Related
XDA-dev guys, We need help.
Ok, We have right now, a Kitchen working with a couple of cool enhancements, we have acomplished to install, from the kitchen, some commercial programs, like Resco Explorer 2003, SPB Pocket Plus, and others. And we want to make this kitchen available to the public, so everyone can download their custom ROMS with these cool programs, but of course, for legal purposes, we can't just post them like that, already registered versions of programs.
We have an idea, basically what we want is a the text field provided under each program, (kind of the same as thing as the "NBF header string" that is at the bottom of the regular kitchen). This text entry would be each user's own serial (entered by the user). This would create a registry entry file which will put the fields in and then merge it into the rom, in that way the user would be able to use the programs and would not have to worry about the Serials anymore.\
In short, A text field in the webpage, under each program choice, so the user can enter his/her own serial number. With this text, it will generate a registry entry automaticly in the ROM generator, so The program is registered from the ROM, and the user is free to use its own program directly from the ROM
We have the progs working fine from the ROM, but we are using our own serials, we want each user to enter its own, so everyone is happy, and we don't get in trouble giving away software that is not ours for free.
Any help would be appreciated.
So what exactly do you need help with?
i'm a webdesigner with knowledge of php so maybe i can be of asistance.
Rico
exactly what I want is how to create a text field where people can enter their serial and this entry will generate a registry file that will go to the creation of the ROM, and to register the programs installed.
Sounds like you need a form with multiple text-fields targeting a page where these textfields are converted to registry entries.
maybe we could mns about this. that would probably speed things up.
or mail me @ [email protected]
Rico
The textbox feature in the current kitchen can put the literal typed string anywhere in the registry. Have you looked at how it works?
If you need more, you could write some php to do that. You'd still need permission to distribute the included programs though. Easy way to get this permission is to become a point of sale: you would point people to the place to buy it if they did not already have a serial. Could even make you some money through these affiliate programs.
Thanks guys. kenofalte, i might need ur help with php. I'm not a good programmer. I'll try to do it myself but in case i get lost.
alex
Most SPB and Resco programs come with the Trial versions that you can use for 14 days etc. that can later have a registration code entered... can't you setup your custom kitchen ROM with these different Trial versions instead and then whoever burns their own ROM can pick and choose what they want, burn it, and when setup and finished, they can enter their own code then? Just a curiousity. I am not sure about the permission to distribute the programs then? Either way, just a thought.
Regards,
mS
that's another option. i just wanted to make it so that they can register it during the "cooking" process. otherwise everytime they do a hard reset they have to re-register the product.
alex
Alex
just mail or msn me at the previous mentioned e-mail.
We will make it work.
Rico
I know it is almost impossible to produce a software that is fully protected. In this I would like to share my experience in protection.
I developed a program that works in PPCPE and I have made a very good protection system….. I think
The protection system works as fallows:
- when the software is first install it capture the date of the installation
- it reads the device ID
- it ask the user for the program serial number
- I have two way of registering the system either through an SMS or through the web using a GPRS.
- The software combines the three number together using some equations to make it almost impossible to find out what I am collecting… also I use an equation verify if the serial number is OK since we are using SMS and it is very costly to send SMS that contains a wrong serial number
- When the user chose the method to register the number is send to my server and the server send back the activation key to the user PPCPE
- The PPCE will read the SMS and delete it and store this SMS in the database …
The above is to get the activation key
In the software the activation key is produce and I use “if statement” to compare the activation key which is stored in the data base and the one the software produce if they are the same it will execute otherwise it will stop execution
To make it very difficult for the hacker I use pointer in the program and in these pointer I add the protiction key to it and subtract the key the program produce to make the additon equal to zero if the two key are the same
The pointer point to each button and each menu item in the program
I hop this information will help and I welcome any comment
Hmmm, sounds nice...but is it worth all the trouble...especially the SMS route could complicate things, no?
Besides, with good debuggers is it not possible to NOP the check section or jmp it, applying a patch?
I would opt more for a good packer such as Armadillo, and protect it that way. It will obfuscate the code, has debugger protections built-in, splits codes and destructs IAT. Additionally, you could add nanomites to make unpacking even harder. Then use a simple license key system.
Yes you are write .. a good hacker can do that …. But
If you use the method of pointer it is almost impossible to get any thing out of the program and it will be use les for any body to use it
And also it is almost imposable to hack it
But armadillo is only available for x86 Windows. But your message is right, HappyGoat.
pointer protection: piece of cake!
