is to distribute your program as source files with the PD Euphoria interpreter. The source files are usually smaller than the exe and you can update each individual file as required. Obviosuly people will have access to your source code. I still think anything less than 1 MB can be easily re-downloaded. Ray Smith
7. Re: Patching distributed EXE's
- Posted by Tom Eklöf <darkspace at SUNPOINT.NET> Jan 25, 2001
- 575 views
> I don't see how sending out a new .exe is so complex. You make the > fix and > tell everybody it's available for download at > www.such-n-such-website.com... I think he's worried more about size than complexity. If the EXE is somet= hing around 500KB, why make modem users download the whole shebang when t= hey could just, eg. get a 5KB patch. I think "diff" would be a good bet in the Un*x-world. Any tools like it f= or Windows? If not, well, get to work already :) >> I know I can modify the binary, but I don't like that idea. Not > that I >> have any particular need for it now, but in the future, if I want to >> distribute an exe, and by chance it contains an error. I would like > to be >> able to fix it without the user having to download the entire file > again, >> or something of similar size. I'm wondering if there's a way to > re-include >> a source file that contains the bug fix without having to recompile > the >> exe. Or will the patch just end up being too big? Would I have to > include >> the compiler to do so? On a side note, I wonder if our little friend "Mike the Spike" has a bord= erline disorder? Looks like it from here. Childhood trauma resulting in i= ncomplete personality integration? Schitzotypal personality, even? Weekend psychologist, esoteric programmer extraordinaire --Tom "Rama Rama Ding Ding" Ekl=F6f DO COME FROM (2) (2) PLEASE DON'T PANIC Tiesitk=F6, ett=E4 Sunpoint.netin k=E4ytt=E4j=E4t voivat lukea s=E4hk=F6p= ostinsa my=F6s WAP-puhelimella. http://www.sunpoint.net/SunAds/click.htm?mode=3Dfooter&id=3D45&jump=3Dh= ttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.sunpoint.net%2Fwap%2F
8. Re: Patching distributed EXE's
- Posted by Euman <euman at BELLSOUTH.NET> Jan 24, 2001
- 564 views
Better read: How to Create a VIRUS - BOOK 1 - PART 1. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Ekl=F6f" <darkspace at SUNPOINT.NET> To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 17:36 Subject: Re: Patching distributed EXE's > > I don't see how sending out a new .exe is so complex. You make the > > fix and > > tell everybody it's available for download at > > www.such-n-such-website.com... > > I think he's worried more about size than complexity. If the EXE is something around 500KB, why make modem users download the whole shebang w= hen they could just, eg. get a 5KB patch. > I think "diff" would be a good bet in the Un*x-world. Any tools like it for Windows? If not, well, get to work already :) > > > >> I know I can modify the binary, but I don't like that idea. Not > > that I > >> have any particular need for it now, but in the future, if I want to > >> distribute an exe, and by chance it contains an error. I would like > > to be > >> able to fix it without the user having to download the entire file > > again, > >> or something of similar size. I'm wondering if there's a way to > > re-include > >> a source file that contains the bug fix without having to recompile > > the > >> exe. Or will the patch just end up being too big? Would I have to > > include > >> the compiler to do so? > > > On a side note, I wonder if our little friend "Mike the Spike" has a borderline disorder? Looks like it from here. Childhood trauma resulting = in incomplete personality integration? Schitzotypal personality, even? > > > > > Weekend psychologist, > esoteric programmer extraordinaire > --Tom "Rama Rama Ding Ding" Ekl=F6f > > DO COME FROM (2) > (2) PLEASE DON'T PANIC > > > > Tiesitk=F6, ett=E4 Sunpoint.netin k=E4ytt=E4j=E4t voivat lukea s=E4hk=F6= postinsa my=F6s WAP-puhelimella. > p%3A%2F%2 Fwww.sunpoint.net%2Fwap%2F >
9. Re: Patching distributed EXE's
- Posted by John Cage <drcage2000 at YAHOO.COM> Jan 24, 2001
- 543 views
Some dude wrote: > > On a side note, I wonder if our little friend > "Mike the Spike" has a > borderline disorder? Looks like it from here. > Childhood trauma resulting in > incomplete personality integration? Schitzotypal > personality, even? Nope. General Anxiety Dissorder, Soldier's Heart, OCD and yes, my personality was tested and I have got a Schitzotypal personality. However, I am not schizophrenic like I first feared. I take a double dose of Seroxat each day (double dosis works against GAD) and 1MG of Xanax Retard each morning. I have tachycardia and palpitations because of my psychological problems and all. My heart stopped beating about 7 times in my life. Believe me, I'm one tough-ass killer fighting machine. I have being through so much crap, nothing scares me, let alone stop me. Mike The Spike __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/
10. Re: Patching distributed EXE's
- Posted by Bernie <xotron at LOCALNET.COM> Jan 24, 2001
- 549 views
-- If you UPX compress the files you will have problem patching. What if the code you are patching needs to contain larger block of code then the original then how do you patch it? I think that the interpter is added to the end of the exe. So a patch of added code would change its offset.
