Win32 - Launching a highestAvailable child process as a normal user process - winapi

Suppose your Windows user account is in the Admin group, UAC is enabled, and you're running some program A with normal user privileges. A never asks for elevation and never receives it. Now suppose A wants to launch program B, which has highestAvailable in its manifest.
If A calls CreateProcess(B), this will fail with error 740 ("elevation required")
If A calls ShellExecuteEx(B), Windows will display a UAC box asking to run B elevated. The user can say Yes, in which case B will run elevated, or No, in which case the launch will fail.
My question is: is there any way to achieve a third option, where we simply launch B without elevation?
It seems like this should be possible in principle, since "highestAvailable" means that B prefers to run with elevation but is perfectly capable of running in normal user mode. But I can't figure out any way to accomplish it. I've tried all sorts of things with tokens and CreateProcessAsUser(), but it all seems to come down to this: "highestAvailable" seems to unalterably refer to the latent privileges inherent in the user account, not the actual privileges expressed in any explicitly constructed token.
I'm hoping that there actually is some way to use CreateProcessAsUser() to do this, and that I'm just missing the trick for properly constructing the token.
Update - solved: the __COMPAT_LAYER=RunAsInvoker solution below works nicely. One caveat, though. This coerces the subprocess to run "as invoker" unconditionally: it applies even if the exe being invoked specifies "requireAdministrator" in its manifest. I think the original "elevation required" error is generally preferable when the exe specifies "requireAdministrator". The whole reason I wanted the RunAsInvoker behavior for programs marked with "highestAvailable" is that such programs are expressly saying "I can function properly in either mode" - so let's go ahead and run in normal user mode when it's inconvenient to use Admin mode. But "requireAdministrator" is a different matter: such programs are saying "I can't function properly without elevated privileges". It seems better to fail up front for such programs than to force them to run un-elevated, which might make them encounter privilege/access errors that they're not properly programmed to handle. So I think a complete, general-purpose solution here would require checking the application manifest, and only applying the RunAsInvoker coercion if the manifest says "highestAvailable". An even completer solution would be to use one of the techniques discussed elsewhere to give the caller an option to invoke UAC when presented with a "requireAdministrator" program and offer the user a chance to launch it elevated. I can imagine a CreateProcessEx() cover with a couple of new flags for "treat process privileges as highest available privileges" and "invoke UAC if elevation is required". (The other approach described below, hooking NTDLL!RtlQueryElevationFlags() to tell CreateProcess() that UAC is unavailable, has exactly this same caveat with respect to requireAdministrator programs.)
(It's probably telling that the Windows shell doesn't even offer a way to do this... launching B directly from the shell would give you the UAC box that lets you either launch with Admin privs or not launch at all. If there were any way to accomplish it, the UAC box might offer a third button to launch without privileges. But then again that could just be a UX decision that the third option is too confusing for civilians.)
(Note that there are quite a lot of posts on StackOverflow and the Microsoft dev support sites asking about a very similar-seeming scenario that unfortunately doesn't apply here. That scenario is where you have a parent program that's running elevated, and it wants to launch a non-elevated child process. The canonical example is an installer, running elevated as installers tend to do, that wants to launch the program it just installed, at normal user level, just before it exits. There's lots of posted code about how to do that, and I've based my attempts on some of those techniques, but this is really a different scenario and the solutions don't work in my situation. The big difference is that the child program they're attempting to launch in this case isn't marked with highestAvailable - the child is just a normal program that would launch without any UAC involvement under normal circumstances. There's another difference as well, which is that in those scenarios, the parent is already running elevated, whereas in my scenario the parent is running as normal user level; that changes things slightly because the parent process in this other scenario has access to a few privileged operations on tokens that I can't use because A isn't itself elevated. But as far as I can tell those privileged token operations wouldn't help anyway; it's the fact that the child has the highestAvailable flag that's the key element of my scenario.)

