God help a man who's lost in the PLC world

[OkiePC]

I'm looking now at the COM libraries that the RSView installation places on my PC, but without any guide to how the classes, methods, and parameters found in those COM objects are used, I have little hope for finding anything out on my own.

jarbar1026

Instead of looking at the nuts and bolts on the installed program, why not open up the help files and go through the tutorial? Pretend for a minute your not a programmer-dude but just an end user and look at RSView32 from that perspective. Do you have a copy of RSView32 Works? or just RSView32 Runtime? Run the works program and go through the basic tutorial. Take a seminar available through Rockwell. There is COMPLETE OBJECT MODEL OF THE ENTIRE PACKAGE CONTAINED WITHIN THE NORMAL DOCUMENTATION! You're a self described

Microsoft homer

so you should be able to learn everything you need to use RSView in two days.

Your method of approach to this problem is baffling to me, no offense intended.

Paul C.

 

[rsdoran]

Monkey:

>I was referring to Steve's 'Backdoor' comment... There is
>nothing backdoor about packet sniffing and it was a logical
>idea for a software developer whose never been exposed to PLCs.

>I love how this board is called "LIVE PLC Quesions and Answers",
>but anytime someone new comes around and asks a question,
>certain members decide to **** all over them and talk to them like >their idiots unless they've got a bunch of PLC experience.
This is LIVE PLC Q&A and you asked a question and many did not agree that was the best way to do what you needed to do. Why ask if you can not accept an answer you did not want?

Thanks, MH. You know, it's been hard to feel like I'm "backdooring" my own company when all of our IT group is working hard to help me get a solution, *whatever* that solution may be.

I've seen the light on the packet-sniffing. It does seem like it's going to be a significant investment of time and some time down the road before I'll even know how do-able or stable such a system would be. I'm looking now at the COM libraries that the RSView installation places on my PC, but without any guide to how the classes, methods, and parameters found in those COM objects are used, I have little hope for finding anything out on my own.

I have a call in to our local Rockwell rep. I'm hoping he can shed some light.

One comment on this forum: I'll try not to post another question here unless I absolutely have to. I was met from the start with "You're the devil" and "You're an idiot" comments, and I can't say it's a very welcoming place to those who are "on the outside" of the topic.
I do not think anyone said either of those comments, there was one comment about it being a lousy idea. Overall the the first 20 threads or so tried to provide the information for RSView and that it could provide what was needed.

I think it's great for those immersed in PLCs, but those not so immersed should probably limp back to Google and continue the hunt.

I made answers in the quote. If someone does not like the answers or disagreed with on the method being used then they should not ask questions on a public forum.
Think about it, this is a PLC forum...you have the tools to do what you wanted available....BUT you wanted to use another method that could be taken wrong. What answers would you expect?

There were comments from others about being "jumped on", undoubtledly all the replies were not read because noone "jumped on" anyone, they just tried to show that RSView could do what was needed and trying to reinvent something did not make sense...even the original poster decided packet sniffing was not the best method; http://www.plctalk.net/qanda/showpost.php?p=133577&postcount=37
I disagree entirely with the comment that using a packet sniffer would be a logical choice for anyone. Anyone should investigate any system (machine or otherwise) to determine the tools that are available. Seems to me using a program with tools that is available would make more sense, to an end user, than developing a new program...that may have to be an add-on to the existing programm. In this situation it is a "backdoor approach".

Then several AGREE you got jumped...I defy anyone to show me where! One devil, one idiot or anything more than "its a lousy idea". Steve was apprehensive about the "reason" for doing this, so were others but noone was sarcastic etc, just attempted to show that RSView could do what was needed.

I think some of you should take the time to read ALL of the replies made, it is apparent you are not doing so at this time.

I noticed that those that agreed packet sniffing was OK did not provide a method to do it, why not?

