I have a freeware software, which i want to install on a network share. The reason is, if the software is installed on a network share, all users which has access to this network share folder should be able to use the program.
Now, I run the setup.exe on my machine and choose on the step "destination installation" my network share \sharename\TestFolder.
The software was installaing on this sharefolder and after the installation it was possible to run the program on my computer without any errors and use it..
After that I try to start the program on other client but there is always an error message, that it starts with a false operator.
Now my question is, is there a software, which can observe on which files the program want to access when I make double click on the (program.EXE).
Thank you, I hope you can help me.
Yes, there are several tools that can monitor or observe system changes performed by a setup.exe.
Many of these tools are quite old and may not operate correctly in new versions of Windows. The most recent one I found that looks acceptable was EMCO MSI Package Builder. I never tested the monitor feature, but it is at least an updated capture product.
In my experience these monitor tools capture way too much low-level system stuff, and you will need to spend quite a bit of time to sort out what is really needed for the software to operate. If you have experience with software development you may get just as much information from using a System Internals tool such as RegMon, FileMon or ProcMon. See Microsoft site: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb842062.aspx . These tools are exceptionally useful and known for their small size and great feature set. You can run a ProcMon on the launch of the application executable.
It is also possible that the setup.exe is a wrapper for an MSI file. These files can be viewed with free tools such as Orca and EMCO MSI Package Builder and you can basically see what registration settings are needed for the application to operate. Try opening a command prompt and write setup.exe /a and see if it offers to create an "administrative installation point" - or similar.
If I were to guess I'd say that the software needs to have COM servers registered locally, registry keys added to each local computer and possibly you need to install a couple of runtimes on each system - for example Microsoft C runtime of a particular version. This is just a wild guess. What is the name of the software? If it is a .NET application you may need assemblies installed to the Global Assembly Cache GAC.
First, I guess I'd have to figure out if I'm running remotely and second I'd have to figure out whether my remote connection is a standalone remote app or an app running on a terminal server (that may be tricky).
But, once I've figured out all those awful things, is there a way to run a windows function like ShellExecute locally instead of remotely?
The reason I'd want to do this is because I launch a web browser to view rather high bandwidth things that require javascript and flash and certain sysadmins who administer our product aren't too keen on having to make unnecessary and insecure modifications to their terminal server farm.
Yes, if the clients are running Windows and you can install software on them.
See Remote Desktop Services Virtual Channels in MSDN.
There is a free tool that does exactly what you want. I got reference from TechNet forums, it's named Remote Executer from http://www.mqtechnologies.com
Good luck
Before I start, another post for something similar to this request for help is located at Running a process at the Windows 7 Welcome Screen, but the responses were not quite what I believe I am looking for, and the post is over a year old so I thought it best to start a new thread for my needs.
In Windows 7 Ultimate, I am trying to create a script or task scheduler event that will run a Windows "rundll32.exe" process with arguments at the logon, lock, and switch user screens (basically any screen that is waiting for user to log into the machine).
I have tried using the startup script controls in group policy editor as well as creating a task scheduler event, but so far I am unable to get the process to display on the logon screens.
The command line I am using does work while logged into any account at any user level via the "Run.." dialog as well as via CMD prompt, and is only creating a popup that already exists in the Windows OEM Environment.
The hardest part is this: My friend just bought a new laptop. The new laptop came with this specific feature already enabled, but I have no idea what is making it happen and do not have access to the computer to check out gpedit.msc and task scheduler for possible solutions.
There are two reasons why I need this info: 1) I want the feature to work on my own laptop, and 2) my friend would like help disabling it on his as he doesn't like it.
I have been all over Google, posted at Microsoft Answers, and also posted on the laptop manufacturer's user forums. I have found very few pages that refer to the same question as I have, but none have answers that work, and since I have seen and know that this is possible, I am compelled to continue looking.
The laptop that this is currently working on was purchased with a fresh install of Win 7 Ultimate and no manufacturer bloatware/additional software added, so we know that the feature was made to happen by whomever it was that installed the OS and configured it for sale. Therefore I am certain it is just a matter of the right task or script in Windows itself before I see the results I need and then know how to direct my friend to disable his via phone.