Well, the pointer thing as you describe it does not sound too difficult to hack.
You said your software will take the address for a pointer, add the key the user has entered, and substract the one the program has computed so that it equals to zero.
So, this means that the shift is always the same, so if you can get the entry point for any button, you know which value to add to the key generated by your software. Since you don't obfuscate the code this is a matter of minutes to hack this. :roll:
UL
Re: PROTICT YOUR SOFTWARE
As an old cracker I can tell you that this algo would not be difficult to crack. You are not using EXE file encryption, anti-debugging, integrity checking, and other tricks that are used in good protections like ASProtect. They would take some hours to bypass. And playing with pointers can stop only kiddies. UnlockMe said why.
If a cracker would get one valid question-answer pair, he'll easily convert any program to a fully working version. And your code can be cracked without this knowledge.
- The software combines the three number together using some equations to make it almost impossible to find out what I am collecting…
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Funny. Why should the cracker try to "find out what I am collecting"? Why the cracker should be bothered with all this ****? There are easier ways.
also I use an equation verify if the serial number is OK since we are using SMS and it is very costly to send SMS that contains a wrong serial number
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Costly SMS? Even in Russia you can get free SMS subscription. I have free SMS + free GPRS + free incoming calls.
Your protection has at least one very thin part that makes it useless. I've seen the similar ideas before. But I would not tell you
And remember:
If it runs, it can be defeated. (c) +Orc
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is very nice to see people participates in a subject. I find it very interesting. And very helpful
I am not going to tell what I do but I am given a point to start to programmer
Chatty
Thanks for bringing this point. I can not find it also
UnlockME
I think it is very difficult to hack.
Imagine in my software I have 36 button and menu item. Each of them has a pointer. Let us say button one has a pointer value equal to 11675 let say it is stored in ptr
My key is 123456789 .. let say it is stored in a string str1
The key in the program is 908070605040302010 …… I use more encryption than that but this is just a demonstration
And let us say it is stored in str2
When you address the button you address it like this
Ptr = ptr – (str1[1]-str2[17])
As I mention I am not going to reveal the protection that I use.. I am only giving a point to start
There is more thing in it I leave it to your imagination ..
Mamaich
In my country each SMS cost the mobile owner 0.1 USD … I am not going to cost hem moony for a wrong entry
…….
I think I know what you are thinking …. If the key is produced in the program I can hack it … I hope the above example clear thing up
……..
if you know any EXE encryption or anti debugging software I will be thankful
……..
thanks every body for your replay
-------------------------
pleas remember I am not Claiming that my sAlgorithm is anti-hacked …. It is only an algorithm for protection that I came with
wwb95, I'm not going to disclose in this forum how to actually hack an exe, but what i can tell you is that pointer-based protection will only stop kiddies as Mamaic says.
a hacker is not always a bad guy, though often they use their knowledge for such purpose, but it is before everything a guy that has an extensive knowledge of development tools, operating system, memory management, ...
I can tell you that if you are going to protect your software with this pointer thing, please send me a link I'll be only too happy to provide it for free to the community with a working "yes-code". 8)
wwb95 said:
When you address the button you address it like this
Ptr = ptr – (str1[1]-str2[17])
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll assume that (str1[1]-str2[17]) is always a constant for all Ptrs. Then you can easily find an original button handler (don't ask me how, newbies can check all function addresses, gurus can just look at the code, I'll use a different method), calculate this value and patch a program or write a keygen. And if it is not a constant - the process would not be much more difficult.
if you know any EXE encryption or anti debugging software I will be thankful
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know any existing protection. Long time ago I was developing such a project, but due to a lack of time and no investitions I've dropped it.
Here is a crackme - http://mamaich.kasone.com/wz/crackme.rar
and a pre-aplha of protector - http://mamaich.kasone.com/wz/protector.rar
It can compress&encrypt ARM WinCE DLLs and EXE files, has minor anti-debugging tricks and primitive import/export/resources encryption. And thats all that was done. No API, no stolen bytes, no on-the fly decryption, no integrity checking, etc.
I would not publish its source codes nor continue the work.
My advice: give up trying to protect your app. It can't be done; anything can be cracked easily. You're only going to piss off your users when the complex reg scheme starts introducing bugs and instability.
All you really want to do is a simple registration scheme. You have to rely on people's honor.