Set the __COMPAT_LAYER environment variable to RunAsInvoker in your process. I don't think this is formally documented anywhere but it works all the way back to Vista.
You can also make it permanent by setting the it under the AppCompatFlags\Layers key in the registry.

the possible hack solution call CreateProcess from not elevated admin user (restricted admin) for exe with highestAvailable in manifest (or from any not elevated user for requireAdministrator exe) - this is hook RtlQueryElevationFlags call and set returned flags to 0.
this is currently work, but of course no any grantee that will be work in next versions of windows, if something changed. however as is.
for hook single time api call - we can set hardware breakpoint to function address and VEX handler . demo working code:
NTSTATUS NTAPI hookRtlQueryElevationFlags (DWORD* pFlags)
{
*pFlags = 0;
return 0;
}
PVOID pvRtlQueryElevationFlags;
LONG NTAPI OnVex(::PEXCEPTION_POINTERS ExceptionInfo)
{
if (ExceptionInfo->ExceptionRecord->ExceptionCode == STATUS_SINGLE_STEP &&
ExceptionInfo->ExceptionRecord->ExceptionAddress == pvRtlQueryElevationFlags)
{
ExceptionInfo->ContextRecord->
#if defined(_X86_)
Eip
#elif defined (_AMD64_)
Rip
#else
#error not implemented
#endif
= (ULONG_PTR)hookRtlQueryElevationFlags;
return EXCEPTION_CONTINUE_EXECUTION;
}
return EXCEPTION_CONTINUE_SEARCH;
}
ULONG exec(PCWSTR lpApplicationName)
{
ULONG dwError = NOERROR;
if (pvRtlQueryElevationFlags = GetProcAddress(GetModuleHandle(L"ntdll"), "RtlQueryElevationFlags"))
{
if (PVOID pv = AddVectoredExceptionHandler(TRUE, OnVex))
{
::CONTEXT ctx = {};
ctx.ContextFlags = CONTEXT_DEBUG_REGISTERS;
ctx.Dr7 = 0x404;
ctx.Dr1 = (ULONG_PTR)pvRtlQueryElevationFlags;
if (SetThreadContext(GetCurrentThread(), &ctx))
{
STARTUPINFO si = {sizeof(si)};
PROCESS_INFORMATION pi;
if (CreateProcessW(lpApplicationName, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, &si,&pi))
{
CloseHandle(pi.hThread);
CloseHandle(pi.hProcess);
}
else
{
dwError = GetLastError();
}
ctx.Dr7 = 0x400;
ctx.Dr1 = 0;
SetThreadContext(GetCurrentThread(), &ctx);
}
else
{
dwError = GetLastError();
}
RemoveVectoredExceptionHandler(pv);
}
else
{
dwError = GetLastError();
}
}
else
{
dwError = GetLastError();
}
return dwError;
}

Related

How do debuggers bypass Image File Execution Options when launching their debugee?

