I'm working on updating the Neo4j windows installation process into Powershell and I was thinking that perhaps it could read/write neo4j windows service information from the neo4j-wrapper.conf configuration file.
The Windows wrapper conf has very little information that is related the windows service itself (in fact I think it has no information that is used in the creation, management and removal process!)
My intention is to have the relevant windows service information in the configuration file and then when calls such as Install or Stop are made, then the Service Name can be retrieved from there instead of via command line arguments.
My questions are;
If I put more information into that configuration file, will it affect the linux wrapper?
Is there any reason why I shouldn't put more settings into the configuration file (but only related to a Windows Service)?
Note - My changes would also support this PR;
https://github.com/neo4j/neo4j/pull/4433
Thanks,
Glenn.
I think the answer is, in principle, yes. Putting extra stuff in that file wouldn't hurt anything.
But it's not ideal to have a single file that's used for different purposes on different platforms (I see the presence there of Linux-specific service stuff as a problem rather than something to copied).
The real solution, I think, is for each package build to provide its own copy of that file (or one derived from a common starting point).
Prepping for a CEH certification test. My question goes along these lines:
Situation: When attempting to add persistence to Windows malware, if the programmer chooses not to use one of the many existing RUN, AUTORUN, RUNONCE, etc. Windows registry entries ...
Question: Can he create an entirely new registry entry similar to \HKLM\SOFTWARE\My_Rootkit_Program\RUN and have it run automatically ... simply because it's named RUN?
Follow-On Question: Is the "magic" (repeatability) inherent in all registry entries named "RUN", OR does Windows use a concept similar to a PATH variable to locate and run those entries in registries named RUN (or similar)?
Follow-On Observation: If this latter hypothesis is correct, it follows that meddling with that registry PATH statement would be an advanced technique allowing programmers to build persistence into backwater places with names like \HKLM\SOFTWARE\CLASSES\7z\Updated_Compression_Routines.
Please forgive me (1) if this has been asked before and my searches didn't find the Q&A string (2) or I've misused specific terms.
Thanks ... Allen.
No, you cannot create your own runkey wherever you like. The valid runkeys are listed here. Of course, you also have the service keys at HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\... which can be used to start drivers on boot. This can be used by rootkits, but generally malware will just use a normal runkey (or even place itself in the startup folder of the start menu).
Hope this helps.
How can I create a Single InstallJammer setup for both Windows and Linux? I have a sampleProject with the default components.I need to add a component that checks the OS version and proceed according to the result.
Please avoid giving the installJammer and TCL scripts tutorials as I have already read both of them.
Go to the General Information > Platform Information section, expand the platforms you want (e.g., Linux x86 and Windows) and make sure to set the Active property to Yes on each one. Have a look on other properties as well to be aware of the values and maybe customize something to fit your needs.
On the Install User Interface > Install Panes and Actions is where you can do the "conditional" behaviour. Once you create an Action Group you can set it's Condition property by clicking on the three dots in the end of the input line. A Conditions for... window will be shown, and there you can add a new Platform Condition. Set the advanced property Platform of this contition to the specific platform you want that action to be executed.
As an example, you may want to create different actions to copy different file groups, a group of Windows specific files, and another group for Linux specific files (and you can also define a shared files group).
Go to the Run Build > Build Installers section and enable those platforms you want it to generate build installers.
I need to sandbox Mozilla Firefox and it seems that write access is required for "~/Library/Application\ Support/Mozilla/Extensions/" on Mac OS. I want to turn off this feature.
Is it possible somehow to disable access to "~/Library/Application\ Support/Mozilla/Extensions/", i.e in a way disabling access to global extensions. Perhaps a preference of some sort?
For reference, this is the directory for externally installed extensions on Mac OS X. From what I can tell, the write access to this directory is very limited - Firefox is merely trying to ensure that this directory exists (and a failure is ok). After that it will accept any extensions installed in this directory but will not try to write to it.
As to disabling this functionality: the directories are determined by nsXREDirProvider.cpp, the only way to disable them there would be the --disable-system-extension-dirs compile option.
But XPIProvider.jsm where these directories are used has additional logic to decide which install scopes will be used, based on extensions.enabledScopes preference. This preference doesn't exist by default, it needs to be created as an integer. Setting it to 1 will leave only the profile directory as extension source, all global extension sources will be disabled (including XREUSysExt that you are asking about - that one falls into SCOPE_USER category).
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
I'm a new Windows programmer and I'm not sure where I should store user configurable application settings. I understand the need to provide a user friendly means for the user to change application settings, like an Edit | Settings form or similar. But where should I store the values after the user hits the Apply button on that form?
What are the pros and cons of storing settings in the Windows registry vs. storing them in a local INI file or config file or similar?
Pros of config file:
Easy to do. Don't need to know any Windows API calls. You just need to know the file I/O interface of your programming language.
Portable. If you port your application to another OS, you don't need to change your settings format.
User-editable. The user can edit the config file outside of the program executing.
Pros of registry:
Secure. The user can't accidentally delete the config file or corrupt the data unless he/she knows about regedit. And then the user is just asking for trouble.
I'm no expert Windows programmer, but I'm sure that using the registry makes it easier to do other Windows-specific things (user-specific settings, network administration stuff like group policy, or whatever else).
If you just need a simple way to store config information, I would recommend a config file, using INI or XML as the format. I suggest using the registry only if there is something specific you want to get out of using the registry.
Jeff Atwood has a great article about Windows' registry and why is better to use .INI files instead.
