Index
> Windows > is it possible to write to an *.exe fileGoto page Previous 1, 2 |
| Author |
|
|
Borsuc 30 May 2006, 18:48
Cleaning entries may not improve speed, but it certainly removes the 'garbage'
Personally, the registry is out of my control. The filesystem is not. I usually put everything ordered correctly and decent there. The registry is complete out of control, except for a bit of stuff. .ini are so easier to manipulate (even with an .ini editor, if they were binary). And I meant that .inis are usually put in a folder, split, not in a large .ini. Each program could have it's own .ini, not stored up in system.ini |
|||
30 May 2006, 18:48 |
|
|
donkey7 30 May 2006, 18:49
Quote:
you forgot to mention registry rebuilders. in win 95 it's a program that just exports registry into an reg file, then deletes it's fragmented binary form, and finally builds fresh registry from exported file. |
|||
|
30 May 2006, 18:49 |
|
|
donkey7 30 May 2006, 18:53
Quote:
and i meant you can put a small custom registry in a folder, not in a large system registry. each program could have it's own registry, not stored up in system.dat 
[addition] Quote:
consider some huge configuration file. for example system registry - convert system.dat to ini file and then try to edit. 
for small files text form is better, for huge files binary form is better. Last edited by donkey7 on 30 May 2006, 18:57; edited 1 time in total |
|||
|
30 May 2006, 18:53 |
|
|
Borsuc 30 May 2006, 18:57
Really? Cool
But if you can really do this, it simply annoys me all the programs out there that simply store information in system.dat and this is usually "hidden" information for me (in fact, it shouldn't be and isn't at all, but it's so hard to trace it in that massive registry garbage). If registry are "binary .ini" then it's cool, but I never saw separate registry for each programs (only the main "system.dat" registry, but oh well, you learn things everyday). I don't understand why such programs store everything there, just to keep it out of control. Why don't they store it in the application's directory? |
|||
|
30 May 2006, 18:57 |
|
|
donkey7 30 May 2006, 19:07
Quote:
you should ask the programmers. basically it's easier to use system registry if you need only one variable to remember. and you can keep informations in registry after uninstall and use them after reinstall. when ms created registry, they used it for everything. other programmers just followed them. personally i think that system registry should be used only by system (ie. only system can modify system registry), and each program should have it's own configuration file. it will make life a lot easier (eg. you can copy setting betwen computers easily, you don't have any garbage in system registry, etc). it's a programers choice. another problem is that ms didn't provide an api to build and manipulate custom registries  only custom ini files. |
|||
|
30 May 2006, 19:07 |
|
|
f0dder 30 May 2006, 19:12
Quote:
It's not too bad im/exporting keys programatically, but sure - file-based config is easier for USB thumbdrive applications and such. Registry is a lot nicer for centralized management of a lot of corporate users, though. Quote:
On NT, you can load/unload and save hives, though... |
|||
|
30 May 2006, 19:12 |
|
|
Borsuc 30 May 2006, 19:13
donkey7 wrote: personally i think that system registry should be used only by system (ie. only system can modify system registry), and each program should have it's own configuration file. it will make life a lot easier (eg. you can copy setting betwen computers easily, you don't have any garbage in system registry, etc).
If registry is really like .ini (but in binary form), then it's cool. So I should rephrase my statement "Registry sucks" to "System Registry used by ALL applications (and not only the system) sucks". 
donkey7 wrote: another problem is that ms didn't provide an api to build and manipulate custom registries |
|||
|
30 May 2006, 19:13 |
|
|
comrade 31 May 2006, 05:22
you can look at this source that writes to its own exe file by injecting into another process (like explorer.exe):
http://comrade.ownz.com/sources/selfsave.zip i am not sure if it still works though, i wrote it a long time ago on win2000 |
|||
|
31 May 2006, 05:22 |
|
|
okasvi 31 May 2006, 18:59
It works well here with xp sp2, but I'd suggest writing addresses for api's, etc. to separate place and then pass ptr to it with createremotethread and refer to injected data as structure. Makes the process more straightforward I think, fill the struct in heap, use writeprocess to copy struct from heap to virtualallocated space in foreign process, copy the actual code and pass ptr to struct, use like 'call [ebx+REMOTEDATA.CreateFile]' to open file etc.
|
|||
|
31 May 2006, 18:59 |
|
| Goto page Previous 1, 2 < Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|