At Airscanner we wrote a book showing how to crack software, with a couple of chapters on ARM-based cracking for Windows CE. But you can get more info, and better, for free at Kaos' website:
http://ka0s.net/
It has everything you need to get started in Pocket PC reverse engineering.
By the way, it's good to see +ORC referenced in this forum. Mamaich do I know you?
airscanner said:
By the way, it's good to see +ORC referenced in this forum. Mamaich do I know you?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Some time ago I was a regular poster on www.reversing.net and www.reng.ru and reader of fraviamb. Now I don't have time for that.
Maybe you've seen my name in "thanks" sections of some tools.
ZXEvil why are you posting that link on multiple topics? What is that file?
Most of us are already aware that PPC and smartphone edition are similar enough to be mostly compatible in their apps across the platforms.
That is, with enough coaxing and the help of input simulators like SPHelper, I've managed to run almost any Pocket PC app on a smartphone device.
Well, until now.
I've officialy run into my first brick wall of sorts, and I'm hoping someone here can shed some light onto the situation.
Since the MS implementation of A2DP has quality issues, I'm trying to run MSI Blueplayer app ( found at http://cweb.msi.com.tw/program/support/download/dld/spt_dld_detail.php?UID=619&kind=8) on a smartphone.
Analyzing the cab, I extracted 4 .dll's that go in the \windows dir (msibtstk.dll, msibtapi.dll, CHS.dll and TW.dll), and two .exe program files that go in program files\msi\blueplayer (STLoader.exe, and MPOBCE.exe).
Now, normally its as simple as running the .exe, at least it always has been in the past.
However, every time I hit MPOBCE.exe, all I get is:
"Alert
Can't find MPOBCE or one of its components. Make sure the path and filename are correct and that all the required libraries are available."
Just to control this experiment, I copied the exact same files over to a PPC device and ran it to find that it DOES work.
Now, I've never encountered PPC specific code before- in fact, I didn't even know such a thing was possible. Has anyone see/heard of this sort of thing before?
Can someone help me take this apart and find out what makes it work on a PPC only? Perhaps a PPC-specific path (if there is such a thing)?
At this point, as much as I'd like to get this working, I'm just as much intellectually curious as to what would cause a program to only operate on a PPC installation.
Hello Dishe.
Your problem is simple: Certain DLLs that come built in Pocket PC version of windows mobile do not exist in the Smartphone version. An example is MFC DLLs.
What you need to do is get hold of 'dependency walker' which is a neat little app that MS incorporated in to VS 6 (though I understand it was written by an independent developer and should be available separately).
It will show you exactly which DLL files each exe is linked to. You then have to get a good copy (from a ROM dump) of the needed DLL and put it in windows directory.
Hope this helps.
That's a great idea. Thanks! I never heard of the dependency walker before, but it sounds like a perfect tool for this. I'll have to check it out on my office computer (I don't have VS 6 at home).
I wont be back in my office until wed., so if anyone had a bit of spare time, I'll attach the files here for someone to examine.
If anyone wants to look into it and tell me what dll's are required, I can get ahold of them from a healthy Pocket PC image.
Thanks!
This zip file has the two .exe's contained in the installation. I think only mpobce.exe is complaining about missing components, though.
Oops, apparently I should have checked first...
Dependency Walker is a free app. I downloaded it and tried it out.
It lists a bunch of .dll's, most of which I had on smartphone.
However, the two missing ones are:
mfcce300.dll
olece300.dll
Now, I'm not exactly sure what these do, so I need to look into it some more. Does anyone have any clue what these are for? If I copy them from a Pocket PC, will they operate on a smartphone?
Hi Dishe.
I guess I should have been more clear: Dependency Walker was written as freeware by an independent developer, but M$ liked it so much they decided to grab it for VS.
Any way, mfcce300.dll is MFC version for PPC (if you are not familiar with MFC, it's a collection of "ready code" that simplifies writing apps in c++)
It comes built in for PPCs but not for smartphones for some reason. If you have a good dump check that DLL with dep. walker as well, I am pretty sure it is linked to a few others.
olece300.dll - is a COM support dll. I won't even go there because I really hate COM (that's Component Object Model, not com port) and I am really not sure my self what the DLL does.
If you do get a good version of those two you should be able to get the app running.
levenum said:
Hi Dishe.
I guess I should have been more clear: Dependency Walker was written as freeware by an independent developer, but M$ liked it so much they decided to grab it for VS.
