Is there any way to hook all disk writes going thru the system, and receive the file names of whatever's being modified, using the Win32 API? Or is this something that would require writing a driver?
You can't do this in user mode, it needs to be kernel mode and so that means a driver. You need a File System Filter Driver.
If you don't care about intercepting the actual data, and only want to know which files are being modified/created/deleted then you can use the ReadDirectoryChangesW API to get that info from userland. Note however that it's one of the hardest functions to use effectively and efficiently, and you should be familiar with IOCP to use it correctly.
Related
I read here that the inverse is possible, but how does one achieve such a thing? I'd hope there's a simple way, similar to calling from a loaded DLL, but my google research comes up with nothing. My only other thought is that one could pass some predefined constants through WriteFile or DeviceIoControl that the driver parses like a switch statement to execute the relevant function; does a more direct method exist?
The question is why would you want to do it? Generally if you have to rely on some mechanism like this, you need to revisit the design of the application/driver that you are writing.
The correct way to do something in context of your user mode application is exactly what you described. You can do a DeviceIoControl call to your driver and the driver validates all the parameters that you have passed, then carries out the operation on behalf of the user mode call.
If for some reason, you need to call into kernel directly, you will have to resort to undocumented methods. There are ways to hook into kernel dispatch table and overwrite one of the dispatch handler to redirect the call to your function. But I hope you never ever ship anything like this to your customer. This is good for learning how the dispatch table works, etc but introduces several security nightmares. Ultimately your software should not be responsible for someone's machine getting hacked.
In other words, is it possible to access a file without a handle being utilized?
You could use the CreateFile()-API to create a handle to the raw file-system and then parse the file structure by yourself (this is more work as it sounds!)
Though this would require admin-rights. This wouldn't trigger any hooks you have on CreateFile() or other file-related API-functions.
This wouldn't create a handle to the file but you still need a handle to the device.
For code running in user mode, any operation on a file will involve a handle of some kind, though not necessarily to the file in question. There are APIs that don't expose the handle to the programmer, but there is always one there.
In kernel mode, although it is usual to use handles for file operations, it is not necessary. For example, the file server component doesn't appear to open file handles when it is accessing a file on behalf of a remote user.
I need a two-way communication between a kernel-mode WFP driver and a user-mode application. The driver initiates the communication by passing a URL to the application which then does a categorization of that URL (Entertainment, News, Adult, etc.) and passes that category back to the driver. The driver needs to know the category in the filter function because it may block certain web pages based on that information. I had a thread in the application that was making an I/O request that the driver would complete with the URL and a GUID, and then the application would write the category into the registry under that GUID where the driver would pick it up. Unfortunately, as the driver verifier pointed out, this is unstable because the Zw registry functions have to run at PASSIVE_LEVEL. I was thinking about trying the same thing with mapped memory buffers, but I’m not sure what the interrupt requirements are for that. Also, I thought about lowering the interrupt level before the registry function calls, but I don't know what the side effects of that are.
You just need to have two different kinds of I/O request.
If you're using DeviceIoControl to retrieve the URLs (I think this would be the most suitable method) this is as simple as adding a second I/O control code.
If you're using ReadFile or equivalent, things would normally get a bit messier, but as it happens in this specific case you only have two kinds of operations, one of which is a read (driver->application) and the other of which is a write (application->driver). So you could just use WriteFile to send the reply, including of course the GUID so that the driver can match up your reply to the right query.
Another approach (more similar to your original one) would be to use a shared memory buffer. See this answer for more details. The problem with that idea is that you would either need to use a spinlock (at the cost of system performance and power consumption, and of course not being able to work on a single-core system) or to poll (which is both inefficient and not really suitable for time-sensitive operations).
There is nothing unstable about PASSIVE_LEVEL. Access to registry must be at PASSIVE_LEVEL so it's not possible directly if driver is running at higher IRQL. You can do it by offloading to work item, though. Lowering the IRQL is usually not recommended as it contradicts the OS intentions.
Your protocol indeed sounds somewhat cumbersome and doing a direct app-driver communication is probably preferable. You can find useful information about this here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff554436(v=vs.85).aspx
Since the callouts are at DISPATCH, your processing has to be done either in a worker thread or a DPC, which will allow you to use ZwXXX. You should into inverted callbacks for communication purposes, there's a good document on OSR.
I've just started poking around WFP but it looks like even in the samples that they provide, Microsoft reinject the packets. I haven't looked into it that closely but it seems that they drop the packet and re-inject whenever processed. That would be enough for your use mode engine to make the decision. You should also limit the packet capture to a specific port (80 in your case) so that you don't do extra processing that you don't need.
I'm developing a network-redirector like SMB.
I want to test various file I/O to compare NTFS or SMB implementation.
What I want to test are,
CreateFile
Read, WriteFile
DeleteFile
RenameFile
Set, GetFileInformationByHandle
etc.
And it' would be better if it can measure each I/Os duration.
Is there a program I can use?
If you are developing a file system driver or use some redirector driver (either our Callback File System or alternatives), you can use IFSTest tool to check your implementation for correctness.
XPerf will answer all of these questions, allowing you to see perf at both the file level and the block level. Check out the PDC09 video on the topic at http://www.microsoftpdc.com/2009/CL16
You can use the File Server Capacity Tool (FSCT) provided by Microsoft. It will let you simulate a typical user workload against a file server that supports SMB. The tool can simulate multiple users from a single client and aggregates the results into text files in the end.
You can get more information, including links to download and detailed presentations at http://blogs.technet.com/b/josebda/archive/2009/09/16/file-server-capacity-tool-fsct-1-0-available-for-download.aspx
Usually, when an application writes to one of it's files on disk, the file modified timestamp changes.
Sometimes, and in my case it is an application written in ProvideX (a Business Basic derivative i believe) doing the writing, the modified timestamp does not change after a write. A program like MyTrigger will not pick up on the write operation either, but Sysinternals ProcessMonitor does log the disk activity.
It seems obvious that there are different ways to ask windows to perform write operations, and the request could then be hooked or logged in various different ways as well.
I need to be able to hook the write operations coming from the ProvideX application. Any pointers on the different ways windows writes to disk, and the type of hooks available for them would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
User-mode process can write to the file either using WriteFile API function or using MMF, memory-mapped file API (CreateFileMapping/MapViewOfFile/Write to memory block). Maybe your application goes MMF way. MMF writes to files very differently from WriteFile API, but they both lead to the same end point - IRP sent to file system driver. File system filter driver (such as the one used by Sysinternals stuff) can track write requests on that IRP level. It is technically possible to distinguish between write operations initiated by MMF and WriteFile as different IRPs are sent (cached and non-cached writing is involved). It seems that directory change monitoring function in windows tracks only one IRP type, and this causes MyTrigger to miss the change.