More than likely this is a situation of IT and Engineering not working together...we discuss this regularly.
OR
It is someone looking for a backdoor method of accessing or intercepting Ethernet/wireless data...you decide on WHY.

I have my opinion and at this time will stick with it, if it offends anyone then so be it.

To all those that "GOT UPSET", re-read the thread and see where you can find "devil" or "idiot" or show me where someone actually "came down hard". It is not a standard method for data collection so why wouldn't some be apprehensive?

 

[OkiePC]

Ron, you told him he should be a hacker and he isn't good at his job. I don't disagree with that statement, but I can see where he "got his poor little feelings hurt".

Technically if you are IT then you SHOULD BE a HACKER or you are not good at your job.

by rsdoran.

Personally, who cares. If you can't take honest, biting criticism, don't come ask me a stupid question to my face. On this forum I have the chance to read and re-read my comments and generally water down the emotion and personal attacks. Like, Ron, I don't give a rats -a** about your sensitivity, just the facts ma'am.

Paul C.

 

[castlerock]

Then several AGREE you got jumped...I defy anyone to show me where! One devil, one idiot or anything more than "its a lousy idea". Steve was apprehensive about the "reason" for doing this, so were others but noone was sarcastic etc, just attempted to show that RSView could do what was needed.

I think some of you should take the time to read ALL of the replies made, it is apparent you are not doing so at this time.

Ron. I read the whole thread...twice. I wouldn't say that jarbar got jumped but he may have felt that way when he was more or less being accused of cracking the system. A perfectly natural reaction for some people. Steve comes off harsh at times and if he's misunderstood then perhaps he would work on his people skills. I had to pull an older platform operator ( who is just "visiting" mine because his platfirm is still damaged from Hurricane Katrina) off to the side because of that. Surely he didn't mean to sound like an a** but that did little for the people he was barking at. The ability to communicate without coming off harsh or offensive is important.
Monkey recognized this and so did I. Everyone is different and I can accept a degree of harshness or bluntness...but not everyone is like that.

I noticed that those that agreed packet sniffing was OK did not provide a method to do it, why not?

He already had the sniffing figured out. He needed information on the protocol. Peter Nachtwey have some good advice and I provided a link to the ABEL library. After re-reading his orinial post, I now realized that I screwed up. He needs the CELL library most likely but now he may never now. I hope google finds it for him.

It is someone looking for a backdoor method of accessing or intercepting Ethernet/wireless data...you decide on WHY.

This is not my decision to make. But if you feel a little paranoid about releasing certain information, that is well within your right.

I have my opinion and at this time will stick with it, if it offends anyone then so be it.

As said, that is well within your right.

To all those that "GOT UPSET", re-read the thread and see where you can find "devil" or "idiot" or show me where someone actually "came down hard". It is not a standard method for data collection so why wouldn't some be apprehensive?

Jarbar is a hacker. Not a script kiddie or cracker but a hacker. Hackers create. They have the burning desire to do interesting things with technology; the very definiton of a hacker. To me, it was blatently obvious that he wanted to create somthing of value for his company that he could be proud of and save them expensive licensing fees on commercial software (and also blately obvious that many of you come from with windows side of the world where hacker is almost always a bad thing). Instead of helping him do somthing interesting and creative, most told him to stick with the standard tools and forget about it.

Even after he said he was only reading from the network, not writing anything to it. We all know what passive means. I didn't see a safety issue here.

Tark said:"If you want someone to instruct you on how to reverse engineer AB’s communication protocol, forget it."

Why not ? Doesn't matter. Its already been done.
How about actually clicking on this link.
Ron Gage is a truely amazing hacker to have accomplished this. If he would have listened to such advice, we wouldn't have these tools that he so generously gave us.

Hat tip to Peter Nachtwey. He truely got it. He recommended that Jarbar follow the sound advice that many of you gave, but also gave advice to help Jarbar in is quest for knowlege.