The specific call is "rundll32.exe van.dll,RunVAN". In task scheduler I have set this to run as "SYSTEM" and set the triggers for startup, workstation lock, and local disconnect. I have tried using full path to rundll32.exe as well as the bare command. In gpedit startup scripts I have tried full path and bare command. Neither of which for either case is making this popup show on the logon screens.
Any and all help and/or advice on this would be greatly appreciated by both myself and my friend.
dynamic display of images for the credential provider
My application needs administrative access and I want it to run without any hassles in Windows 7.
I have the following options
1.Ask the user using the application to turn off UAC. This is a last resort option and would hate to do that.
2.Embed a manifest in the application that says elevate to adminstrator privelege. This will work but it seems that it will bring up a dialog requiring users consent every time a user runs the application.
3. Configure the application to run in Windows XP compatibility mode. This works, but i had to do this using explorer->application properties. if can I do this programmatically during installation time, I would really prefer this option. My question is if there is any way to achieve this.
regards
Ganesh
Try making an application compatibility shim that says your app needs the XP compatibility mode, and distributing it with your app. A shim is a means for administrators to simplify installation of a 3rd party app that needs compatibility settings - it saves them tweaking each PC individually. You can probably roll it into your install program with a little ingenuity.
I've gotten pretty used to dealing with the UAC dialog, running Vista for the last 2 years. If it bugs you, I have to wonder how much experience you have using post-XP OS'es.
As a user I think there are two ways to look at it:
The program inherently requires admin. For these, I very much appreciate the dialog, as I know it means nobody's going to sneakily run that thing in the background on me and modify my system.
The program inherently does not require admin. Most programs only need admin to auto-update themselves (and probably shouldn't need it then). My attitude is that these programs are poorly-designed. Such a program should only invoke AUC if it discovers it needs to update, not every single frigging time I start it up. This is a security issue too, as any buffer overflow someone finds in the entire program puts me at risk.
Localize the need for UAC as much as you possibly can. The best would be to put in a separate executable. (eg: an "updater")
Update: Since development machine has moved to Vista, i now automatically test as a standard user. And with XP being phased out, this question isn't so relavent anymore.
Since the Windows 2000 logo requirements, Microsoft has been requiring that applications run as standard user. Like everyone else i always ran my desktop as an administrative user. And like every developer: i log in, develop, run, and test as an administrative user.
Now with a new push to finally support standard users, i've been testing my applications by running them as a normal user - either through RunAs, or having my application relaunch itself with normal rights using [SaferCreateLevel][1]/[SaferComputeTokenFromLevel][2] if it detects it is running as an administrator. i quickly see how specacularly some of my apps fail under Windows XP as a standard user (due to my own stupidity). i also see how the same applications work fine under Vista (thanks to it's numerous shims to fix my bugs for me).
Aside: It's ironic that applications are more likely to run on Vista as a standard user than on XP.
The question is do you test your applications for standard user compatiblity? Do you develop as a standard user on XP? Do you ignore standard user access and hope for the best?
i tried, as a bonus, to have my app relaunch itself as a limited user (rather than normal user). It doesn't even come up - Windows says it failed to initialize. So there an area of future research on my part: making the app even support limited user.
i specifically referred to standard users on XP rather than Vista to enforce the truth that Vista is no different from XP as far as compatibility is concerned. And anyone who says their app fails on Vista must realize it also fails on XP.
I'm going to point you to Crispin Cowan's "Best Practices for Developing for Windows Standard User" talk. It's well worth watching.
If you want to sell your application to businesses then yes, you must test your application running as a standard user. If your application can't run without administrative privelleges, that's going to doom any sale in to a business.
Even in the home market, plenty of people can and do use limited users to go about their daily activities; I know I do.
Even administrative applications that do legimately need administrative privelleges should behave sensibly when running as a limited user. They should popup up a dialog informing the user that administrative rights are required to complete whatever task it was that they were attempting.
The best way to build software that respects these limitations is to develop your software under a user that has limited privileges. That way, every time you develop a feature you're implicitly testing whether it will work in a limited environment.