Any way, mfcce300.dll is MFC version for PPC (if you are not familiar with MFC, it's a collection of "ready code" that simplifies writing apps in c++)
It comes built in for PPCs but not for smartphones for some reason. If you have a good dump check that DLL with dep. walker as well, I am pretty sure it is linked to a few others.
olece300.dll - is a COM support dll. I won't even go there because I really hate COM (that's Component Object Model, not com port) and I am really not sure my self what the DLL does.
If you do get a good version of those two you should be able to get the app running.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the help, I'm realizing there's a lot more to this I should have known before embarking on such a task. I've never had such a problem doing this before, I guess MFC isn't so popular!
Anyway, I need a good ROM dump, I haven't been able to aquire one. In the mean time I tried some files I found searching google... didn't expect it to work, but tried it anyway. Still complained of missing files- you're right, I'll bet MFC is calling more dll's as well that I need.
Perhaps there's hope...
You were right... I just needed more .dlls!
I found a whole series of .dlls required by mfcce300.dll that my smartphone was missing, so I put them all in the program directory and it opened!
Problem is, its not so stable... the files were pulled from a ce.net-4.1 set of files since I don't have access to a wm5 rom image.
One more thong I should have thought about earlier:
Some COM dlls, maybe even olece300.dll have a function called DllRegisterServer that writes them to registry as COM provider (under HKCR\CLSID).
Check to see if I am right using Dep. Walker and if so try to get regsvr32.exe or something similar for the PPC. (On a PC you use regsvr32 somedll.dll to register a COM server)
This may help with stability issue.
Hi,
I asked this question over on another mobile phone forum and a user directed me here, so here goes:
Is it necessary for apps developed for Windows Mobile 5 and 6 (PPC) to be "signed" in any way in order to be installed and run? Similar to the way newer Symbian OS apps must be signed? Or can they just be developed and flat-out installed without any hassle or complication, the same way apps for regular desktop Windows PC's can be?
As a programmer/developer and also a Symbian user, I absolutely HATE the need for signing or certifying anything for it to be able to run. If it's not necessary on a laptop or desktop, it shouldn't be necessary on a phone. I am considering switching over from Symbian to WM6, but ONLY if the platform is completely free of the need for anything resembling certificates and signing.
At the very least, is there the option for the end WM6/5 user to easily change a setting within the OS so as to allow the full installation of non-signed apps? I'd settle for that. With Symbian, both developers and users are completely imprisoned by certificates and cannot do anything without the permission of the OS fascists.
Thanks for any help on this..
on WM5 default, when you try and uninstall something unsigned, you just have to tap the "yes" button to run the application, after that it remembers it for that app.
so basically for my setup (wm5/wm6) i can run anything, signed or unsigned. And there is a fix somewhere to disable the notification warning
hope that helps
and
come to the light side
Pocket PC's for the win
Thanks for your reply.. it's certainly encouraging to hear that WM5/6 is not restricted by the absolute necessity for signed certificates like Symbian is. As a programmer I completely refuse to bother developing software for a platform that handcuffs both developer and end user so mercilessly. If I can write programs in Visual Basic that will comple to an EXE and run hassle-free on any Windows PC, I don't see why I should have any less freedom when writing programs for a mobile device.
SymbianSigned and its locked OS is a deal-breaker for me. In looking through this forum though, it seems that there are in fact some components of WM that absolutely must be signed to be installed? Like skins for example? Are there any other components that fall into that category?
Still hoping to get a defnitive answer on what components of WM require mandatory signing and which ones are totally non-restrictive optional. So far my understanding is that under no circumstances do any applications ever have to be signed in order to be installed and run, no matter what kind of advanced access and functions they involve. Correct? Whereas fully integrated keyboard skins do need to be signed, for some reason. Correct?
Any other categories not covered above that do or don't require signing?
Thanks!
As far as I know the worse case scenario for signing is that you must also install your own cert. All that happens when you do this is again a warning.
As for the merits of the whole signing thing. Although I agree symbian goes too far, I think some kind of signing procedure, that is more robust should be required for windows mobile.
My preferred solution would be to have restricted functions that on install warn the user of exactly what capabilities the SW has, and allows the user to allow or restrict certain capabilities.
Simply an I trust this or that is useless as everyone ends up trusting everything as you have little choice. But given that it is easy to write SW using the RIL functions that completely unknown to the user can call expensive pay lines, download ridiculous amounts of data over gprs, or even send me personal information from your device, some security should definitely be required.
