Help combining two codes

Index > Windows > Help combining two codes

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Author

Thread

peet

Joined: 13 Dec 2011
Posts: 63

peet 18 Dec 2011, 13:21

AsmGuru62 wrote:

2. The standard edit control cannot select multiple places - you need to use some other control or write one by yourself - it will be hard for a person who is new into FASM or new into Windows programming. I could help you with that, but my edit control will be able to load/edit/copy/paste/save ANSI text files, view them and highlight multiple occurences of some text with color - that is all, i.e. - it be much simpler than usual 'edit' control.

shure i'd like, no i really appreciate your help an efforts. you mean you are reduciing standard edit control to elemantary functions and add some extra like multiple markups? sometime a word wrap would make sence too, amking long lines more readable. and what is not leaving my mind is an accelerator to open a cmd and send selection to it.

so i did get you right that i could add easily all accelarator of standard control just by adding the definitions and menuitems BUT not the mark matching string.

hm i guess i'd love to use your control?

Last edited by peet on 18 Dec 2011, 13:37; edited 1 time in total

18 Dec 2011, 13:21

peet

Joined: 13 Dec 2011
Posts: 63

peet 18 Dec 2011, 13:29

revolution wrote:

Usually the answer is 'no'. The exe, in most cases, does not need to be made larger. Simply viewing the file size will not give you an idea if something has changed. You need to go a lot further than that to detect changes: Either have an original backup which you compare to, or do a hash and check the hash each time.

what does usaly depend on? the resulting exact bitsize? maybe the blow our exe up with stupid but workin lines of code to a limit where the border for filesize will force sizeincrease?

i'd like to get rid of always hashing, sometimes even this second is resulting in further damage because of further lost time. this too is a reason for me liking small assembler pad which is loaded in none time (too it is available by clipboard on remote machine in none time) without any stupid windowOSinteractions hopefully. keep it small and simple will reduce possibility for errors the most efficient way, as there are so many factors around that reducing possibilty is only chance to reduce experience of murphys law.

- may assembler be with you -

18 Dec 2011, 13:29

revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 20627
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system

revolution 18 Dec 2011, 13:50

peet wrote:

what does usaly depend on?

The skill of the hacker. Wink

peet wrote:

... the resulting exact bitsize?

The files size is always 0 MOD 512. A requirement of the Windows loader.

peet wrote:

... maybe the blow our exe up with stupid but workin lines of code to a limit where the border for filesize will force sizeincrease?

Sure, but then a hacker can rewrite the "stupid" code and additionally add their own stuff.

peet wrote:

i'd like to get rid of always hashing, ...

Wouldn't we all, but unless you have a different OS from Windows that requires both encryption and signatures for every piece of code, then you don't have another option that I know of.

edit: Actually, I think requiring signatures only would be sufficient. Encryption is not needed but might be desired.

18 Dec 2011, 13:50

peet

Joined: 13 Dec 2011
Posts: 63

peet 18 Dec 2011, 14:12

hm, okay, but it leaves my idea behind, if it would be possible to arrange that small app this way, no line can easily be changed without almost recoding it. i believe even a pro will come to borders in manipulations - and shure like always there is no way to be 100% save, but you can make it lot more diffucult so interest is shrinkin and efforts growing. at least we leave kids behind. harden!=save, but nevertheless worth doin it

18 Dec 2011, 14:12

peet

Joined: 13 Dec 2011
Posts: 63

peet 18 Dec 2011, 14:44

@AG62:

i got more weird ideas like i'd love to be able to take a screenshot from the pad's window background of the screen and use it as background for the pad temporarily, then to be able to fade between them all by two scrollbars to write code depending on the seen ... wooowww ... if the selected code is sent to shell i'd laugh because of "usingflash".

my ideas leave my possibilties even in the next months behind a lot i see, but the more i think about the more i like the idea and i think i'd be willing to pay for that functionalities by maybe donating some amount to a social institution really - as this goes far beyond helping me learn i know. and i'm shure there will be one or two more genius funtionallities which would fit in the minipad.

how about that? possible? interesting? weird?

18 Dec 2011, 14:44

peet

Joined: 13 Dec 2011
Posts: 63

peet 18 Dec 2011, 15:02

@AG62:
next idea, it would be cool to carry an array of string in an exe's internal clipboard, hardcoded would be no problem (which would give possibilty to hardcode some personally needed lines and compile your personal one. the more handy it would be to be able to input and edit that clipboard content from pad itself. puh...cool idea? or nonsense? hmmm?

18 Dec 2011, 15:02

revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 20627
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system

revolution 18 Dec 2011, 15:40

Notepad2 (which I use) has transparent mode, and also always-on-top mode. I find both mode to be useful at various different times.