I'm doing some poking around in Windows internals for my general edification, and I'm trying to understand the mechanism behind Image File Execution Options. Specifically, I've set a Debugger entry for calc.exe, with "C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\powershell.exe" -NoLogo -NoProfile -NoExit -Command "& { start-process -filepath $args[0] -argumentlist $args[1..($args.Length - 1)] -nonewwindow -wait}" as the payload. This results in recursion, with many powershell instances being launched, which makes sense given that I'm intercepting their calls to calc.exe.
That begs the question, though: how do normal debuggers launch a program under test without causing this sort of recursive behavior?
It is anyway a good question about Windows internals, but the reason it has my interest right now is that it has become a practical question for me. At somewhere that I do paid work are three computers, each with a different Windows version and even different debuggers, for which using this IFEO trick results in the debugger debugging itself, apparently trapped in this very same circularity that troubles the OP.
How do debuggers usually avoid this circularity? Well, they themselves don't. Windows avoids it for them.
But let's look first at the circularity. Simple demonstrations are hardly ever helped by PowerShell concoctions and calc.exe is not what it used to be. Let's instead set the Debugger value for notepad.exe to c:\windows\system32\cmd.exe /k. Windows will interpret this as meaning that attempting to run notepad.exe should ordinarily run c:\windows\system32\cmd.exe /k notepad.exe instead. CMD will interpret this as meaning to run notepad.exe and hang about. But this execution too of notepad.exe will be turned into c:\windows\system32\cmd.exe /k notepad.exe, and so on. The Task Manager will soon show you many hundreds of cmd.exe instances. (The good news it that they're all on the one console and can be killed together.)
The OP's question is then why does CMD and its /k (or /c) switch for running a child go circular in a Debugger value but WinDbg, for instance, does not.
In one sense, the answer is down to one bit in an undocumented structure, the PS_CREATE_INFO, that's exchanged between user and kernel modes for the NtCreateUserProcess function. This structure has become fairly well known in some circles, not that they ever seem to say how. I think the structure dates from Windows Vista, but it's not known from Microsoft's public symbol files until Windows 8 and even then not from the kernel but from such things as the Internet Explorer component URLMON.DLL.
Anyway, in the modern form of the PS_CREATE_INFO structure, the 0x04 bit at offset 0x08 (32-bit) or 0x10 (64-bit) controls whether the kernel checks for the Debugger value. Symbol files tell us this bit is known to Microsoft as IFEOSkipDebugger. If this bit is clear and there's a Debugger value, then NtCreateUserProcess fails. Other feedback through the PS_CREATE_INFO structure tells KERNELBASE, for its handling of CreateProcessInternalW, to have its own look at the Debugger value and call NtCreateUserProcess again but for (presumably) some other executable and command line.
When instead the bit is set, the kernel doesn't care about the Debugger value and NtCreateUserProcess can succeed. How the bit ordinarily gets set is by KERNELBASE because the caller is asking not just to create a process but is specifically asking to be the debugger of the new process, i.e., has set either DEBUG_PROCESS or DEBUG_ONLY_THIS_PROCESS in the process creation flags. This is what I mean by saying that debuggers don't do anything themselves to avoid the circularity. Windows does it for them just for their wanting to debug the executable.
One way to look at the Debugger value as an Image File Execution Option for an executable X is that the value's presence means X cannot execute except under a debugger and the value's content may tell how to do that. As hackers have long noticed, and the kernel's programmers will have noticed well before, the content need not specify a debugger and the value can be adapted so that attempts to run X instead run Y. Less noticed is that Y won't be able to run X unless Y debugs X (or disables the Debugger value). Also less noticed is that not all attempts to run X will instead run Y: a debugger's attempt to run X as a debuggee will not be diverted.
TLDR of Geoff's great answer - use DEBUG_PROCESS or DEBUG_ONLY_THIS_PROCESS to bypass the Debugger / Image File Execution Options (IFEO) global flag and avoid the recursion.
In C#, using the excellent Vanara.PInvoke.Kernel32 NuGet:
var startupInfo = new STARTUPINFO();
var creationFlags = Kernel32.CREATE_PROCESS.DEBUG_ONLY_THIS_PROCESS;
CreateProcess(path, null, null, null, false, creationFlags, null, null, startupInfo, out var pi);
DebugActiveProcessStop(pi.dwProcessId);
Note that DebugActiveProcessStop was key for me (couldn't see a window when opened notepad.exe otherwise) - and makes sense anyway if your program is not really a debugger and you just want the bypass.

Running and giving codes to admin cmd with visual basic [duplicate]

This is my code trying to run cmd.exe with admin priviligies. However, I get the request operation requires elevation. if I run cmd.exe with "Run as Admin" through my windows, it works, however, through vb, it doesn't. This is my code.
Try
Dim process As New Process()
process.StartInfo.FileName = "cmd.exe "
process.StartInfo.Verb = "runas"
process.StartInfo.UseShellExecute = False
process.StartInfo.RedirectStandardInput = True
process.StartInfo.RedirectStandardOutput = True
process.StartInfo.RedirectStandardError = True
process.StartInfo.CreateNoWindow = True
process.Start()
process.StandardInput.WriteLine("route add 8.31.99.141 mask 255.255.255.255 " & cmdorder)
process.StandardInput.WriteLine("exit")
Dim input As String = process.StandardOutput.ReadToEnd
process.Close()
Dim regex As Regex = New Regex("(ok)+", RegexOptions.IgnoreCase) ' wa requested
' txtLog.AppendText(input)
Return regex.IsMatch(input)
Thanks.
You cannot achieve what you want.
You can use Process.Start() to launch an elevated process, but only if you UseShellExecute = true:
Dim process As New Process()
process.StartInfo.FileName = "cmd.exe "
process.StartInfo.Verb = "runas"
process.StartInfo.UseShellExecute = True
process.Start()
The reason is because you must use ShellExecute if you want to launch an elevated process. Only ShellExecute knows how to elevate.
If you specify UseShellExecute = False, then CreateProcess is used rather than ShellExecute. CreateProcess doesn't know how to elevate. Why? From the AppCompat guy:
Well, CreateProcess is really low in the layers. What can you do without the ability to create a process? Not a whole lot. Elevation, however, is a different story. It requires a trip to the app elevation service. This then calls into consent.exe, which has to know how to read group policy and, if necessary, switch to the secure desktop and pop open a window and ask the user for permission / credentials, etc. We don’t even need to take all of these features, let’s just take the dialog box.
Now, for creating a process that requires elevation, normally you just switch up APIs. The shell sits in a much higher layer, and consequently is able to take a dependency on elevation. So, you’d just swap out your call to CreateProcess with a call to ShellExecute.
So that explains how you can elevate cmd, but once you do: you're not allowed to redirect output, or hide the window; as only CreateProcess can do that:
Redirecting I/O and hiding the window can only work if the process is started by CreateProcess().
Which was a long way of saying that this guy asked the same question over here; but without the indignity of having someone close your question.
Note: Any code is released into the public domain. No attribution required.
Make it as an object and then set it to start up requiring admin priv in the application.object.settings thing.

