Is "login.ini" a reserved name? - windows

I store the MRU of logins to my application in a file called login.ini and I save it in widnows application folders.
I noticed that on some systems — I don't know why; I cannot find a common cause — the user cannot create the file, whereas it creates all other files in the same folder.
The only reason I can think of is that some antivirus/windows setting/... doesn't allow this particular user to create the file on this system.
I solved the problem by renaming the file and it seems ok, but I'd like to be sure. Does anyone know more?
Note for bounty:
This is a related question I asked that details a little more what I am doing.

A little Google-fu turns up that other Windows developers have sucessfully created login.ini for their programs, and others use it in a third-party Windows login management program, so I would expect that its "reservedness" is partially dependent on its location in the file system (i.e. in the system files). However, I don't think the name "login.ini" is a system-wide reserved name, no.
I think you're right - certain antivirus programs MAY be messing with the creation of that file, as it is a fairly likely candidate imho for a virus filename. It looks as if it may already have been used for that purpose somewhere (apparently outside of the US), tho don't quote me on that.
So, if a different name works for you, I'd go with that. :)

Anti-virus is a definite possibility for messing with your file. Stuff like that happened all the time to me when I was using Norton.
'login.ini' is not a system-wide reserved name, it would only mess things up with the OS if you had it in the (assuming your drive is C:) C:\WINDOWS or C:\WINDOWS\System32 directories.
If you just have the file in an application files directory (like C:\Program Files or C:\All Users\Application Settings and such) it shouldn't interfere with the system.
If you determine that anti-virus is a definite problem, you could change the name to something like loginData and maybe make up a new file extension if you want to (assuming you are just going to read the file from a program, where the extension doesn't matter. otherwise stick to a recognized file extension)

Related

Windows equivalent to Linux namespaces (per-process filesystem mounts)?

