password protected properties?

[david_jenkinson]

Hi,

We are generating data, in which we want to zip the data with a password that the user cannot access, during the test in an automated step.  I want to use a property to contain the password, but I don't want it displayable in raw text.  My thoughts then go to password protecting a property.  But this doesn't seem possible.  I do see the ability to hide properties however, which could be a solution. (Set a stationglobal with the password, hide it, and reference this property in the step that creates the archive).  Is there any other viable way anyone knows about to keep passwords away from end users when automating creation of a password protected file?

Thanks

Dave J.

[James_Grey]

Speaking as someone who has never done this and would have to resort to Google to find the necessary APIs, perhaps you should create public/private key pair. The sequence would only have the public key which encrypts the data. Since the public key can't decrypt, it doesn't need to be hidden.

[kosist90 · Accepted solution]

I'm just curious - why do you want to use property, and morevover, hide it? If you'll run sequence from custom Operator Interface, operator will not access values of variables so easily.

If you want to really hide something like that (and if you use LabVIEW), then use global variable, or some function global. Put it directly inside of code modules for zipping, so from TS will be no obvious access to it in variables, or something else; and read/write values to it inside of code modules. And if you'll have deployed system, and password-protected deployed code modules, then noone will access code modules from TestStand so easily...

[david_jenkinson]

Yes that could work.  I was trying to get away with just adding a new parameter, the password, to our already existing teststand step which calls the 7zip exe to zip the data, that's why my mind went to a teststand property.  But if I changed this operation to a labview code module, and shared a global variable containing the password, and password protected the deployed code (which I already do), then I think that would do it.  That is why I posted here, to jar me from my tunnel vision.  Thanks for the suggestion.