drmDropMaster requires root privileges?

Pardon for the long introduction, but I haven't seen any other questions for this on SO.
I'm playing with DRM (Direct Rendering Manager, a wrapper for Linux kernel mode setting) and I'm having difficulty understanding a part of its design.
Basically, I can open a graphic card device in my virtual terminal, set up frame buffers, change connector and its CRTC just fine. This results in me being able to render to VT in a lightweight graphic mode without need for X server (that's what kms is about, and in fact X server uses it underneath).
Then I wanted to implement graceful VT switching, so when I hit ctrl+alt+f3 etc., I can see my other consoles. Turns out it's easy to do with calling ioctl() with stuff from linux/vt.h and handling some user signals.
But then I tried to switch from my graphic program to a running X server. Bzzt! didn't work at all. X server didn't draw anything at all. After some digging I found that in Linux kernel, only one program can do kernel mode setting. So what happens is this:
I switch from X to a virtual terminal
I run my program
This program enters graphic mode with drmOpen, drmModeSetCRTC etc.
I switch back to X
X has no longer privileges to restore its own mode.
Then I found this in wayland source code: drmDropMaster() and drmSetMaster(). These functions are supposed to release and regain privileges to set modes so that X server can continue to work, and after switching back to my program, it can take it from there.
Finally the real question.
These functions require root privileges. This is the part I don't understand. I can mess with kernel modes, but I can't say "okay X11, I'm done playing, I'm giving you the access now"? Why? Or should this work in theory, and I'm just doing something wrong in my code? (e.g. work with wrong file descriptors, or whatever.)
If I try to run my program as a normal user, I get "permission denied". If I run it as root, it works fine - I can switch from X to my program and vice versa.
Why?
Yes, drmSetMaster and drmDropMaster require root privileges because they allow you to do mode setting. Otherwise, any random application could display whatever it wanted to your screen. weston handles this through a setuid launcher program. The systemd people also added functionality to systemd-logind (which runs as root) to do the drm{Set,Drop}Master calls for you. This is what enables recent X servers to run without root privileges. You could look into this if you don't mind depending on systemd.
Your post seems to suggest that you can successfully call drmModeSetCRTC without root privileges. This doesn't make sense to me. Are you sure?
It is up to display servers like X, weston, and whatever you're working on to call drmDropMaster before it invokes the VT_RELDISP ioctl, so that the next session can call drmSetMaster successfully.
Before digging into why it doesn't work, I had to understand how it works.
So, calling drmModeSetCRTC and drmSetMaster in libdrm in reality just calls ioctl:
include/xf86drm.c
int drmSetMaster(int fd)
{
return ioctl(fd, DRM_IOCTL_SET_MASTER, 0);
}
This is handled by the kernel. In my program the most important function that controls the display is drmModeSetCRTC and drmModeAddFB, the rest is just diagnostics really. So let's see how they're handled by the kernel. Turns out there is a big table that maps ioctl events to their handlers:
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c
static const struct drm_ioctl_desc drm_ioctls[] = {
...
DRM_IOCTL_DEF(DRM_IOCTL_MODE_GETCRTC, drm_mode_getcrtc, DRM_CONTROL_ALLOW|DRM_UNLOCKED),
DRM_IOCTL_DEF(DRM_IOCTL_MODE_SETCRTC, drm_mode_setcrtc, DRM_MASTER|DRM_CONTROL_ALLOW|DRM_UNLOCKED),
...,
DRM_IOCTL_DEF(DRM_IOCTL_MODE_ADDFB, drm_mode_addfb, DRM_CONTROL_ALLOW|DRM_UNLOCKED),
DRM_IOCTL_DEF(DRM_IOCTL_MODE_ADDFB2, drm_mode_addfb2, DRM_CONTROL_ALLOW|DRM_UNLOCKED),
...,
},
This is used by the drm_ioctl, out of which the most interesting part is drm_ioctl_permit.
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c
long drm_ioctl(struct file *filp,
unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
{
...
retcode = drm_ioctl_permit(ioctl->flags, file_priv);
if (unlikely(retcode))
goto err_i1;
...
}
static int drm_ioctl_permit(u32 flags, struct drm_file *file_priv)
{
/* ROOT_ONLY is only for CAP_SYS_ADMIN */
if (unlikely((flags & DRM_ROOT_ONLY) && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)))
return -EACCES;
/* AUTH is only for authenticated or render client */
if (unlikely((flags & DRM_AUTH) && !drm_is_render_client(file_priv) &&
!file_priv->authenticated))
return -EACCES;
/* MASTER is only for master or control clients */
if (unlikely((flags & DRM_MASTER) && !file_priv->is_master &&
!drm_is_control_client(file_priv)))
return -EACCES;
/* Control clients must be explicitly allowed */
if (unlikely(!(flags & DRM_CONTROL_ALLOW) &&