None of this is hard, it just take a degree of discipline - just like all quality assurance procedures do. People have been developing as non-root users on *nix for decades. Windows development is behind the curve in this respect.
Crispin, in his PDC talk, made a very good point, one that i had never considered before.
Google Chrome installs as a standard user: it installs in the per-user folder, without needing a UAC or OTS prompt, and everything is user friendly because the install is so easy. Unfortunatly, it is installed in a per-user folder, where the user can modify it.
Put it another way: malware can modify the Chrome exe.
Chrome would now become the biggest target for any mal-ware. And if some malware does modify it, Chrome is now sending your usernames, passwords, and credit card info back to home base, because that's what the new Chrome exe does.
That is why you sometimes want applications installed to protected locations.
Edit: The entire Microsoft "Click Once" deployment inititave suffers the danger.
I run on XP as a limited user almost all of the time and as the default. (On Vista, I use an adminstrative account and rely on UAC.)
I develop as a limited user. There's very little in Java and Visual Studio development that requires any more privilege than that.
If I need to run something under the limited account but with administrative privileges, I use a MakeMeAdmin (renamed and tuned as ConsoleMeAdmin) .bat script that creates an administrative console session.
If I really need to be an administrator in order to do installs and do first-time-runs so my security software can condition itself to allow network access to the new code (or not), etc., I will elevate my Limited User Account to Administrator long enough to get all of that done, then restart the account as Limited User again. Other than for Windows Updates, I do all of my downloads as a limited user and then install off-line after elevation to Administrator.
Because I only have a small workgroup LAN with no Active Directory, the only useful account types are Administrator and Limited User on XP. (I tried power user when I first began using XP but found that I could do without it and I prefer what that teaches me about not depending on special privileges in code I build.)
[PS: I also have Data Execution Protection (supported in hardware) active by default on my XP system, and you'd be surprised what that turns up.]
In the business environment most users are standard windows domain users.
To ignore standard user compliance tests is a really bad move.
And you will get each domain administrator that has to install your application very angry and they will go to your competition.
IMHO developing in an administrator account is not only unnecessary, but also highly dangerous! Suppose you check something on the internet while developing (stackoverflow comes to mind) and you catch some malware - history shows that this is far easier than you might have thought, e.g. through banners. As an administrator this malware will infect your computer and you might never get rid of it. It can even be a danger to all your development work (think of industrial espionage)!
If you have to run/test anything as an administrator, use either runas or even better virtual machines - that way you can use separate systems with defined behaviour (lots of problems with Windows software come from libraries that are of course available on the developer's PC, but hardly anywhere else!). In times of Microsoft Virtual PC and VMWare Server (both free) there isn't even an excuse due to high prices for virtualization software.
I've developed some Windows apps some years ago and besides their installers NOTHING ever required administrative rights. The run-time settings always belong to the user, not to the machine.
And yes, I run Windows XP as normal user at home too, as do my family members (parents etc.). Sometimes a crappy piece of software needs write access to their installation folder, but 95% of all installed apps run fine out-of-the-box by today.
Yes, we test that.
Probably the simplest, but most abused, rule is that you shouldn't do anything that requires write access to your program's install folder. Instead, there's a special folder called Application Data for that kind of thing.
Yes, and I took the general advice that its much easier to get your application to run on Vista if it runs ok on XP as limited user. To achieve that, and know if there were any problems running as limited user, I used LUABuglight.
I generally don't develop as limited user but only log on as limited user for testing.
The number of programs that require Admin rights and write to their own Program Files folder is amazing. To be honest, I've found very few programs that run correctly as limited user, from any software company, big or small.
Anyone else find it funny that Windows developers think its normal to run as Admin (apparently), but Linux developers pretty much never run as root?
As an old-time BOFH I will rain fire and ugly words over anyone asking for elevated rights for their client-side applications to run properly. It's just out of the question, always was ever since around 2001-2002 when we switched from Win9x to XP (sic).
As a newly born developer in a place where everyone on XP is a local admin by a forced group policy and changing it seems to take time and noone is especially inclined to start either - I've installed the RunAsAdmin shim that lowers me down to a normal user for most tasks including developing - much like in Vista. Recommended if you're stuck as a local admin on XP ^^