11. Re: Patching distributed EXE's
- Posted by "Thomas Parslow (PatRat)" <patrat at rat-software.com> Jan 24, 2001
- 528 views
- Last edited Jan 25, 2001
> -- > If you UPX compress the files you will have problem patching. > What if the code you are patching needs to contain larger block of code > then the original then how do you patch it? > I think that the interpter is added to the end of the exe. So a patch > of added code would change its offset. The interpreter is added before the begining of the code in a bound exe. Try this: atom fn fn = open("patch.exe","ab") puts(fn,#0A & #AC & "(1,\"tacked on the end!\\n\")") close(fn) It probably would be possible to replace the code between 2 string markers with more shrouded code, maybe this would allow you to patch the program... Thomas Parslow (PatRat) ICQ #:26359483 Rat Software http://www.rat-software.com/ Please leave quoted text in place when replying
12. Re: Patching distributed EXE's
- Posted by John Cage <drcage2000 at YAHOO.COM> Jan 24, 2001
- 530 views
> > -- > > If you UPX compress the files you will have > problem patching. BTW... Why did rob use UPX when there's the cool PKLite out there? It works on DOS apps and DLLs too. Mike The Spike __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/
13. Re: Patching distributed EXE's
- Posted by George Henry <ghenryca at lycos.com> Jan 24, 2001
- 562 views
Hi Chris, Write a program that analyzes the difference between two files and outputs a set of instructions for transforming one into the other - a "delta file". Then write another program to execute those instructions. Ha ha, easier said than done, esp. with binary files, but wouldn't it be a good exercise? Something you could contribute to the archives, too. (This is on *my* to do list - when I get around to it, which of course may be never.) George -- On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:25:29 Chris Bensler wrote: >hi, > > I know I can modify the binary, but I don't like that idea. Not that I >have any particular need for it now, but in the future, if I want to >distribute an exe, and by chance it contains an error. I would like to be >able to fix it without the user having to download the entire file again, >or something of similar size. I'm wondering if there's a way to re-include >a source file that contains the bug fix without having to recompile the >exe. Or will the patch just end up being too big? Would I have to include >the compiler to do so? >Do I make sense? LOL > >Chris > >Kat wrote: > >>On 24 Jan 2001, at 12:18, chris bensler wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Just curious, is it possible to patch an EXE file created with EU? >> >>Depends on what you mean by "patch". Since everything is a file of bytes, >>you can always replace bytes, but the code may or maynot do what you >>expect afterwards. Just look at microsoft, they haveto send out patches >>*all* the time. >> >>Kat > Get your small business started at Lycos Small Business at http://www.lycos.com/business/mail.html
14. Re: Patching distributed EXE's
- Posted by "Darth Maul, aka Matt" <uglyfish87 at HOTMAIL.COM> Jan 24, 2001
- 529 views
- Last edited Jan 25, 2001
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:28:20 -0800, John Cage <drcage2000 at YAHOO.COM> wrote: >Mike The Spike Is it just me, or does our friend John Cage have MTS's signature? - Matt
15. Re: Patching distributed EXE's
- Posted by Chris Bensler <bensler at MAILOPS.COM> Jan 25, 2001
- 544 views
Hehe.. I've tried similar things b4, for learning reasons, but the binaries never work afterwards.. I don't know enough about the ins and outs of exe's to acheive this. Other than the limitations on compiled binary string sizes, I know nothing about it.. I could write the anylzer and delta progs, but I wouldn't be able to take into account binary formatting.. What if I did the anylzer and delta, and you could work in the nuances that the binaries would have to follow? Chris On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:09:18 -0800, George Henry <ghenryca at LYCOS.COM> wrote: >Hi Chris, > >Write a program that analyzes the difference between two files and outputs a set of instructions for transforming one into the other - a "delta file". Then write another program to execute those instructions. Ha ha, easier said than done, esp. with binary files, but wouldn't it be a good exercise? Something you could contribute to the archives, too. (This is on *my* to do list - when I get around to