drm_is_control_client(file_priv)))
return -EACCES;
/* Render clients must be explicitly allowed */
if (unlikely(!(flags & DRM_RENDER_ALLOW) &&
drm_is_render_client(file_priv)))
return -EACCES;
return 0;
}
Everything makes sense so far. I can indeed call drmModeSetCrtc because I am the current DRM master. (I'm not sure why. This might have to do with X11 properly waiving its rights once I switch to another VT. Perhaps this alone allows me to become automatically the new DRM master once I start messing with ioctl?)
Anyway, let's take a look at the drmDropMaster and drmSetMaster definitions:
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c
static const struct drm_ioctl_desc drm_ioctls[] = {
...
DRM_IOCTL_DEF(DRM_IOCTL_SET_MASTER, drm_setmaster_ioctl, DRM_ROOT_ONLY),
DRM_IOCTL_DEF(DRM_IOCTL_DROP_MASTER, drm_dropmaster_ioctl, DRM_ROOT_ONLY),
...
};
What.
So my confusion was correct. I don't do anything wrong, things really are this way.
I'm under the impression that this is a serious kernel bug. Either I shouldn't be able to set CRTC at all, or I should be able to drop/set master. In any case, revoking every non-root program rights to draw to screen because
any random application could display whatever it wanted to your screen
is too aggressive. I, as the user, should have the freedom to control that without giving root access to the whole program, nor depending on systemd, for example by making chmod 0777 /dev/dri/card0 (or group management). As it is now, it looks to me like lazy man's answer to proper permission management.
Thanks for writing this up. This is indeed the expected outcome; you don't need to look for a subtle bug in your code.
It's definitely intended that you can become the master implicitly. A dev wrote example code as initial documentation for DRM, and it does not use SetMaster. And there is a comment in the source code (now drm_auth.c) "successfully became the device master (either through the SET_MASTER IOCTL, or implicitly through opening the primary device node when no one else is the current master that time)".
DRM_ROOT_ONLY is commented as
/**
* #DRM_ROOT_ONLY:
*
* Anything that could potentially wreak a master file descriptor needs
* to have this flag set. Current that's only for the SETMASTER and
* DROPMASTER ioctl, which e.g. logind can call to force a non-behaving
* master (display compositor) into compliance.
*
* This is equivalent to callers with the SYSADMIN capability.
*/
The above requires some clarification IMO. The way logind forces a non-behaving master is not simply by calling SETMASTER for a different master - that would actually fail. First, it must call DROPMASTER on the non-behaving master. So logind is relying on this permission check, to make sure the non-behaving master cannot then race logind and call SETMASTER first.
Equally logind is assuming the unprivileged user doesn't have permission to open the device node directly. I would suspect the ability to implicitly become master on open() is some form of backwards compatibility.
Notice, if you could drop your master, you couldn't use SETMASTER to get it back. This means the point of doing so is rather limited - you can't use it to implement the traditional switching back and forth between multiple graphics servers.
There is a way you can drop the master and get it back: close the fd, and re-open it when needed. It sounds to me like this would match how old-style X (pre-DRM?) worked - wasn't it possible to switch between multiple instances of the X server, and each of them would have to completely take over the hardware? So you always had to start from scratch after a VT switch. This is not as good as being able to switch masters though; logind says
/* On DRM devices we simply drop DRM-Master but keep it open.
* This allows the user to keep resources allocated. The
* CAP_SYS_ADMIN restriction to DRM-Master prevents users from
* circumventing this. */
As of Linux 5.8, drmDropMaster() no longer requires root privileges.
The relevant commit is 45bc3d26c: drm: rework SET_MASTER and DROP_MASTER perm handling .
The source code comments provide a good summary of the old and new situation:
In the olden days the SET/DROP_MASTER ioctls used to return EACCES when
CAP_SYS_ADMIN was not set. This was used to prevent rogue applications
from becoming master and/or failing to release it.
At the same time, the first client (for a given VT) is always master.
Thus in order for the ioctls to succeed, one had to explicitly run the
application as root or flip the setuid bit.
If the CAP_SYS_ADMIN was missing, no other client could become master...
EVER :-( Leading to a) the graphics session dying badly or b) a completely
locked session.
...
Here we implement the next best thing:
ensure the logind style of fd passing works unchanged, and
allow a client to drop/set master, iff it is/was master at a given point
in time.
...

