flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Windows > UAC hates .cpx files?

Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
randomdude



Joined: 01 Jun 2012
Posts: 83
randomdude
i came across a strange bug in a game. for some reason, when not running with admin rights, it fails to create .cpx files (returns INVALID_FILE_HANDLE and lasterror ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED)

after wasting some hours looking into it, i discovered it was simply because the .cpx extension Shocked

anyone can think in a workaround to fix this weirdness? or any info about this 'blacklisted' extension?


Description:
Download
Filename: test.zip
Filesize: 1.15 KB
Downloaded: 50 Time(s)

Post 07 Dec 2014, 15:39
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
upsurt



Joined: 14 Jan 2014
Posts: 51
upsurt
Don't know about that. But today, I wasted the whole day on another strange behavior.

I named my demo application "setup". So it compiled to "setup.exe".
While running it from fasmw, nothing happend. Absolutly nothing.
But running it from OllyDbg (with admin rights) it worked perfectly.
Till I found out, if it is called setup.exe, you have to execute it with admin rights.
Even if it is called setup_xyz.exe. But if you call it xyz.exe (or anything else) it works perfectly.
So if it is called setup.exe, you have to run the with admin right, else not.

(Windows 8.1)
Post 07 Dec 2014, 20:58
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
l_inc



Joined: 23 Oct 2009
Posts: 881
l_inc
upsurt
Have a look at the paragraph "Installer Detection Technology" here.

P.S. Sorry, can't say anything on the original topic, never experienced that. My best guess would be to blame some stupid antiviral software.

_________________
Faith is a superposition of knowledge and fallacy
Post 07 Dec 2014, 21:47
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
typedef



Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 2913
Location: 0x77760000
typedef
The whole UAC and detection thing is honestly just stupid. Why not have Windows applications use permissions like Android does.

It would make things much simpler if an application would crash when it tried accessing the disk or capturing a screenshot or fucking with another process or accessing the registry without declared permissions and at the same time giving the user the power to revoke those permissions (programmatically with API as well).

Think of it as passive vs the "active" UAC that pops up every now and then.

If someone came up with that type of OS, MS could be put in a pine box for sure and I'd finally get to buy an operating system. Very Happy
Post 08 Dec 2014, 03:47
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
upsurt



Joined: 14 Jan 2014
Posts: 51
upsurt
l_inc wrote:
upsurt
Have a look at the paragraph "Installer Detection Technology" here.

P.S. Sorry, can't say anything on the original topic, never experienced that. My best guess would be to blame some stupid antiviral software.


Thank you!! Didn't know about that. Idea

By the way: Installer Detection only applies to 32 bit executables Rolling Eyes
Post 08 Dec 2014, 07:58
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  


< 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 YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.