The truth is because of the ability to make expensive phone calls directly to people who will have direct financial benefit, I would argue security for a phone is at least if not more important than on the PC.
my 2 cents
WM5/WM6 editions for touch-screen devices generally come with "relaxed" security which means that third party apps don't have to be signed to execute once somebody answers yes to a first-time warning dialog box. ROM cookers here generally relax this requirement even more by setting a registry value HKLM\Security\Policies\Policies\0000101A to a 1. This disables the first-time warning message also.
However, services and device drivers generally need to be signed because they are executed before these relaxed settings take effect. Application developers generally can work around this too by starting the service/device driver themselves with a little program placed in \windows\startup
WM6/WM5 editions for devices without touch-screens generally have a higher security setting that disallows execution of any application unless it is signed.
Something interesting that I found out while thinking about how to interop Unlock WP8: The "PhoneReg.exe" app which is a signed app used for developer unlocking a device is written in un-obfuscated C#.net code!
If anyone has access a program such as Dis#, we should be able to reverse-engineer this and at least figure out what types of data are being passed back and forth between different account types (e.g. Student dev unlock, vs regular dev unlock). Then we can maybe guess at what needs to be passed to Interop-Unlock these devices!
Based on my understanding of how the WP7 interop unlock works, all the Developer unlock does is modify a registry value. As the value gets higher, the more "Development stuff" you can do.
I'll see if I can scare up a copy of that app. Decompiling .NET code is trivial - you don't even need a paid tool, there are many perfectly good free ones (I usually use JustDecompile) - assuming it's not obfuscated.
With that said, bear in mind that we can't currently modify the data that the app receives from the network. That was actually how the original ChevronWP7 unlocker for WP7 worked, but Intercepting (or in the case CWP7U, spoofing) the data was blocked when Microsoft added a feature commonly called "certificate pinning", where rather than checking whether the server's SSL certificate is trusted in general (which you could do by installing a cert manually), the phone now checks for a specific cert (Microsoft's).
However, it's possible (a bit unlikely, but possible) that we'll find a vulnerability in the app. For example, they may have slightly messed up the cert pinning in a way we can exploit (I checked for cert pinning, but I didn't check for ways they might have screwed it up), or they might have left in some debug code we can mess with (that's how HTC interop unlock on WP7 was achieved), or some other such weakness.
If there's some way to help out by testing and such tasks in willing to test on my Lumia 920, if any vulnerability is found Just send me a PM if so
Sent from my Lumia 920 using Board Express
Cool. Good to know. What was nice about the program I mentioned is that it supposedly decompiles everything and then builds it into a nice Microsoft C# project that can be imported into Visual Studio. (I was able to do that, but bits of code within some classes and methods are missing and just have a code comment called //trial)
Some of the interesting code bits I noticed include:
1. the wonderful "NativeMethods.cs" file. This is a wrapper that allows you to call functions within "PhoneREG.dll" such as "GetAuthToken" and "GetWinPhone8Port"
2. "connectionManager.cs" It opens up a session to the phone using port 27077 to pass data.
3. The files called "lockCommand.cs" and "unlockCommand.cs" The deal with passing and converting some kind of "authToken" to the phone.
4. The "SignInDialog.cs" code provides everything necessary to sign into widows Live. It has variables to store oAUTH tokens.
My thoughts are as follows:
1. we could maybe write a custom app that functions as normal, but edits the ByteArray before it gets sent to the phone. Basically you would need an MSDN developer account of some sort, but signing in with this app will give you Interop Privileges.
2. Maybe there will be something "hidden" if we can figure out what this app is talking to on the phone via port 27077.
That sounds interesting. I'll try to look at the data tomorrow before I head to work and see if I can find anything Hopefully I will
Sent from my Lumia 920 using Board Express
If we can actually bypass interop lock with a non-MS signature, that would be fantastic... and I'd be astonished. That wasn't possible in WP7 (Mango or later, when the interop-lock was present) and isn't possible in Windows RT either.
Can you either send the app, or post a link to where you got it from?
Hi guys,
just wanted to give you all a huge *thumbs up*! You're doing great work here!
I have a Lumia 920 for about 2 weeks now.
So, as i did some Lumia 800 and Lumia 900 custom roms, and became a little "bored" to WP7, i would be happy if i could help you by testing some stuff on my Lumia 920
If you need my help, just let me know
lordmaxey said:
Hi guys,
just wanted to give you all a huge *thumbs up*! You're doing great work here!
I have a Lumia 920 for about 2 weeks now.