Linux has a feature called namespaces, which let you give a different "view" of the filesystem to different processes. In Windows terms, this would be useful for example if you had a legacy program "floyd" that always loaded its configuration from C:\floyd\floyd.ini. If Windows had namespaces, you could write a wrapper script which would create a namespace in which to run floyd, making it so when Alice ran the script, floyd would start up in an environment where C:\floyd existed but actually pointed to C:\Users\Alice\Floyd.
Now you may be thinking, "OK, just use soft or hard links and make C:\floyd an alias for C:\Users\Alice." But with namespaces, Bob can also run the startup script, but his instance of floyd (on the same computer, running at the same time) will see C:\floyd with the contents of, say, C:\Users\Bob\Program Settings\Floyd Config (or any other path we like).
You can do this on Linux with namespaces. Is there something similar or analogous on Windows? It's fine if it requires writing a C program, and it's OK if it only works on recent versions of Windows.
NTFS hard links are really a simple case of reparse points. Reparse points are typed, and can include more advanced behavior. For instance, they're also used for "offline storage" (transparent migration of files to and from secondary storage). You can therefore also use reparse points to implement per-user symbolic links, by creating a new reparse type.
The reparse point type even has an explicit "Name surrogate" bit, which (if set) indicates that reparse points of those types are some kind of symbolic link.
You can even have multiple reparse points in a path. Therefore files inside your symbolic namepace can still be migrated to secondary storage - you'd just have two reparse points in the path.
I think Virtual Store does this automatically for legacy programs that try to write to nonstandard directories. So the legacy program writes to a user- and program-specific directory instead to C:\floyd.
This sounds like Windows Vista's file system virtualization. For example, it can silently redirect c:\Program Files\Floyd to c:\Users\<username>\AppData\Local\VirtualStore\Program Files\Floyd. However, file system virtualization isn't nearly as configurable as Linux namespaces. From what I can tell from reading, file system virtualization should apply any time a 32-bit interactive process opens for writing a file, folder, or registry key that's only writable by administrators. (So you typically end up with some read-only files under c:\Program Files and some per-user writable files under c:\Users\<username>\AppData\Local\VirtalStore.)
An application virtualization product can probably also do this, although those are often more complicated and more expensive.
You can use hardlinks for that, but only with NTFS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_link
I think windows doesn't have virtual FS view per process.
The most relevant thing is probably special environment folders, such as %temp%, %appdata%, %localappdata%. Not that they're equivalent, but they fulfil the same purpose.
You can define your own environment variables then use '%myspecialplace%\myfile.txt' to access them.
As a horrid kludge (and here I book my passage to programming hell) could you use a NamedPipe for C:\Floyd that mapped the IO operations onto a file specific to the current process user?
I know it's not pretty and I don't know enough about NamedPipes (FIFOs in other dialects) on Windows to know how feasible this is.
Dan
There are several things that come to my mind.
First of all you can create a file system filter driver (or use a ready driver, such as our CallbackFilter product) that would redirect all file system calls, coming from the application, to other location. This is close to virtualization that you mentioned but this won't change the list of drive letters though. Such approach is both powerful and non-trivial, so see the other option first of all.
And the other option is:
there exist several products (Thinstall, Molebox if memory serves) that "wrap" the application redirecting it's file I/O to some other location. There was also some SDK to do the same, but I don't remember it's name at all.
e.g. http://www.msigeek.com/4819/file-re-direction-using-correctfilepaths-shim-to-fix-broken-applications
But I think it's not configurable per user, although the target can vary per-user based on environment variable substitution.
Most programs, though, store configuration in the registry, in which case RegOverridePredefKey would do the trick.
There's a shortage of good solutions for this. For simplicity, I can't improve on using NTFS soft links (junctions) for this - as you correctly point out, this creates issues if you want per-user configuration. As MSalters correctly says, all NTFS soft and hard links are just special cases of reparse points, so you could do something more general by impplementing a new reparse type, if you don't mind some work digging into NTFS..
(Junction is a pretty useful tool when experimenting with NTFS soft links: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896768.aspx )
You could just take a direct approach - give each user (or your program initialization if you only care about one piece of software) a logon script that sets up the appropriate junction into their user directory (and make sure you clean it up afterwards). But it's clumsy.
In general the right Windows approach is to put things into the folders pointed at by the %localappdata% (from Vista on) and, more generally, %userprofile% system variables.
Win file system virtualization is intended to ensure this in the cases where it applies.

Windows "known folders": is there any one of them which is reliably read/write for all users on all versions?

SHGetKnownFolderPath() and its cohorts accept one of the constants defined here, returning the path to a directory.
I'm looking for one of these folders which is reliably writable by all users (including LocalSystem) on XP, Vista, and Windows 7... but I think I'm striking out. It appears that, in fact, there is no single location on the hard drive anymore where you can put a file and be assured that all users can write to it on all these OS versions, without fiddling the permissions first.
Is this true?
You are correct; there is no such folder.
You will need to create one yourself.
%ALLUSERSPROFILE%
This will not be writable by low-integrity processes or limited users, however.
One option seems to be FOLDERID_PublicDocuments, another could be FOLDERID_ProgramData. If there's a similar function you can use though to get a Documents type folder (for the user) that could work as well.
Edit: this blog post may help you.

How to prevent a file being copied or cut in windows file system?

