Since we're storing some .dlls and some .exes in version control (don't ask...), I'd like to be able to reliably diff which files have changed between revisions. Basically, bindiff seems to be what I am looking for (see tools for diffing windows binaries? and Deterministic builds under Windows), but the only download link I could find was for Windows XP (actually given in the second link).
Is bindiff available for Windows 7? Or is there a similar tool that can exclude PE timestamps and whatever else is in there that changes between compilations of the same files?
Our tool (ECMerge) has a specific Executable File Format for that, it declares a field "PE Header Timestamp" which can be ignored in comparison options. If it is not enough in your case, it is possible to increase the capabilities of the file format through scripting (in JavaScript).
Related
This question might seem to be duplicated with this and this that are similar. But it is not! First- I am getting this error from the setup file and not from the program that I am distributing Second -the version is different, the directories in Installshield 2009 an 10.5 differ. .
I'm trying to fix an error caused by Windows compatibility mode in my setup, which is built with Installshield 10.5. So far my research led me to a conclusion that i need to add [this][3] to my manifest file. I saw that Microsoft's tool mt.exe could extract a manifest file from a dll, however I did not see anywhere that it can extract it from an executable file.
So my questions are the following:
Is there any way to view the manifest file of a Setup.exe built with Installshield?
Is there any way to configure this manifest file for the certain project in Installshield?
[3]Can one edit an InstallShield setup.exe's manifest file?
As far as I know, mt.exe will work fine on EXE files; both EXE and DLL files are Portable Executable (PE) files, and PE files use the exact same structure for resources such as the manifest. Visual Studio, CFF explorer, and countless other tools (including raw resource APIs) will also work to view and possibly update manifests in general.
However for a built InstallShield setup.exe, there is a twist. InstallShield uses areas in the file to store information that are not described in the PE format. Tools that update the resources on an EXE can inadvertently destroy this data as they do not expect it to be there, nor do they know how to detect or adjust it.
InstallShield 12 or so and later allow you to specify a manifest, and it selects the manifest from files it ships that you can update before it adds them to the setup.exe. In addition, there is a tool called ISReMan that is aware of the extra information and can update the manifest correctly when that data is present.
By the way, it's generally helpful to mention the actual problem you're trying to solve, in case the method you've chosen (in this case updating the manifest) is not the correct solution. Note as well that InstallShield 10.5 is over 10 years old, and knows nothing about UAC, PCA, and other Vista and later technologies; adjusting the manifest may not help fix, say, an elevation-related problem.
Note as well that I am paid to work on InstallShield, so I may be biased when I recommend things like upgrading. :)
I'm looking for general advice. I created a Visual Studio 2010 project that outputs an ocx file that is used on XP and Vista machines. The DLL on which it depends has been updated on our Win7 machines. I simply needed to rebuild for Win7 using the exact same code with an updated .lib file. I created a second project configuration (ReleaseW7) and it only differs from the original project config (Release) in that it points to the new .lib.
So now I have 2 files both named xx.ocx. Besides looking at the name of the folder each file resides in (or looking at the creation time of each) there is no way to determine which is which. I thought of using different file version numbers but as far as I can tell (and I'm relatively new to this so I could certainly be wrong) that would require two separate projects each with a slightly modified resource (.rc) file, instead of simply having two configurations within the same project. If nothing more, that seems like a waste of hard drive space. It also feels like the "wrong" way of using file version numbers
Is there a cleaner or more "standard" way of handling this? All I really want is a way for the folks who install the ocx and support the end user to know for certain that they are working with the correct file.
Long story short, I decided to use different version numbers. I was able to setup a preprocessor definition for the resource compiler and use that to handle different versions of VS_VERSION_INFO in my .rc file.
In case anyone is interested, this is the resource I found:
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/winformssetup/thread/605275c0-3001-45d2-b6c1-652326ca5340/
I have a program under version control that has gone through multiple releases. A situation came up today where someone had somehow managed to point to an old copy of the program and thus was encountering bugs that have since been fixed. I'd like to go back and just delete all the old copies of the program (keeping them around is a company policy that dates from before version control was common and should no longer be necessary) but I need a way of verifying that I can generate the exact same executable that is better than saying "The old one came out of this commit so this one should be the same."
My initial thought was to simply MD5 hash the executable, store the hash file in source control, and be done with it but I've come up against a problem which I can't even parse.
It seems that every time the executable is generated (method: Open Project. File > Make X.exe) it hashes differently. I've noticed that Visual Basic messes with files every time the project is opened in seemingly random ways but I didn't think that would make it into the executable, nor do I have any evidence that that is indeed what's happening. To try to guard against that I tried generating the executable multiple times within the same IDE session and checking the hashes but they continued to be different every time.
So that's:
Generate Executable
Generate MD5 Checksum: md5sum X.exe > X.md5
Verify MD5 for current executable: md5sum -c X.md5
Generate New Executable
Verify MD5 for new executable: md5sum -c X.md5
Fail verification because computed checksum doesn't match.
I'm not understanding something about either MD5 or the way VB 6 is generating the executable but I'm also not married to the idea of using MD5. If there is a better way to verify that two executables are indeed the same then I'm all ears.
Thanks in advance for your help!
That's going to be nearly impossible. Read on for why.
The compiler will win this game, every time...
Compiling the same project twice in a row, even without making any changes to the source code or project settings, will always produce different executable files.