Peter, I had no idea you were such a hacker. =]

Well...enough of my rantings. Just remember that we are all adults here capable of making our own decisions. Its good to offer the standard advice, but if someone wants to do somthing a little different...a little more interesting...then I wouldn't descourage it as long as they fully understand potential consequences, difficulty, etc.

Thanks,
Mike

 

[castlerock]

Ron, you told him he should be a hacker and he isn't good at his job. I don't disagree with that statement, but I can see where he "got his poor little feelings hurt".

Thats probably the most condesending statement i've read on this board.

Personally, who cares. If you can't take honest, biting criticism, don't come ask me a stupid question to my face. On this forum I have the chance to read and re-read my comments and generally water down the emotion and personal attacks. Like, Ron, I don't give a rats -a** about your sensitivity, just the facts ma'am.

It's easy to have that attitude on a message board because you're not actually talking face to face. Its easy to be rude through a machine when you don't have to really deal with the person on the other end.

 

[Peter Nachtwey]

You are relatively new.

Peter, I had no idea you were such a hacker. =]

I am, we are not. My company develops motion products for PLCs and stand alone applications. We make Ethernet/IP certified products and were the first or second company to make an Ethernet/IP certified product, before CEL was available. We take making industrial products very seriously. We also get UL, CSA, and CE certifications. Do a search of this forum and the internet using my name or Delta Computer Systems on the internet. Notice I said we. I do not do the Ethernet programming. I develop the target generators, control algorithms and do the more complicated application support.

 

[rsdoran]

I have an attitude all the time. If I say it here I would not hesitate to say it in the "real world".

I know the difference between a "cracker" and a "hacker", search old threads on the subject.

Hackers create, that is ever so true, but the creation is normally to devise methods to enhance security not reinvent the wheel.

I am not sure any costs would be associated with using the products mentioned, this was never researched as far as I know so why is it "assumed" that there would be?

If you can read a network then you can write to the network. If something is created that can interpret the "data" then it could also be expanded to intercept and write.

Peter offered options to do it, this did mention "costs" and "development time" associated with it.

It's easy to have that attitude on a message board because you're not actually talking face to face. Its easy to be rude through a machine when you don't have to really deal with the person on the other end.

That was my point, noone was rude in the beginning but was "rudely accused" of it. If you read all the replies then you will see that devil nor idiot was ever stated, the fact is that a reply was made accusing people of a lie, which is RUDE.

My statement "Technically if you are IT then you SHOULD BE a HACKER or you are not good at your job." was considered rude, offensive or an insult by the poster then he is not what he claims to be.

Jarbar is a hacker. Not a script kiddie or cracker but a hacker. Hackers create. They have the burning desire to do interesting things with technology; the very definiton of a hacker. To me, it was blatently obvious that he wanted to create somthing of value for his company that he could be proud of and save them expensive licensing fees on commercial software (and also blately obvious that many of you come from with windows side of the world where hacker is almost always a bad thing). Instead of helping him do somthing interesting and creative, most told him to stick with the standard tools and forget about it.

How many times have you run across software or add-on programs that were undocumented etc but something happened and "management" needed it NOW. I am not sure "individual" creativity should be done in an industrial environment, thats why so many companies spend so much money on "off the shelf" well documented and supported hardware and software. I especially did not think their was a need to "create" when the tools/software was readily available.

Technically the whole idea did not make sense to me, it would be along the same lines as "creating" a new programming software package for the SLC500 when you already have RSLogix500.

I have no reason to be paranoid but let me provide a what if;
What IF scenario: Someone gets fired from a company and ticked off about it, but had access to aspects of a network..ie gateways, IP's, passwords etc. This person has accessed data but can not interpret it...

You can justify it any way you want but sometimes if it doesnt sound right it just is not.

Fact is there are differences in approaches and ideas used in many fields. I still think an intelligent "programmer type" would be able to look at existing software information and manuals and determine a method to accomplish what needs to be done...Learning more about the PLC's and programming aspects could be more beneficial to him and the company.