I want that an exe file can't be copied or cut from the Windows file system to paste somewhere.
The exe is made in C#. which must have to be in only one PC.
I have worked with FileSystemWatcher, NSIS, Clipboard. but for all I need to detect whether that file is being copied.
I also have seen 'Prevent'(http www free-download-blog.com disable-cut-paste-copy-delete-rename-functions-using-prevent ), but I need to prevent only that particular exe from being copied or cut.
Any pointer or idea will help.
As others have suggested you won't be able to disable the copy/cut behaviour so easily.
An alternative would be to disable the execution of the copied versions. In your executable you could check many things like :
The path of the present executable is explicitly your_path
The name of the machine and user is the one you authorise
You could even prevent the file of being executed more than once using Windows register entries (if already 1 don't launch). It won't be perfect since any experimented user could tweak that out, assuming they are seeking for that. But depending on your users profile it might be sufficient.
If you need the exe to be executable, you need to permit loading it into memory.
As soon as you do, anyone can read it to memory using ReadFile and then write to an arbitrary location using WriteFile. No shell-detectable copying involved.
A good reading: Raymond's post and its comments on preventing copying.
Well, this is a hard problem. Even if you get explorer.exe to disable cut&paste, what prevents a user from using the command window? Or writing their own exe to do it? Booting up in linux and reading it?
Still, you have a few options (there will be more, most likely) which you could try:
Use the right permissions: Set the
permissions such that the users who
you don't want to cut&paste cannot
read the file.
Write a device driver which can hook
onto the filesystem calls and do that
for you.
Encrypt the file.
And some hacky options like:
Use the APPINIT_DLLS regkey to put your own dll to be loaded into each process ( I am not sure if this will work with console process though). Then on your dll load, do IAT hooking to replace the kernel32.dll file calls.
Replace kernel32.dll with your own version. Might have to do some messing around with the PE format etc.
There are no guarantees though. If for instance, you expect them to be able to execute it, but not copy it, you are probably stuck.
Any local admin will be able to undo anything you do to prevent copying. I can pretty much guarantee the program on that page you mention relies on a service or background process to prevent copy-and-paste, and therefore is easily circumventable. If your users are in a closed environment where none of them are admins and they have very limited rights to their PCs, then you have a chance.
if you could completly block explorer from copying or moving files, then all u need is a 3rd party software for copying files (but make sure it can filter file extensions) for example Copy Handler
Set up an ENVIRONMENT variable in your machine
In your code add a check
if (ENVIRONMENT Variable=='Same as defined')
//Execute code
else
//Suspend execution

Is There Any Reason Not To Use The Windows Registry For Program Settings?

To me its a no-brainer. The settings for my program go into the Windows Registry. After all, that's what it's for, isn't it?
But some programmers are still hesitant in using the Registry. They state that as it grows it slows down your computer. Or they state that it gets corrupted and causes your computer to malfunction.
So they write their own configuration files, or may use the INI files that Microsoft has depreciated since a few OS's ago.
From what I hear, the problems with the registry that occurred in early Windows OS's were mostly fixed as of Windows XP. It may be the plethora of companies that make Registry Cleaners that are keeping up the rumors that "registry bloat" and "orphaned entries" are still bad.
So I ask, is there any reason today not to use the Windows Registry to store my program configuration settings?
If the user does not allow registry access, you're screwed.
If the user reinstalls Windows and he wants to migrate his settings, it's much more complicated than with a simple file
Working with a config file means your app is portable
Much simpler for the user to change a setting manually
When you'll want to port your app to other OS, what are you gonna do with your registry settings ?
Windows Registry is bloated. Do you really want to contribute to this chaos?
For me, quickly installing, migrating and moving applications is a key point to productivity. I can't if I need to care of hundreds of possible registry keys. If there's a simple .ini or .cfg or .xml file somewhere in my user folder (or even the application directory if it is a portable app), migration is easy.
Often-heard argument pro registry: easy to write and read (assuming you're using plain WinAPI). Really? I consider the RegXXXfamily of functions pretty verbose ... too many function calls and typing work for storing just a few bits of information. So you always end up wrapping the registry away .. and now compare this effort with a simple text configuration file, maybe just key=value-like.
It depends, when you have small entries that need to read by multiple programs registry is ok, as database have locking issues, and config files are application based.
The problem happens when the user does not allow registry access, that are lots of software in the market that will show a pop up when anyone tries to modify registry and the user can cancel or allow the users. These programs are too common with the anti virus programs.
Putting your settings into the Registry means that if your user wants to move your program and its settings to another computer, he can't. Backup, ditto. Those settings are in a mysterious invisible place. I find this to be a hostile approach to one's users.
I've written numerous small-to-medium programs, and always used a .ini file. A tech-savy user can edit this file using an editor, he can check the settings in it, he can email it to a tech supporter, he can do a large variety of things that are significantly harder to do with registry entries.
And my programs don't contribute to slowing the computer down.
Personally speaking, I just don't like binary configuration of any type. I much prefer text file format which can be easily copied, edited, diffed & merged, and put under change control complete with history.
The last of these is the biggest reason not to use the registry - I can stick configuration files into SVN (or similar) with the full support given to text files, instead of having to treat it as a blob.
I don't really have much of an opinion for or against using the registry, but I'd like to note something... Many answers here indicate that registry access may be restricted for a certain user. I'd say the exact same thing goes for config files.
With registry you need to write to the "current user" to be fairly certain about having access (and should do so anyway, in many cases). Config files should be put in a user based area as well (e.g. AppData/Local) if you want "guaranteed" access without questions asked. As far as I know putting config files in "global" areas are as likely to yield access problems as the registry is.

