We have a rather large third party product which contains a lot of C# DLLs and is updated every month or so. While the decompiler does only a 98% job where it can't get everything, it's good enough for my purposes for the occasional comparative analysis.
Would there be a way to do command line decompilation so that I could decompile every month's release and save it in an archive in an automated manner?
Perhaps something like
ilspy /f phantasmagorical.dll /s c:\myapp\archive\mar2020
/f - file to decompile, .dll, .exe, etc.
/s - save location
ILSpy.exe is meant for interactive use and doesn't have anything like that.
You can instead use the ilspycmd command line tool:
ilspycmd phantasmagorical.dll -p -o c:\myapp\archive\mar2020
You could also use the ICSharpCode.Decompiler nuget package to programatically run the decompiler.
Related
Specifically I'm looking for an example to do what is stated in the cmake documentation for add_custom_command:
If more than one COMMAND is specified they will be executed in order, but not necessarily composed into a stateful shell or batch script. (To run a full script, use the configure_file() command or the file(GENERATE) command to create it, and then specify a COMMAND to launch it.)
A little more detail without bulking this up too much: There's an external program that generates 3 source files that get compiled later. The generation program only updates the timestamp on the files it changes, not all files. So even though my DEPENDS timestamp is newer, it may not need to change 1 of the source files and thus cmake tries to run the code generator each time. I want to touch all the files at the end of the code generation so that ALL their timestamps get updated.
What is the process to run COMMANDS in add_custom_command in order?
EDIT:
This is what I'm currently trying to do:
add_custom_command(
OUTPUT
${CONFIG_TOOLS_GENERATED_FILES}
COMMAND if exist ${Application_SOURCE_DIR}/..MCUExpresso/board rmdir ${Application_SOURCE_DIR}/..MCUExpresso/board
COMMAND
"${MCU_CONFIG_TOOLS_DIR}/bin/eclipsec.exe" -noSplash
-Load ${MEX_FILE}
-HeadlessTool Pins -ExportSrc "${Application_SOURCE_DIR}/../MCUExpresso"
-HeadlessTool Clocks -ExportSrc "${Application_SOURCE_DIR}/../MCUExpresso"
-HeadlessTool Peripherals -ExportSrc "${Application_SOURCE_DIR}/../MCUExpresso"
DEPENDS ${MEX_FILE}
COMMENT "Generating source files using MCU Config Tools"
)
There are two issues here - the directory I'm trying to remove (with the generated code) could end up getting deleted after the code generation runs since the commands aren't stateful. Secondly, the directory doesn't actually get deleted - seems like it's a pathing problem with windows...
How can we verify whether the deployed dll is the latest one, that is present in the TFS. Is there any tool to compare and find out that both dll's are the same by giving the location of the two dll's?
If you simply want to find out whether the DLL being deployed is exactly the same as the one present in the TFS, you could use a binary comparison tool, like the FC Windows external command. You can use it like this (either from the command prompt or in a batch file):
FC /B DeployedLib.dll PresentLib.dll >NUL && (ECHO The files are identical) || (ECHO The files differ)
If the files are identical, FC will exit with the 0 exit code, which will trigger the ECHO The files are identical command, otherwise the other command, ECHO The files differ, will be invoked. You can replace both commands with something else, of course.
To find out more about FC, run FC /? from the command prompt.
I recommend you to try Reflector's Diff tool: http://www.codingsanity.com/diff.htm
If this is a dll your are building you probably should be versioning it appropriately and therefore you can check the version. If it is a third party dll and you have access to both of them, you can use a file comparison utility to do a binary comparison to see if they match. I use Beyond Compare: http://www.scootersoftware.com/
I'm looking for a free open source tool-set that will compile various "classic" scripting languages, e.g. Korn Shell, ksh, csh, bash etc. as an executable -- and if the script calls other programs or executables, for them to be included in the single executable.
Reasons:
To obfuscate the code for delivery to a customer so as not to reveal our Intellectual Property - for delivery onto a customer's own machine/systems for which I have no control over what permissions I can set regarding access, so the program file has to be binary whereby the workings cannot be easily seen by viewing in a text editor or hexdump viewer.
To make a single, simply deployed program for the customer without/or a minimal amount of any external dependencies.
I would prefer something simple without the need for package manager since:
I can't rely on the customer's knowledge to carry out (un) packaging instructions and
I can't rely on the policies governing their machines regarding installing packages (and indeed from third parties).
