Vista Compatible Install

[hutch--]

Erol,

From my so far limited experience on Win7 64 bit, MASM32 install worked fine. It asks when you first start the installer if you want to run this file which it seems to do with any new file but the rest went in fine and it built everything successfully.

[oex]

EDIT: My thinking is it must be some UAC issue or something.... I'll keep plugging at it and let you know if I find out

[goofee]

Hi!

I used to be on the old forums at win32asm.cjb.net and I just happened to come across this thread so I thought I might as well sign up.

I remember I had a similar problem with a vb.net app some time ago and it required administrative privileges which could be set in the project settings.
It seems a file named app.manifest is compiled into the resource which looks like this:

Code Select Expand


<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<asmv1:assembly manifestVersion="1.0" xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v1" xmlns:asmv1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v1" xmlns:asmv2="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v2" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
  <assemblyIdentity version="1.0.0.0" name="MyApplication.app"/>
  <trustInfo xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v2">
    <security>
      <requestedPrivileges xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v3">
        <!-- UAC-Manifestoptionen
             Wenn Sie die Ebene der Benutzerkontensteuerung für Windows ändern
             möchten, ersetzen Sie den Knoten "requestedExecutionLevel" wie folgt:

        <requestedExecutionLevel  level="asInvoker" uiAccess="false" />
        <requestedExecutionLevel  level="requireAdministrator" uiAccess="false" />
        <requestedExecutionLevel  level="highestAvailable" uiAccess="false" />

         Wenn Sie aus Gründen der Abwärtskompatibilität Datei- und Registrierungsvirtualisierung
         verwenden möchten, löschen Sie den Knoten "requestedExecutionLevel".
        -->
        <requestedExecutionLevel level="asInvoker" uiAccess="false" />
      </requestedPrivileges>
    </security>
  </trustInfo>
</asmv1:assembly>


This is the standard manifest, though so you'd probably have to set execution level to requireAdministrator if this has anything to with your problem at all :)

[dedndave]

comments in English:

Code Select Expand

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<asmv1:assembly manifestVersion="1.0" xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v1" xmlns:asmv1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v1" xmlns:asmv2="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v2" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
  <assemblyIdentity version="1.0.0.0" name="MyApplication.app"/>
  <trustInfo xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v2">
    <security>
      <requestedPrivileges xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v3">
        <!-- UAC Manifest Options
             If you want to change the level of user control for Windows,
             replace the nodes "requestedExecutionLevel" as follows:

        <requestedExecutionLevel  level="asInvoker" uiAccess="false" />
        <requestedExecutionLevel  level="requireAdministrator" uiAccess="false" />
        <requestedExecutionLevel  level="highestAvailable" uiAccess="false" />

         If your file requires backward compatibility - and you want to use
         virtualization registry, delete the node "requestedExecutionLevel".
        -->
        <requestedExecutionLevel level="asInvoker" uiAccess="false" />
      </requestedPrivileges>
    </security>
  </trustInfo>
</asmv1:assembly>

[GregL]

We were discussing this stuff a couple years ago.

  http://www.masm32.com/board/index.php?topic=9422.msg68586#msg68586

There isn't much difference in this area between Vista and Win7. I think goofee has a good suggestion.

I am not very knowledgeable when it comes to installers though.

[oex]

Thanks guys, This is the only think I know of that I havent checked yet.... I will test it out today.... Sorry for the delayed response, been out walking and camping for the last few days :bg

[oex]

Well this is lame.... I tried the suggested fix and it worked fine, I then tried the old installer and it no longer brings up the error message, even tried modifying the old installer and installing but still no error message....

Go figure first I cant stop it erroring then I cant even force an error

I have noticed that windows has modified the old installer icon to add install shield (even on the rebuilt .exe when I download it) so I'll keep modifying till I break it :/

[Ghandi]

DDOS is a failed buffer overflow attack.

Possibly you have that confused Onan?

Code Select Expand


A denial-of-service attack (DoS attack) or distributed denial-of-service attack (DDoS attack) is an attempt to make a computer resource unavailable to its intended users.
Although the means to carry out, motives for, and targets of a DoS attack may vary, it generally consists of the concerted efforts of a person or people to prevent an
Internet site or service from functioning efficiently or at all, temporarily or indefinitely. Perpetrators of DoS attacks typically target sites or services hosted on high-profile web
servers such as banks, credit card payment gateways, and even root nameservers. The term is generally used with regards to computer networks, but is not limited to this
field, for example, it is also used in reference to CPU resource management.

One common method of attack involves saturating the target (victim) machine with external communications requests, such that it cannot respond to legitimate traffic, or
responds so slowly as to be rendered effectively unavailable. In general terms, DoS attacks are implemented by either forcing the targeted computer(s) to reset, or
consuming its resources so that it can no longer provide its intended service or obstructing the communication media between the intended users and the victim so that
they can no longer communicate adequately.
[quote][/quote]

***Parrotted from Wiki***

[oex]

I cant break it, whatever rules M$ has implemented that tell it that my app is a known installer are very broad, I'll implement the last uac suggestion and wait for user feedback I think :/

[GregL]

oex,

You said Windows modifed the icon to include the admin shield, I'm thinking Windows has identified your installer app as OK, since it has (or had) a correct manifest.

I'm not sure about this.

[oex]

I think I clicked some button to get windows to 'reinstall the app for me properly' after the installer had installed ok first time around.... It seems that this has in some way created a record of this installer somewhere some kind of a 'virtual manifest' (my words) as the .exe file hasnt been remodeled by windows (at least in size) and updated versions by myself still show the shield icon (I added repeated nulls, data in the data section and renamed the file but vista still shows a modified icon when I save the file to the desktop off the internet.

The new copy I have compiled with the uac manifest specified above does not have it's icon edited by windows when I save it