My life would be a heck of a lot easier if per-application settings were stored in a place I could easily see them, manipulate them, and back them up. Like, say... in INI files.
The registry is a single point of failure. That's why every single registry editing tip you'll ever find starts with a big fat screaming disclaimer about how you can break your computer with regedit.
The registry is opaque and binary. As much as I dislike the angle bracket tax, at least XML config files are reasonably human-readable, and they allow as many comments as you see fit.
The registry has to be in sync with the filesystem. Delete an application without "uninstalling" it and you're left with stale registry cruft. Or if an app has a poorly written uninstaller. The filesystem is no longer the statement of record-- it has to be kept in sync with the registry somehow. It's a total violation of the DRY principle.
The registry is monolithic. Let's say you wanted to move an application to a different path on your machine, or even to a different machine altogether. Good luck extracting the relevant settings for that one particular application from the giant registry tarball. A given application typically has dozens of settings strewn all over the registry.
There's one more advantage to using an INI file over the registry which I haven't seen mentioned:
If the user is using some sort of volume/file based encryption, they can get the INI file to be encrypted pretty easily. With the registry it will probably be more problematic.
According to the documentation for GetPrivateProfileString, you should use the registry for storing initialisation information.
However, in so saying, if you still want to use .ini files, and use the standard profile APIs (GetPrivateProfileString, WritePrivateProfileString, and the like) for accessing them, they provide built-in ways to automatically provide "virtual .ini files" backed by the registry. Win-win!
There's a similar question here that covers some of the pros and cons.
I would suggest not using the registry unless your application absolutely needs it. From my understanding, Microsoft is trying to discourage the use of the registry due to the flexibility of settings files. Also, I wouldn't recommend using .ini files, but instead using some of the built-in functionality to .Net for saving user/app settings.
Use of an ini file, in the same directory as the application, makes it possible to back it up with the application. So after you reload your OS, you simply restore the application directory, and you have your configuration the way you want it.
I agree with Daniel. If it's a large application I think I'd do things in the registry. If it's a small application and you want to have aspects of it user-configurable without making a configuration form, go for a quick INI file.
I usually do the parsing like this (if the format in the .ini file is option = value, 1 per line, comments starting with #):
static void Parse()
{
StreamReader tr = new StreamReader("config.ini");
string line;
Dictionary<string, string> config = new Dictionary<string, string>();
while ((line = tr.ReadLine()) != null)
{
// Allow for comments and empty lines.
if (line == "" || line.StartsWith("#"))
continue;
string[] kvPair = line.Split('=');
// Format must be option = value.
if (kvPair.Length != 2)
continue;
// If the option already exists, it's overwritten.
config[kvPair[0].Trim()] = kvPair[1].Trim();
}
}
Edit: Sorry, I thought you had specified the language. The implementation above is in C#.
As Daniel indicated, storing configuration data in the registry gives you the option to use Admin Templates. That is, you can define an Admin Template, use it in a Group Policy and administer the configuration of your application network-wide. Depending on the nature of the application, this can be a big boon.
The existing answers cover a lot of ground but I thought I would mention one other point.
I use the registry to store system-wide settings. That is, when 2 or more programs need the exact same setting. In other words, a setting shared by several programs.
In all other cases I use a local config file that sits either in the same path as the executable or one level down (in a Configuration directory). The reasons are already covered in other answers (portable, can be edited with a text editor etc).
Why put system-wide settings into the registry? Well, I found that if a setting is shared but you use local config files you end up duplicating settings. This may mean you end up needing to change a setting in multiple places.
For example, say Program A and Program B both point to the same database. You can have a "system-wide" registry setting for the connection string. If you want to point to a different database, you can change the connection string in one place, and both programs will now run against the other database.
Note - there is no point in using the registry in this way if two or more programs don't need to use the same values. Such as, Program A and Program B both needing a database connection string that may be the same, but not always. For example, I want Program B to now use a test database but Program A should carry on using a production database.
With the above example, you could have some local configuration override system-wide settings but it may start getting overly complicated for simple tasks.
The registry is optimized for quick access and easy update, and it's the only way to do certain Windows-specific things like associating with an extension. And you can ignore the argument about deleting a single directory to uninstall your program - Windows Vista won't let you modify files in the Program Files directory, so your config will need to go in a different folder anyway.
There's a general guideline for Windows programming - do things the way Microsoft expects you to, and your life will be a lot easier.
That said, I can see the appeal of the INI file, and I wouldn't blame anyone for considering it.
There is one drawback to ini or config files and that is locating them if the user has the option to select where the program is installed.
Other disadvantage of using the registry is that it is a pain if you are working in a mixed environment of 32 and 64 bit applications, as the system call for accessing the registry will randomly(*) add \Wow6432Node\ to your registry path making you crazy while debugging.
(*of course not randomly, but very easy to get lost)
Advantages:
Replacement for a large number of configuration files.
Common administrative functions at a central point.
Almost any data can be saved by applications / drivers.
In contrast to configuration files, code sequences can even be saved.
Access faster than files because the database is indexed.
Access can be logged using the RegMon utility
Disadvantages:
Difficult to work with in the absence of graphical configuration programs.
Direct changes using the registry editor can create inconsistent states produce.
Incomplete uninstallers leave “reminiscences” in the registry Cause problems, e.g. with a new installation.
Installed applications are difficult to export to other PCs.
Chronically poorly documented.
Proprietary structure, therefore not suitable for standard DB access (e.g. SQL)
Computer-specific, therefore not portable to other computers.
Insufficient protection of the registry: depends on the configuration.