The simplest preferred approach is to be able to compile to proper machine code a single executable that will run out of the box without any dependencies.
The solution that fully meets my needs would be SHC - a free tool, or CCsh a commercial tool. Both compile shell scripts to C, which then can be compiled using a C compiler.
Links about SHC:
https://github.com/neurobin/shc
http://www.datsi.fi.upm.es/~frosal/
http://www.downloadplex.com/Linux/System-Utilities/Shell-Tools/Download-shc_70414.html
Links about CCsh:
http://www.comeaucomputing.com/faqs/ccshlit.html
You could use this: http://megastep.org/makeself/
This generates a shell script that auto-extracts a bundled tar.gz archive into the temporary directory, and then can run an arbitrary command upon extraction.
Using this tool, you can provide only one shell script to the client.
This script will then extract your ofbsh obfuscated scripts and binaries into /tmp, and run them transparently.
You can obfuscate shell scripts with something like ofbsh. You won't easily bundle other programs into a single executable for unix, though. Normally the approach for installation would be to buld a package for your platform's package manager (e.g. rpm, deb, pkg) or to provide a tarball to unravel in the appropriate directory.
If you need an executable file that unpacks the contents you might be able to use a shell archive. Take a look at the docs for shar(1) and see if that will get what you want
If you really need a scripting capability to glue multiple C programs together, take a look at the Tcl language. It has an API that is designed to trivially wrap C programs that expect to see argv[] style parameters. You can even embed the chunks of C code into a custom Tcl interpreter and glue it together with various Tcl scripts.
If you really need to make it opaque, you could encrypt the tcl scripts and wrap the whole thing in something that unencrypts the tcl scripts to a buffer and then runs the Tcl interpreter on them. Tcl can accept scripts from a file or a char* buffer, so the unencrypted scripts never have to hit the file system.
shc
I have modified the original source and upgraded to a new version with some feature addition and bug fixes.
It's here.
Example Usage:
shc -f script.sh -o binary_name
script.sh will be compiled to a binary named binary_name
Note that, you still need the required shell to be installed in your system to run this executable.
arx is a great bundler, and you may be able to integrate a obfuscator in its workflow.
Options that are available to you:
Write a logic in your code that, when the code is run for the first time on a box, it'll check to see if all the required packages exist. And if they do not, the code will automatically go get the packages itself and will install them...without asking to the user to do anything. The only question the user needs to be asked is "Is it ok to proceed with the install of the aforementioned packages? (Y/N)". Anything outside of that is too much.
Once the above code is complete (yes, i'm aware it may not be all that simple for you to code this, or may be it is, i don't know your coding capabilities), copy and paste your completed code to a site like kinglazy.com and an actual executable file will be generated for you.
There are quite a few benefits of this particular option:
Yes, you will be able to run the encrypted version of your script without exposing any proprietary information.
No one can try to "view" your script, because if they do, they'll see nothing but indecipherable, encrypted jargon which wont make sense to them.
No one can attempt to modify your script because if they do, the script will immediately become inoperable.
No one can run a debugger on your script to see how it works. If they do, the script will abort.
Also, no one can create copies of your script on the same server. If they do, it will abort and won't work. It'll only allow users to create symlinks to the original location of wherever you want the script to be.
I may be missing some things in what you asked for, but i believe the above satisfies a good portion of what you wanted.
Not sure if this works on other scripts but it certainly does for shell scripts.
You can also use the free online version of CCsh to compile a shell script into a binary:
http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryccsh/
I want to make a stand-alone exe with cygwin. I have two options:
Staticly link cygwin1.dll
If I can statically link cygwin1.dll, then I can get a stand-alone exe.
Merge cygwin1.dll with myprog.exe
If I can merge cygwin1.dll with my program, the I can get a stand-alone exe.
Do not suggest that I use IlMerge. This will not work because I didn't compile my program with .NET.
Are any of these options possible? If not, is there anything that is possible with this dilemma? Thanx!
Try passing -mno-cygwin as a compiler and linker flag. If your program's requirements are simple enough this will avoid depending on Cygwin libraries and create a standalone EXE.
I can see two possibilities that you might consider reasonable. One would be to build a stub executable with a different compiler (e.g., MinGW -- whatever, just so it doesn't need cygwin) to unpack the main executable and cygwin.dll into a temporary directory, and then spawn that executable. To distribute only a single executable, you'd want to add the main executable and cygwin.dll to the "stub" as binary resources. It's a bit ugly, but pretty straightforward.
