Get assembly code from FEZ Cobra

I have a FEZ Cobra v1.2 motherboard connected to a display. It’s loaded with a sowing program.

I used to send the devices to the programmer, who is no longer working for me, and he loaded the program to it.
Now, he won’t give me the code or the program and I can’t load anymore devices.

So, my question is:
Is there any way of extracting the loaded program of a motherboard? In case It can be done, how I load other devices?
And a bonus one, is there a way of decoding it?

Thank you in advance,


something’s does not feel right.

What information do you need to check the history?
I’m the son in law of the device owner. I’m just doing this because I know about programming.

Who owns the original design and source code?

Is it you or the programmer?

If you own it, then you need to go through a legal process to obtain this from the programmer. He cannot withhold it but it depends on the original contract.

If he owns it, and you copy an exisiting module (assuming you can) then you will be breaking the law on copyright.


Have your device enabled Application protection? If yes then there is reason why have enabled it(To prevent copy Firmware to other devices). If not then you can get hex files and maybe “make reverse engineering”… But best and easiest way is get sources from developer by legal way…

Thank you Dejan
Now, the question is HOW I can get the hex files?

I connect the mother to the PC but I can’t see it on my devices but I get a response when pinging with MFDeploy.

I don’t think anyone is going to give you an answer, assuming it is even possible.

You are asking us to participate in something that might be illegal. Since we have no way to validate your claim to the software, the prudent response is silence.

You can get your files with MFDeploy(Application Deployment) if application is not protected and flash them to another device. Maybe you can “make reverse engineering” but as Im say this is ilegal.

Why are you helping someone who intent might be dubious?

I don’t think we should censure the folks that want to reply. It is, of course, up to each of us to decide whether or not to respond to a post and what to say.

1 Like

Yet, you are trying to censure Mike… I think he made a conscious decision to respond. :smiley:

(I’m not trying to agitate. I just couldn’t resist…)

@ ianlee74 - Touche!

We are not talking about “free speech” now. We are talking about potentially supporting piracy, which I don’t think is a goal of this forum.

I do not know if the original poster intent is malicious, but I think we should refrain from participation is a questionable endeavor. Am I being unreasonable?

While we are at it, let’s banish the internet because it can be used for illegal purposes.

Or until GHI decides their policy on this issue, everyone should take Iggmoe’s advice

I don’t support piracy!!!
As Im say if developer has “make device & app” for him and he don’t own rights to distribute them then device probably have piracy protection enabled. If have enabled privacy/application protection then MFDeploy will not help him to get app hex files from device. Every developer who don’t want that his code is not copied will lock device. If not then probably he don’t know nothing about device and also application is not worth anything or is already some copy of other work…

@ Dejan - Now I understand. If it is not locked, then it is OK to steal.

@ Farsa - OK, if there is not an anti-piracy policy then stealing is OK.

Sorry, he is guilty of piracy until proven otherwise. You are right.

@ Mike - to be fair Dejan has only presented a standard feature of MFDeploy. Do I agree that the original post seemed suspicious, yes, but suspicion is not a basis for the assumption of guilt. Pointing someone to a standard feature of the tools we use does not imply that we are supporting piracy since there is no proof of malicious intent.

Is Microsoft supporting piracy since they both implemented and documented this capability?

1 Like

Depend of country! In our country you are NOT guilty until proven otherwise!

@ ianlee – Heh heh. You troublemaker :slight_smile:

Although, the inner smarty-pants in me wants to point out that I may or may not have been censuring Mike, as my original post didn’t address him directly. Perhaps I was just typing into the wind :slight_smile:

In all seriousness though, a lot of the things we do here can potentially be used for illegal and/or nefarious purposes. If a forum poster specifically posted something that was clearly illegal, then [em]I[/em] wouldn’t want to participate, and of course GHI can intervene, since it’s their forum.

But using this thread as an example, we don’t know what the actual relationship between the OP and the hired programmer is. The OP may own the rights to the code, but then again, he may not. It is not clear who owns the code and it is not stated. Because it’s ambiguous, each of us naturally interprets the request our own way, like an inkblot test. Some may see the question as innocuous, while others may not. I think in an ambiguous situation such as this, we should let individual posters decide if and how to respond.

For example, I can ask this question:
“How can I use a FEZ to receive a signal from a cellphone and in turn pulse an output to a connected device?”

There’s really no way for anyone here to validate exactly what this “device” is and whether it could be something fairly nasty. In the absence of compelling clues to the contrary, I would prefer to give my fellow forum-posters the benefit of the doubt and assume they aren’t out to do evil. Otherwise, we could all end up being suspicious of each other, especially with the particular toys that we’re playing with.