flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > IDE Development > Does FASMW use obselete file API under WIN 7 ?

Goto page 1, 2  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
shutdownall



Joined: 02 Apr 2010
Posts: 518
Location: Munich
shutdownall
Very strange. Shocked

Does FASMW use obselete file system API / functions under WIN 7 ?
See my problems here.
http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t=14838

Today I got a bit deeper into it and looked at file attributes.
There you have the option to create a copy of this file (FASMW.ASM) without "personal" information. A new file "FASMW - Copy.ASM" is created. This file is not listed when I open FASMW open file dialog. Regardless if I use asm files or all file types.

The file is seen in explorer and can be opened in other programs.
So is FASMW.EXE using an obsolete file API ? Rolling Eyes

See attached pictures.
Crazy. Confused


Description: File FASMW - Copy.ASM - can see in directory
Filesize: 27.99 KB
Viewed: 6809 Time(s)

Clipboard03.jpg


Description: File FASMW - Copy.ASM - cant see in FASMW open file dialog
Filesize: 61.53 KB
Viewed: 6809 Time(s)

Clipboard01.jpg


Description: File attributes
Filesize: 32.51 KB
Viewed: 6809 Time(s)

Clipboard00.jpg


Post 07 Dec 2012, 13:58
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17628
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
shutdownall wrote:
Does FASMW use obselete file system API / functions under WIN 7 ?
I don't see this behaviour on the Win7 system I have here.
Post 08 Dec 2012, 05:07
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sinsi



Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 707
Location: Adelaide
sinsi
Different times on FASMW.ASM, are you sure it's the same directory?
Post 08 Dec 2012, 05:39
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
shutdownall



Joined: 02 Apr 2010
Posts: 518
Location: Munich
shutdownall
sinsi wrote:
Different times on FASMW.ASM, are you sure it's the same directory?


You are right, FASMW was looking on the wrong disk. Shocked
So now it can overwrite the file with no ask.

So is there a problem under WIN 7 to open files created with another user account ? I can see most of the XP files mounted as disk under WIN 7 but sometimes get message that access is not allowed depending on directory. The WIN 7 user has a different name than the WIN XP user. I wouldn't expect this behaviour when I am admin on my own local hardware.
Post 08 Dec 2012, 13:00
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
shutdownall wrote:
So is there a problem under WIN 7 to open files created with another user account?
No problems, NT security works as NT security is intended to... but it might not be what the user expects Smile

Internally, security descriptors don't refer to user accounts by name - you might want to use wikipedia as a starting point, then spend a few hours reading related links Smile

shutdownall wrote:
I wouldn't expect this behaviour when I am admin on my own local hardware.
It's pretty decent behavior IMHO. Even administrators don't run with full SYSTEM privileges, preventing you from doing stupid mistakes... but if you have administrative privileges, you can grant yourself the necessary privileges.

Tools that are relevant when (re)installing windows or moving disks include TAKEOWN, CACLS and ICACLS.

_________________
Image - carpe noctem
Post 08 Dec 2012, 18:11
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
shutdownall



Joined: 02 Apr 2010
Posts: 518
Location: Munich
shutdownall
f0dder wrote:
Even administrators don't run with full SYSTEM privileges, preventing you from doing stupid mistakes...


That's crazy. They could assume that admins know what they do, so no need to make admins life harder.
Post 08 Dec 2012, 18:58
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17628
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
shutdownall wrote:
They could assume that admins know what they do, so no need to make admins life harder.
That is an unsafe assumption. Not all admins are of equal quality.
Post 08 Dec 2012, 19:08
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
shutdownall wrote:
f0dder wrote:
Even administrators don't run with full SYSTEM privileges, preventing you from doing stupid mistakes...


That's crazy. They could assume that admins know what they do, so no need to make admins life harder.
I don't see how it's crazy.

It limits accidents, and (once you know the mechanics) it's very little hassle in daily work.

_________________
Image - carpe noctem
Post 08 Dec 2012, 19:26
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
shutdownall



Joined: 02 Apr 2010
Posts: 518
Location: Munich
shutdownall
What I really don't need is someone asking me, if I really want what I want.
And I don't need someone only want my best, like a big mama.
But this is the typical american way where nobody is responsible for nothing and protection is the only way how all things work.
Rolling Eyes
Post 08 Dec 2012, 20:06
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Reply with quote
shutdownall



Joined: 02 Apr 2010
Posts: 518
Location: Munich
shutdownall
f0dder wrote:

It limits accidents, and (once you know the mechanics) it's very little hassle in daily work.