The alternative would be to grab the source to cygwin, and build it as a static library. At least in theory, this should be cleaner -- but it's also undoubtedly more work. Getting it to build as purely static code instead of a DLL will almost certainly take some work, though it's hard to even guess how much. Just browsing a bit, it's seems pretty unlikely that it's going to be a quick job of a couple hours, or anything like that (unless there's something there that I missed that already supports building it statically, of course).
More precise answer of Jerry.
Procedure described below should be confronted with your rights and license law! I know it can work but rights to distribute the result (or even perform the procedure) may be (and I'm really feel that are) bounded by Cygwin license. That is because your application will still refer to Cygwin (even though it is useless - but is still in your app)
Assume hello.exe is the name of your great application compiled under Cygwin in great project directory C:\xxx\yyy\zzz\
In the cygwin console go to C:\xxx\yyy\zzz and type
objdump -p hello.exe | grep "DLL Name"
You obtain all DLLs your application uses. Then copy C:\xxx\yyy\zzz to all DLLs listed and specific for cygwin.
Note that your application may invoke other applications (using exec function for example) --- find libraries aplications use and copy this libraries as well as this applications themselves -- to C:\xxx\yyy\zzz.
Maybe you will have to recompile your project with option of kind -L C:\xxx\yyy\zzz or so. Watch all other paths in your sources.
Thus your application becomes independent of Cygwin installation and you can present its functionality to/ share it with ---- other Windows users without Cygwin. But - once more I point and ask you - be aware of proper license and law of Cygwin creators and observe them!
I've started using Code Contracts in all new code I'm writing, such as in a framework library I'm building to help bootstrap IoC, O/RM, etc., in an ASP.NET MVC application. I've written a simple build script for this framework library that looks like the following:
#echo off
echo.
echo Cleaning build output (removing 'obj' and 'bin' folders)...
for /f "tokens=*" %%G in ('dir /b /ad /s bin') do rmdir /s /q "%%G"
for /f "tokens=*" %%G in ('dir /b /ad /s obj') do rmdir /s /q "%%G"
rmdir /s /q build
echo.
echo Starting the build...
call "%VS100COMNTOOLS%\vsvars32.bat"
msbuild Integration.build /target:Build
echo.
echo Done!
pause
This doesn't work. What I end up with in my build folder if I run this is, for whatever reason, assemblies that aren't fully rewritten by ccrewrite alongside .pdb.original, .rewritten and .csproj.FileListAbsolute.txt files that litter the output directory.
What does work is first building the solution in Visual Studio 2010, commenting out line 3 through 7 in the batch file and running it again. I then end up with properly rewritten assemblies and no .pdb.original nor .rewritten files.
What I've deduced from this is that Visual Studio 2010 somehow triggers the Code Contract rewriter properly so the resulting assemblies from the Visual Studio 2010 build is re-used by the command-line MSBuild call, so what my batch script basically does is just copying files to the build directory. Rather useless, in other words.
I've read this, but Jon's problem seems different from mine since ccrewrite is obviously doing something, but it's just not completing the rewriting for whatever reason. The Integration.build file builds the correct configuration (that has Code Contracts enabled in the .csproj files) and everything else looks right, it just doesn't work properly.
So, I'm wondering: How do I run MSBuild the way Visual Studio 2010 is where ccrewrite does what it's supposed to and doesn't litter my output directory with .rewritten and .pdb.original files? Does anyone have a perfect example of how an MSBuild file doing proper Code Contracts rewriting looks like?
The answer is in the script. All Visual Studio is ever going to do is run MSBuild tasks that will invoke others. One thing you can do is go to Tools|Options|Build... and turn on logging so you can see in detail which bit is doing what to generate the artifacts.
How would one do such a complex and involved thing? Read a guide to MSBuild such as Hashimi p1 and Part 2.
Then dig into the source for the build in e.g.:
C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v4.0.30319\Microsoft.Common.targets
The best way to get there is to open your .csproj and look what it includes and go via that (the .CSharp.targets is the first one - the one I cited comes further down the stack).
(That and wait for someone to pop in with an actual answer!)
I've played a little with Code Contract's static analysis and it is pretty cool.
Now trying to set up TeamCity build ...
Here is msbuild integration info from Microsoft Research (see page 44)