How can I get permissions to write to registry keys?

I am trying to write some registry keys under the HKLM portion of the registry. I use RegCreateKeyEx() and RegSetValueEx() in a way similar to some of the MSDN examples I have seen.
However, the RegSetValueEx() call fails with error 5, which FormatMessage() says is 'Access is denied'
I think I need to request elevated permissions, but I am unaware of the API calls needed to do this?
Here is my code:
HKEY hk;
DWORD dwDisp;
LONG result = RegCreateKeyEx(HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE, _T("Software\\MyApp"), 0, NULL,
REG_OPTION_NON_VOLATILE, KEY_WRITE, NULL, &hk, &dwDisp);
if(result == ERROR_SUCCESS)
{
BYTE value[] = "Hello world!";
result = RegSetValueEx(hk, _T("MyValue"), 0, REG_EXPAND_SZ, value, strlen((char*)value)+1);
if(result != ERROR_SUCCESS)
{
DBG_PRINT2("RegSetValueEx failed with code: %d\n", result);
}
RegCloseKey(hk);
}
In order to have write access to HKLM, your process needs to run as a user with admin rights. In addition, on systems which include UAC (Vista and up), your process will need to run elevated. To achieve that specify requireAdministrator in your application manifest.
It is important that you don't run your application with elevated rights unless it is strictly necessary. You can move the portion of the application that needs to write to HKLM into a one time only operation, e.g. your install program. Or you can separate your application into two parts: the large part that runs with normal rights, and the small part that requires elevation.
The reason that you may need to split your application into smaller parts is that the user token is assigned at process startup and cannot be modified during the life of the process. So, if you want some parts of your application to be elevated, and others not, you need to have two distinct processes.

How to detect whether Vista UAC is enabled?