One of the reasons for this is that the PE (Portable Executable) format that Windows uses for EXE files includes a timestamp indicating the date and time the EXE was built, which is updated by the VB6 compiler whenever you build the project. Besides the "main" timestamp for the EXE as a whole, each resource directory in the EXE (where icons, bitmaps, strings, etc. are stored in the EXE) also has a timestamp, which the compiler also updates when it builds a new EXE. In addition to this, EXE files also have a checksum field that the compiler recalculates based on the EXE's raw binary content. Since the timestamps are updated to the current date/time, the checksum for the EXE will also change each time a project is recompiled.
But, but...I found this really cool EXE editing tool that can undo this compiler trickery!
There are EXE editing tools, such as PE Explorer, that claim to be able to adjust all the timestamps in an EXE file to a fixed time. At first glance you might think you could just set the timestamps in two copies of the EXE to the same date, and end up with equivalent files (assuming they were built from the same source code), but things are more complicated than that: the compiler is free to write out the resources (strings, icons, file version information, etc.) in a different order each time you compile the code, and you can't really prevent this from happening. Resources are stored as independent "chunks" of data that can be rearranged in the resulting EXE without affecting the run-time behavior of the program.
If that wasn't enough, the compiler might be building up the EXE file in an area of uninitialized memory, so certain parts of the EXE might contain bits and pieces of whatever was in memory at the time the compiler was running, creating even more differences.
As for MD5...
You are not misunderstanding MD5 hashing: MD5 will always produce the same hash given the same input. The problem here is that the input in this case (the EXE files) keep changing.
Conclusion: Source control is your friend
As for solving your current dilemma, I'll leave you with this: associating a particular EXE with a specific version of the source code is a more a matter of policy, which has to be enforced somehow, than anything else. Trying to figure out what EXE came from what version without any context is just not going to be reliable. You need to track this with the help of other tools. For example, ensuring that each build produces a different version number for your EXE's, and that that version can be easily paired with a specific revision/branch/tag/whatever in your version control system. To that end, a "free-for-all" situation where some developers use source control and others use "that copy of the source code from 1997 that I'm keeping in my network folder because it's my code and source control is for sissies anyway" won't help make this any easier. I would get everyone drinking the source control Kool-Aid and adhering to a standard policy for creating builds right away.
Whenever we build projects, our build server (we use Hudson) ensures that the compiled EXE version is updated to include the current build number (we use the Version Number Plugin and a custom build script to do this), and when we release a build, we create a tag in Subversion using the version number as the tag name. The build server archives release builds, so we can always get the specific EXE (and setup program) that was given to a customer. For internal testing, we can choose to pull an archived EXE from the build server, or just tell the build server to rebuild the EXE from the tag we created in Subversion.
We also never, ever, ever release any binaries to QA or to customers from any machine other than the build server. This prevents "works on my machine" bugs, and ensures that we are always compiling from a "known" copy of the source code (it only pulls and builds code that is in our Subversion repository), and that we can always associate a given binary with the exact version of the code that it was created from.
I know it has been a while, but since there is VB De-compiler app, you may consider bulk-decompiling vb6 apps, and then feeding decompilation results to an AI/statistical anomaly detection on the various code bases. Given the problem you face doesn't have an exact solution, it is unlikely the results will be 100% accurate, but as you feed more data, the detection should become more and more accurate
I want to know what is the standard way of doing it.
currently I'm thinking in add a series of defines in a header file and inlcudie that file in the main resource file win win32 to update the version resource in win32 and in *nix make some global functions to return this information.
and in windows make the msi install file also reflect the same version.
That sounds like a reasonable way to do it. I don't think there IS a standard way of doing this; there aren't any real standards for version reporting that are cross-platform.
Since we wanted to avoid the overhead of changing a "version.cpp" or equivalent every time we hit build -- and thereby taking the time to do at least one compile and link -- we modify the binary after the build.
If you're outputting to e.g. ELF or PE format executables, you can use some basic knowledge of ELF or PE and a linker map to figure out what to replace, otherwise you can scan through the binary looking for a set pattern (we use something like static const char VERSION[] = "[VERSIONBLOCK xxxxxxxxxxxxx]";) and replace a portion (e.g. the xxxx part above) with relevant info:
build date and time
build machine
username
output of e.g. svnversion
Note that this won't work very well if your binaries are signed or compressed before this step, but usually you can engineer your build process so the signing/compressing happens after this step.
I'm sure a variant of this could be extended to hit the Win32 PE version metadata as well as any embedded version string.
We're providing a zip file of our application for testing and the same zip file on two separate machines is extracted differently. One will extract all files, the other will extract all but the executables (.exe and .msi specifically).
We're going to have to tell our customers something other than 'use WinZip' (or 7zip, or whatever)
When I look at what is happening using ProcessMonitor, I see that the explorer.exe process is creating each file, then deleting it. WTF?
The two systems are Windows Server 2003 with SP2. Surely there is a setting that we can point to that explains why this happens.
**UPDATE 1****
I enabled/disabled virus scanning with no noticeable effect.
My guess is it's a virus scanner or other "anti-malware" bit of kit - possibly something to do with group policy?
There was a security patch/setting that one machine had that the other didn't. The zip file needed to be 'unlocked' by looking at the properties.
Until then, no executables/dlls would be extracted from the file.
IIRC, ProcessMonitor has the option to show the stack for the delete event. You would need Windows symbols (or a configured symbol server), but the function names should give you an hint why the executables are deleted.