it, which of course may be never.) > >George > >-- > >On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:25:29 > Chris Bensler wrote: >>hi, >> >> I know I can modify the binary, but I don't like that idea. Not that I >>have any particular need for it now, but in the future, if I want to >>distribute an exe, and by chance it contains an error. I would like to be >>able to fix it without the user having to download the entire file again, >>or something of similar size. I'm wondering if there's a way to re-include >>a source file that contains the bug fix without having to recompile the >>exe. Or will the patch just end up being too big? Would I have to include >>the compiler to do so? >>Do I make sense? LOL >> >>Chris >> >>Kat wrote: >> >>>On 24 Jan 2001, at 12:18, chris bensler wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Just curious, is it possible to patch an EXE file created with EU? >>> >>>Depends on what you mean by "patch". Since everything is a file of bytes, >>>you can always replace bytes, but the code may or maynot do what you >>>expect afterwards. Just look at microsoft, they haveto send out patches >>>*all* the time. >>> >>>Kat >> > > >Get your small business started at Lycos Small Business at http://www.lycos.com/business/mail.html
16. Re: Patching distributed EXE's
- Posted by John Cage <drcage2000 at YAHOO.COM> Jan 25, 2001
- 569 views
Use the same tools everyone uses to create EXE update patches. You think others code them by hand? There are loads of tools to create update patches, just look around. They output an EXE that if ran, patches the destination program. Crackers (like myself) use these tools to write software cracks. Mike The Spike --- Chris Bensler <bensler at MAILOPS.COM> wrote: > Hehe.. > > I've tried similar things b4, for learning > reasons, but the binaries > never work afterwards.. I don't know enough about > the ins and outs of exe's > to acheive this. > Other than the limitations on compiled binary > string sizes, I know > nothing about it.. > > I could write the anylzer and delta progs, but I > wouldn't be able to take > into account binary formatting.. > What if I did the anylzer and delta, and you could > work in the nuances that > the binaries would have to follow? > > Chris > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/
17. Re: Patching distributed EXE's
- Posted by George Henry <ghenryca at lycos.com> Jan 25, 2001
- 538 views
Hi Chris, I sorta fail to understand. To keep this real simple, suppose I have a way of compiling text to some binary format. The purpose of the compilation is irrelevant. Just say that text A compiles to binary A', text B compiles to binary B', and so on. So suppose I change my text from content A to content B. Then my compiled binary changes from A' to B'. So, one way of transforming A' into B' is to change my text A to text B and then run the compilation process (whatever that is). Another way of transforming A' to B' is to run a diff on the two files, producing a list of deltas, (A'->B'). I also have this "batch editor" program that can take A' and (A'->B') and produce B'. Notice, B' is identical, byte for byte, bit for bit, regardless of whether I produced it by changing text A to text B and then compiling B into B', or by running A' and the (A'->B') deltas [i.e. instructions] through my batch editor. So if B' is an executable, call it example.exe, it had better execute just as well regardless of which way it was generated. If B' is the same string of bits, and let's say I give it the same name and access priveleges or whatever either way, then it will perform exactly the same set of functions no matter how I produced it. Given the (what appears to me to be) unassailable logic of this reasoning, I don't know what you mean by 'nuances of binary formatting'. George -- On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:11:46 Chris Bensler wrote: >Hehe.. > > I've tried similar things b4, for learning reasons, but the binaries >never work afterwards.. I don't know enough about the ins and outs of exe's >to acheive this. > Other than the limitations on compiled binary string sizes, I know >nothing about it.. > > I could write the anylzer and delta progs, but I wouldn't be able to take >into account binary formatting.. >What if I did the anylzer and delta, and you could work in the nuances that >the binaries would have to follow? > >Chris Get your small business started at Lycos Small Business at http://www.lycos.com/business/mail.html