[mdlug] Reverse-engineering data protocols

[David McMillan]

On 3/1/2011 2:44 PM, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> Have you contacted the manufacturer?
     Oh, yes.  First thing I did.  And I'm still working my contacts on 
that end, but sometimes it seems like this manufacturer rolls 10D100 
magic 8-balls in order to decide what data to share and what not to.  I 
suspect a large number of departments with little or no unified policy 
on proprietary-vs-open information.
> It would probably be simpler for them to just write a small
> bit of code to close the logging file, and start a new one
> (with a different name), and send you a new file.
     That I suspect won't happen, based on previous experience.  I'll 
spare you the sordid details, but this particular supplier writes their 
software the way *they* think it should be, customer feedback be hanged, 
regardless of how big the customer is.  They keep getting business 
because their stuff is *good,* no question -- I keep using it because 
it's simply the best there is for what I'm doing -- but they seem to be 
firmly convinced that they know better than the customer.  Although, 
given my own experience with their largest customers, I can't entirely 
blame them for that attitude...
     I did in fact run the logging software through a reverse compiler 
(the last few years, this vendor has been moving towards writing most of 
their Windows-side applications in un-obfuscated .NET), but it didn't go 
anywhere.  This particular app was probably written by a dept that is 
still sticking to VB6.
> And no, I don't like Windows at all -- but without feedback
> from users, they'll never know that their logging software
> is the pits.
     To be fair, I really am using this piece of software in ways it 
wasn't intended -- it wasn't intended as a tool that would see lots of 
heavy constant use.