Driving with only 10km/h limits accidents, too.
Welcome in the world of limits.
Post 08 Dec 2012, 20:10
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Reply with quote
shutdownall



Joined: 02 Apr 2010
Posts: 518
Location: Munich
shutdownall
The most kidding part is that MS is keeping the complete MFT format secret.
Partly MFT is documented but only partly and not official from Microsoft as you would expect. Only a few forensic guys are finding out some parts of these secrets.

If I pay for an OS like WIN I could expect to use a public documented file system with all aspects.
Post 08 Dec 2012, 20:14
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
Move to a macho OS and an unsafe filesystem, then, and you'll be happier?

_________________
Image - carpe noctem
Post 09 Dec 2012, 13:36
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
shutdownall



Joined: 02 Apr 2010
Posts: 518
Location: Munich
shutdownall
Why is a well documented modern file system like Btrfs unsafe in general ?

If I am admin user with admin rights I should be able to do all on the files what necessary with no access restriction. What more do you want ? A super-admin ? With some more rights and above a super-super-admin ? Where should it end ? Should I need a confirmation from a developer of Redmond to delete or change something on my disk ?

Why does linux handle this more efficient ? If I am root user there is no restriction in access at all. Or did you ever heard of a super-root concept ? Root is root and admin should be admin - that's all.

There should be really more self-responsibility. The gouvernment provides restrictions more and more - I don't need this in software. This has nothing to do with macho - more with liberty. Rolling Eyes
Post 09 Dec 2012, 14:37
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
Linux' "root" is equivalent to Windows' "SYSTEM" account. No sane person logs in with neither root nor SYSTEM for daily use.

shutdownall wrote:
This has nothing to do with macho - more with liberty.
No, it doesn't - NT doesn't prevent you from ruining your system, it just makes it harder to do so by accident - and in general has more granular permissions than what you get on *u*x. If you need to modify system files often enough that this is an annoyance, You're Doing Things Wrong(TM).
Post 09 Dec 2012, 16:19
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
shutdownall



Joined: 02 Apr 2010
Posts: 518
Location: Munich
shutdownall
f0dder wrote:
Linux' "root" is equivalent to Windows' "SYSTEM" account. No sane person logs in with neither root nor SYSTEM for daily use.

But you can not log in to Windows as a SYSTEM user. The complicate handling under windows to get full system rights is a big difference.

f0dder wrote:
NT doesn't prevent you from ruining your system, it just makes it harder to do so by accident - and in general has more granular permissions than what you get on *u*x.

If it makes harder by accident it makes it harder in general as well.

For me the concept of Microsoft's file access right managemant is bullshit like the concept of the registry. Razz
Post 09 Dec 2012, 18:21
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17628
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
... and we don't need those pointless expensive safety rails on bridges, just let people walk off the edge if they want to.

The point is (or is supposed to be) that you can purposefully jump the safety rail if you want to, but it is meant to be unlikely that you'll do it by accident when casually walking along in a daydream.
Post 10 Dec 2012, 00:26
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
shutdownall wrote:
For me the concept of Microsoft's file access right managemant is bullshit like the concept of the registry. Razz
So, efficient and uniform configuration lookup with fine-grained security permissions and crash protection is bullshit?

Yeah. The zillion different configuration text-file formats on *u*x is so much better. Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

_________________
Image - carpe noctem
Post 10 Dec 2012, 09:19
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sinsi



Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 707
Location: Adelaide
sinsi
Just run fasmw as administrator, access to all files (except where the user has a password on their account, usually).
Post 10 Dec 2012, 09:49
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
xDOBORAx



Joined: 09 Jun 2013
Posts: 24
xDOBORAx
win 7 uses 1 gb ram, XP just 512 and less if you disable some services
i know this is offtopic but best solution i to just use XP or even NT
Post 03 Aug 2013, 12:39
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
comrade



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 1137
Location: Russian Federation
comrade
Check %LOCALAPPDATA%\VirtualStore.
Post 03 Aug 2013, 23:15
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on GitHub, YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.