This is my opinion for what it is worth.

 

[castlerock]

I am, we are not. My company develops motion products for PLCs and stand alone applications. We make Ethernet/IP certified products and were the first or second company to make an Ethernet/IP certified product, before CEL was available. We take making industrial products very seriously. We also get UL, CSA, and CE certifications. Do a search of this forum and the internet using my name or Delta Computer Systems on the internet. Notice I said we. I do not do the Ethernet programming. I develop the target generators, control algorithms and do the more complicated application support.

I have. I've seen you post about your company and checked out the web site once when you remarked about your avitar. Interesting.

I've communicated over the net with hackers who take their work very seriously. Many who work in a professional environment don't want to be associated with that word, but I've met a few prefessionals in person who fit the basic definition of a hacker. Just someone who enjoys doing interesting things with technology. Nothing more, nothing less. I've been using linux and associating with unix/linux people for ten years so I just have that mind set.
Please don't take offense. ;]

I aquired an AB SLC-500 about the time I started visiting this site and through e-bay and jumo am slowly getting enough cards and end devices to do somthing more interesting than watch my program thru the lights on the output card. -g-

This is truely interesting technology that deserves to be explored.

Thanks for the reply,
Mike

 

[monkeyhead]

Just in case anyone cares since this whole thread has wondered so far off the original topic, the ActiveX control I mentioned earlier is call CimQuest On-Gear.

It seems to be a lot more lightweight than OPC and does get around requiring RSLinx Pro and RSView. The control can read and right data from the PLC and can be embedded in Visual Basic and Visual C++ apps (maybe even .Net... didn't read too closely). It looks like they can read to the full Allen Bradley line of controllers (5/500/5000). It looks like CimQuest also supports some other 'major' brands of controllers.

I'm not much of a VBA guy, but other than a silly oversight on the original authors part, it does seem to work very well in the application I mentioned previously in this thread where it reads data off a FIFO stack and then alerts the PLC to unload the stack at a rate of twice a second.

 

[castlerock]

I have an attitude all the time. If I say it here I would not hesitate to say it in the "real world".

It's not what you say but how you say it. Things can be easily misinterpreted on a message board. Besides, I really didn't think any of your posts on this subject were rude nor did I accuse you of it. I actually find your posts on this board very informative.

I know the difference between a "cracker" and a "hacker", search old threads on the subject.

Hackers create, that is ever so true, but the creation is normally to devise methods to enhance security not reinvent the wheel.

Hackers don't just work on networks. Look at KDE and Gnome. Many said that Gnome was a waste of time because we alrady had KDE. I say Gnome gave me a choice.

Also when dealing with a closed system sometimes you have to reinvent the wheel because no one knows how the first one was made.

I am not sure any costs would be associated with using the products mentioned, this was never researched as far as I know so why is it "assumed" that there would be?

Its not just assumed. Normally when commercial software is installed on more than one machine additional licesnses have to be purchased. I don't actually know the cost per license for RSView but I'm sure AB doesn't give it away.

If you can read a network then you can write to the network. If something is created that can interpret the "data" then it could also be expanded to intercept and write.

Agreed. But Jarbar said repeatedly that his program would be read only...unless we assumed him to be lying.

Peter offered options to do it, this did mention "costs" and "development time" associated with it.

Yes he did. The costs is for his companys managment to decide on. All he wanted was information.

That was my point, noone was rude in the beginning but was "rudely accused" of it. If you read all the replies then you will see that devil nor idiot was ever stated, the fact is that a reply was made accusing people of a lie, which is RUDE.

You pulled that quote from a message to someone else who was most definately being rude. That was not directed at you Ron.

My statement "Technically if you are IT then you SHOULD BE a HACKER or you are not good at your job." was considered rude, offensive or an insult by the poster then he is not what he claims to be.

Again, that was from the another message by someone else. I made no comment on that remark when it came from you. I actually agree with you 110% on that statement. However, the other poster did retype it wrong and it didn't come out right.