I need my application to behave differently depending on whether Vista UAC is enabled or not. How can my application detect the state of UAC on the user's computer?
This registry key should tell you:
HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System
Value EnableLUA (DWORD)
1 enabled / 0 or missing disabled
But that assumes you have the rights to read it.
Programmatically you can try to read the user's token and guess if it's an admin running with UAC enabled (see here). Not foolproof, but it may work.
The issue here is more of a "why do you need to know" - it has bearing on the answer. Really, there is no API because from a OS behavior point of view, what matters is if the user is an administrator or not - how they choose to protect themselves as admin is their problem.
This post has sample code in C# to test if UAC is on and if the current app has been given elevated rights. You can download the code and interpret as needed. Also linked there is a sample that shows the same in C++
http://www.itwriting.com/blog/198-c-code-to-detect-uac-elevation-on-vista.html
The code in that post does not just read from the registry. If UAC is enabled, chances are you may not have rights to read that from the registry.
You don't want to check if UAC is enabled; that doesn't tell you anything.
I can be a standard user with UAC disabled.
You want to check if the user is running with administrative privileges using CheckTokenMembership:
///This function tells us if we're running with administrative permissions.
function IsUserAdmin: Boolean;
var
b: BOOL;
AdministratorsGroup: PSID;
begin
{
This function returns true if you are currently running with
admin privileges.
In Vista and later, if you are non-elevated, this function will
return false (you are not running with administrative privileges).
If you *are* running elevated, then IsUserAdmin will return
true, as you are running with admin privileges.
Windows provides this similar function in Shell32.IsUserAnAdmin.
But the function is depricated, and this code is lifted from the
docs for CheckTokenMembership:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa376389.aspx
}
{
Routine Description: This routine returns TRUE if the caller's
process is a member of the Administrators local group. Caller is NOT
expected to be impersonating anyone and is expected to be able to
open its own process and process token.
Arguments: None.
Return Value:
TRUE - Caller has Administrators local group.
FALSE - Caller does not have Administrators local group.
}
b := AllocateAndInitializeSid(
SECURITY_NT_AUTHORITY,
2, //2 sub-authorities
SECURITY_BUILTIN_DOMAIN_RID, //sub-authority 0
DOMAIN_ALIAS_RID_ADMINS, //sub-authority 1
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, //sub-authorities 2-7 not passed
AdministratorsGroup);
if (b) then
begin
if not CheckTokenMembership(0, AdministratorsGroup, b) then
b := False;
FreeSid(AdministratorsGroup);
end;
Result := b;
end;
You can do it be examining the DWORD value EnableLUA in the following registry key:
HKLM/SOFTWARE/Microsoft/Windows/CurrentVersion/Policies/System
If the value is 0 (or does not exist) then the UAC is OFF. If it's present and non-zero, then UAC is ON:
BOOL IsUacEnabled( )
{
LPCTSTR pszSubKey = _T("SOFTWARE\\Microsoft\\Windows\\CurrentVersion\\Policies\\System");
LPCTSTR pszValue = _T("EnableLUA");
DWORD dwType = 0;
DWORD dwValue = 0;
DWORD dwValueSize = sizeof( DWORD );
if ( ERROR_SUCCESS != SHGetValue( HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE, pszSubKey, pszValueOn,
&dwType, &dwValue, &dwValueSize) )
{
return FALSE;
}
return dwValue != 0;
}
Note that if the user has changed the state of UAC but has not restarted the computer yet, this function will return an inconsistent result.
Check for the registry value at HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System
The EnableLUA value determines if UAC is active.
This post is rather ancient, but I wanted to comment on the "why do you need to know" and "check token membership" bits.
The fact is that Microsoft's very own documentation says that "If User Account Control has been turned off and a Standard user attempts to perform a task that requires elevation" we should provide an error instead of showing buttons and/or links with the UAC shield that attempt elevation. See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa511445.aspx towards the bottom for the details.
How are we do to this without a way of checking whether UAC is enabled?
Perhaps checking whether the user is running with admin privileges is the right thing to do in this instance, but who knows? The guidance that Microsoft gives is, at best, iffy, if not just downright confusing.
For anyone else that finds this and is looking for a VBScript solution. Here is what I came up with to detect if UAC is enabled and if so relaunch my script with elevated privileges. Just put your code in the Body() function. I found there were problems with transportability between XP and Windows 7 if I wrote code to always launch elevated. Using this method I bypass the elevation if there is no UAC. Should also take into account 2008 and above server versions that have UAC enabled.
On Error Resume Next
UACPath = "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System\EnableLUA"
Dim WshShell
Set WshShell = CreateObject("wscript.Shell")
UACValue = WshShell.RegRead(UACPath)
If UACValue = 1 Then
'Run Elevated
If WScript.Arguments.length =0 Then
Set objShell = CreateObject("Shell.Application")
'Pass a bogus argument with leading blank space, say [ uac]
objShell.ShellExecute "wscript.exe", Chr(34) & _
WScript.ScriptFullName & Chr(34) & " uac", "", "runas", 1
WScript.Quit
Else
Body()
End If
Else
Body()
End If
Function Body()
MsgBox "This is the body of the script"
End Function
AFAIK, UAC is apolicy setting on the local user or group. So you can read this property from within .Net. Sorry for not having more details but I hope this helps

Resources