18 Dec 2011, 15:40

peet

Joined: 13 Dec 2011
Posts: 63

peet 18 Dec 2011, 16:13

revolution wrote:

Notepad2 (which I use) has transparent mode, and also always-on-top mode. I find both mode to be useful at various different times.

yep, stay on top is a really needed feature too, i know notepad2, but it already is overloaded with features, including those to make file or strings unusable without wanting to - and it is already some kind too big file.

18 Dec 2011, 16:13

AsmGuru62

Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Posts: 1708
Location: Toronto, Canada

AsmGuru62 18 Dec 2011, 17:31

@peet:
So, if you have an internal clipboard with a few strings - what do you do with these strings? Copy/Paste them?

18 Dec 2011, 17:31

peet

Joined: 13 Dec 2011
Posts: 63

peet 18 Dec 2011, 18:12

AsmGuru62 wrote:

@peet:
So, if you have an internal clipboard with a few strings - what do you do with these strings? Copy/Paste them?

yes, they'd be a liitle repository for the day or week, work to be done. as depending on the actual tasks i need often some peaces of instructions (cmd lines) on several machines. so they should go only into pad not in the shell directly. this wayy code must be seen in pad it may be selected automatically but sending must need another useraction (like the 'normal' pad to shell sendfunction.

18 Dec 2011, 18:12

peet

Joined: 13 Dec 2011
Posts: 63

peet 18 Dec 2011, 18:27

did someone notice pasting strings with quotes " into miniPAD shows up as very thick |, copy and paste em back is again a " while typing " in pad directly shows a " correctly.

18 Dec 2011, 18:27

typedef

Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 2909
Location: 0x77760000

typedef 18 Dec 2011, 18:41

revolution wrote:

Notepad2 (which I use) has transparent mode, and also always-on-top mode. I find both mode to be useful at various different times.

When you are watching porn? So you can see through the other window while writing down some texts.

18 Dec 2011, 18:41

peet

Joined: 13 Dec 2011
Posts: 63

peet 19 Dec 2011, 17:29

revolution wrote:

edit: Actually, I think requiring signatures only would be sufficient. Encryption is not needed but might be desired.

do you mean a pfx cert? i got :) ?

19 Dec 2011, 17:29

peet

Joined: 13 Dec 2011
Posts: 63

peet 20 Dec 2011, 02:16

either my vmware did went evil or miniPAD did, kernel was blown up and spinning cyrcels after a long time running both, ....?

20 Dec 2011, 02:16

revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 20627
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system

revolution 20 Dec 2011, 02:25

peet wrote:

do you mean a pfx cert? i got ?

No. I was talking about a different (hypothetical) OS that requires all code to be signed. It won't work in Windows because anyone can simply strip the signature and the OS will still run the code.

20 Dec 2011, 02:25

revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 20627
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system

revolution 20 Dec 2011, 02:36

typedef wrote:

When you are watching porn? So you can see through the other window while writing down some texts.

Can't you also somehow connect the always-on-top mode into the mix with the porn comment? And there are probably a lot of other silly comments that can be made about transparency and being see-through. The possibilities are truly endless. Rolling Eyes

20 Dec 2011, 02:36

peet

Joined: 13 Dec 2011
Posts: 63

peet 20 Dec 2011, 02:37

hm, for powershellscripts it is now possible to use a SIGNED directive and from script itself the directive is not changeable, so scripts can get a bit better controlled today. is there no äquivalent technic for apps? if user did not cut off UAC maybe?

20 Dec 2011, 02:37

revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 20627
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system

revolution 20 Dec 2011, 02:44

peet wrote:

hm, for powershellscripts it is now possible to use a SIGNED directive and from script itself the directive is not changeable, so scripts can get a bit better controlled today. is there no äquivalent technic for apps? if user did not cut off UAC maybe?

fasm.exe is not signed and you can still run it. So, no, there is no equivalent technique in Windows.

20 Dec 2011, 02:44

peet

Joined: 13 Dec 2011
Posts: 63

peet 20 Dec 2011, 02:45

if you walk through some threads you'll notice typedef does like being destructive and really clever, this too is kind a way of living

20 Dec 2011, 02:45

peet

Joined: 13 Dec 2011
Posts: 63

peet 20 Dec 2011, 02:48

revolution wrote:

peet wrote:
hm, for powershellscripts it is now possible to use a SIGNED directive and from script itself the directive is not changeable, so scripts can get a bit better controlled today. is there no äquivalent technic for apps? if user did not cut off UAC maybe?
fasm.exe is not signed and you can still run it. So, no, there is no equivalent technique in Windows.

would it be possible to let the one app test itself against the signature in a workin/save way? guess not. does trusted platform modules do help in this?

20 Dec 2011, 02:48

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 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