How many times have you run across software or add-on programs that were undocumented etc but something happened and "management" needed it NOW. I am not sure "individual" creativity should be done in an industrial environment, thats why so many companies spend so much money on "off the shelf" well documented and supported hardware and software. I especially did not think their was a need to "create" when the tools/software was readily available.

Actually I haven't. But I'm sure it happens. I guess the closest thing I could some up with was when one of our platforms ran on a Fisher ROC that was giving us problems and none of our IE guys could do anything with it because it wasn't ladder logic. We had to call out the original programmer.
I see your point though. But again thats a managment decision, not ours.

Technically the whole idea did not make sense to me, it would be along the same lines as "creating" a new programming software package for the SLC500 when you already have RSLogix500.

I really wish someone would. Then I wouldn't have to run RSLogix in a windows emulator. What if I want to run my shop with MACs ? This will be a project for me eventually...when I'm good enough.

Someone did do this for the PLC-5. Its called TOPDOC from the SoftPLC Corporation. Its written in Java so it's cross platform.

I have no reason to be paranoid but let me provide a what if;
What IF scenario: Someone gets fired from a company and ticked off about it, but had access to aspects of a network..ie gateways, IP's, passwords etc. This person has accessed data but can not interpret it...

This is always a risk even with the setup they have now. If any of their SCADA terminals are connected to the companys network and can be reached from the outside then it is already a risk. Our platform SCADA can be reached from our main office onshore. It's a closed network but can be accessed from the outside by some.

You can justify it any way you want but sometimes if it doesnt sound right it just is not.

I'm not trying to justify anything but the sharing of information. I'm an idealists. I'll admit to that.

Fact is there are differences in approaches and ideas used in many fields. I still think an intelligent "programmer type" would be able to look at existing software information and manuals and determine a method to accomplish what needs to be done...Learning more about the PLC's and programming aspects could be more beneficial to him and the company.

I'm sure he's doing well with that.

A couple of years ago I wrote an Excel VBA app to solve well tests and manage well test information. I am not in IT. I am a platform operator. Anyway, when I gave the first presentation on the program our automation foreman asked me why I didn't do it in Access. I wasn't that familiar with Access but Excel I knew pretty well. Also, I like the number crunching ease in Excel, ability to reformat the sheets for different setups, etc. Access would have made the storing of data easier but overall I felt I did a better job using Excel. I had my reasons.

Of course it wasn't that big a deal. I worked on the program during slow days and in my own time. I gave it to the company (actually to the operators to make their job easier).

My point here is that everyone has their reasons for wanting to do somthing a certain way weather we agree with them or not.

This is my opinion for what it is worth.

Everyones opinion has worth Ron. I hope you do not consider this an argument.

Thanks,
Mike

 

[monkeyhead]

That was my point, noone was rude in the beginning but was "rudely accused" of it. If you read all the replies then you will see that devil nor idiot was ever stated, the fact is that a reply was made accusing people of a lie, which is RUDE.

So I can't help but feel like this statement was pointed at me... but then again, maybe that's just my ego swelling up after a few beers.

Anyway, if it was. The whole comment that set my little tirade off was this:

http://www.plctalk.net/qanda/showpost.php?p=133266&postcount=16

From my perspective, I read it as rude, since jarbar already admitted there were much better approaches to solving his problem. Maybe from someone else's perspective, they didn't read it this way.

Either way, I sincerely hope that all this waste of server space wasn't prompted by me. I normally appreciate's Steve's comments and think he's a valuable member of this community, but I also get frustrated when people find this site and get beat up for not knowing enough...

I mean the site is called: 'PLCS.NET - Your Personal PLC Tutor Site' with a link to this forum for asking 'LIVE PLC Questions and Answers'

Again, my perspective makes me think that with this kind of advertising, it should be expected that newbie's will find their way here and ask silly uninformed questions.