1. Patching distributed EXE's
Hi all,
Just curious, is it possible to patch an EXE file created with EU?
Chris
________________________________________________________________
2. Re: Patching distributed EXE's
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
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
--
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
> --
> 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
> > --
> > 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
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
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
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
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
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