So, as i did some Lumia 800 and Lumia 900 custom roms, and became a little "bored" to WP7, i would be happy if i could help you by testing some stuff on my Lumia 920
If you need my help, just let me know
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know your feeling I made WM6.5.x, Android and WinPho 7 roms for the HTC HD2 before I got my Lumia 920
Sent from my Lumia 920 using Board Express
I have a dev unlocked Lumia 820 and can do any testing if required
If you are running a Windows 8 PC and can install the Windows Phone 8 SDK, the PhoneReg tool can be found at C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft SDKs\Windows Phone\v8.0\Tools\Phone Registration
There are some other tools that I haven't poked around at that could be interesting to try and decompile and "re-work" such as the XapSignTool. (I think this might be written in C++ though)
The SDK in its entirety can be downloaded from http://developer.windowsphone.com/en-us/downloadsdk. You want "SDK 8.0".
I'll get my dev unlock in a month. Will get it as a birthday gift So by then I'll be able to help out more.
Should've checked the USB port stuff this morning, but I didn't have time for it but will do it when I get home in 2 hours
Sent from my Lumia 920 using Board Express
EDIT: Can't seem to find a usable USB sniffer that works under Windows 8, or I've been configuring those I've tried wrong. Enabled TESTSIGNING in BCDEDIT and rebooted, so Test Mode is activated, but no tool seem to work
Regards
The phone itself can communicate with a Windows 7 PC, just not if you want to use the SDK. Perhaps try the same experiment under Windows 7? You might be able to copy the "Phone tools" directory off of Windows 8 onto Windows 7. It uses .net 4.5, so make sure the runtime is installed.
I have already gone down this road and can fairly confidently say it is a dead-end. The only interesting thing I found was the ability to switch a phone to use the internal Microsoft development authentication servers. Best of luck though - maybe I missed something.
SynergeTechSolutions said:
I have already gone down this road and can fairly confidently say it is a dead-end. The only interesting thing I found was the ability to switch a phone to use the internal Microsoft development authentication servers. Best of luck though - maybe I missed something.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats sad. Do you have any data collected from the communications on port 27077? That's what we're looking for right now.
Sent from my Lumia 920 using Board Express
SynergeTechSolutions said:
I have already gone down this road and can fairly confidently say it is a dead-end. The only interesting thing I found was the ability to switch a phone to use the internal Microsoft development authentication servers. Best of luck though - maybe I missed something.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
bummer
Any details about what you found out?
Did you see if the internal (test, I assume) server mode used cert pinning? If not, we can spoof those servers and basically re-implement the original ChevronWP7 unlocker (in a more elegant form, too).
Not quite the Goal you want to move to but maybe what you have found out so far can be used to enable Dev Unlocking and XAP deployment to Dev Unlocked WP8 devices from Windows 7. I believe there are quite a lot of developers who would be happy to have that possibility.
I do know that when you activate dev unlock on WP8 devices, it does it using the Windows Phone IP over USB service ("C:\Program Files (x86)\Common Files\Microsoft Shared\Phone Tools\CoreCon\11.0\Bin\IpOverUsbSvc.exe"). The IpOverUSBSvc is more or less just a .NET wrapper (I figured this would be the case). If anyone is good at x86 assembly and can get into the IpOverUsbPc.dll, we may get somewhere.
snickler said:
I do know that when you activate dev unlock on WP8 devices, it does it using the Windows Phone IP over USB service ("C:\Program Files (x86)\Common Files\Microsoft Shared\Phone Tools\CoreCon\11.0\Bin\IpOverUsbSvc.exe"). The IpOverUSBSvc is more or less just a .NET wrapper (I figured this would be the case). If anyone is good at x86 assembly and can get into the IpOverUsbPc.dll, we may get somewhere.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
several tools exists for decompiling DLLs to have a look at the source (which I assume will be .NET)
Reflector is one - commercial - solution, but in Adrian Banks blogs you will find alternatives that are free - and some commercial ones also.
http://www.adrianbanks.co.uk/?p=71
NielDK said:
several tools exists for decompiling DLLs to have a look at the source (which I assume will be .NET)
Reflector is one - commercial - solution, but in Adrian Banks blogs you will find alternatives that are free - and some commercial ones also.
http://www.adrianbanks.co.uk/?p=71
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the DLL I mentioned is unfortunately a COM dll. I already ran ILSpy against the exe to find that out. We will need someone with x86 assembly experience