Unmovable Files on Windows XP

When I defragment my XP machine I notice that there is a block of "Unmovable Files". Is there a file attribute I can use to make my own files unmovable?
Just to clarify, I want a way to programmatically tell Windows that a file that I create should be unmovable. Is this possible, and if so, how can I do it?
Thanks,
Terry
A lot of system files cannot be moved after the system boots, such as the page file and registry database files.
This utility runs before Windows boots to defragment those files. I have it set to run at every boot, and it works well for me on several machines.
Note that the very first time you boot up with this utility set to run, it may take several minutes to defrag. After that first run though, it finishes in just 3 or 4 seconds.
Edit0: To respond to your clarification- that link says windows has marked the page file and registry files as open for exclusive access. So you should be able to do the same thing with the LockFile API Call. However, that's not an attribute of the file itself. You'd have to actually run some background program that locks the file for exclusive access.
There are no file attributes that you can place on your files to mark them as immovable. The only way that a file cannot be moved (I think) during defragmentation is to have some other process have the file open (for read or write, I'm not even sure that you need to have the file open in exclusive mode or not).
Quite frankly, I cannot think of a reason that you'd want your files not to move, unless you have specific requirements about where on the disk platter your files reside. Defragmentation should generally lead to faster disk access and that seems to be desireable in all cases :-)
This usually means that the file is in use by some process. If you're defragmenting, you'll likely see this with a lot of system files. If the file should legitimately be movable and is stuck (it's being held by a process that runs at startup but shouldn't be, for example), the most useful way of resolving the problem is to remove all permissions on the file, reboot, restore the permissions, and then get rid of the file/run the program that's trying to use it.
I suppose the ugly way is to have an application boot on startup, check every few seconds if defrag is running and if so open the file in exclusive mode.
This is really ugly and I don't recommend it unless there is no cleaner solution.
Terry, the answers all mention ways to prevent files from becoming unmovable during defragmentation. From your question it appears that you are in fact wanting to make your personal files unmovable. Can you please clarify what is appealing about making your files unmovable.
I assume you're using the defragger that comes with Windows. Some commercial ones like DiskKeeper can move some of these files (usually system files). You can try their trial versions.
Contig might serve your purpose http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897428.aspx
I'm relatively certain I ran across some methods/attributes you could access programatically to do exactly what you want. This was back in NT4 days though and my memory isn't that good.
For a little more complete solution try Raxco's PerfectDisk. While it is a commercial product it does a very good job and supports boot time defrag of system files. The first defrag takes longer than say DiskKeeper but its a single pass defragger and supports defragging with very little free space left on the drive. Overall its a much smarter defrag program then any other I've seen and supports systems of any size.
http://www.raxco.com/
first try to move(or delete) the files within safe mode. If can not, try to move(or delete) the files with linux.
But be careful if those are the windows system files, then you are failed to boot up your windows.
Some reason why the files are unmovable are : the file size is too big, the files are being in open/in use condition, insufficient security privileges, being access by other computer/s, and many other things.

Resources