Hi,
I am working on deploying PLCnext projects automatically (and other, non-PLC binaries + configs as well). I essentially copy a precompiled PCWE-dir onto the Controller and change certain files for the configuration of the respective profinet devices (Stationname, MAC Address) + how to change the checksum files. Another portion is using dcp to also configure the devices accordingly, so that is project setup matches with the available devices.
It works. However, I cannot ‘overwrite’ the customized project with PLCNext Engineer, it fails. I think that this is due to a file called ‘dlc.bin’ which appeares within PCWE directory after uploading with PLCNext Engineer. I think this is another checksum/hash function to verify that everything was copied correctly by PLCNextEngineer. I think, that this is an ‘entrypoint’ for downloading a next version into the PLC (with PLCNExt Engineer). Since this file is missing, it fails, so the assumption.
My question is: Can I have a bit of guidance how to create this little file? For the time being, If i want to write a PLCNext Project traditionally, I need to reset the controller in order to do so.
Hello,
I’ve looked into this issue internally.
We are currently seeing an increasing number of requirements aimed at improving system security. The overall trend is toward further restricting access and functionality in order to reduce the system’s attack surface.
As a result, it is becoming increasingly difficult to provide support for analyzing binaries or mapping internal system structures.
Please note that the procedure described in my previous post is not officially supported. Therefore, we do not recommend using it.
At this time, the recommended approach is to use the Update & Restore functionality available in WBM.
The topic of production machines is receiving a great deal of attention internally, and there is strong interest in improving this area. The ability to scale machines reliably, flexibly, and with minimal effort is becoming increasingly important.
While there is currently no timeline for a solution, and this issue is unlikely to be resolved in the near term, it remains on our radar and continues to be actively discussed.
Hi,
Restricting it further than the current status results in the necessity to switch to another platform.
Maybe I am missing something but I don’t think that your initial post is a solution to our problem. BTW the link to your knowledgebase is not accessable, at least for me.