We have an installer for our application that must be downloaded and run with administrator privileges, like many other installers. However, the installer isn't named "setup.exe", so Windows doesn't automatically detect it as requiring elevation to run.
Changing the installer name to make things elevate properly sounds pretty messy, frankly. This article talks a lot about UAC and elevation, and it says that you can use a manifest to make something require authorization.
So, we'd just love to create a manifest for our installer. However, how do we ensure the manifest is present? If the user just downloads our_application_v13.exe, how do we ensure they get the manifest too? AFAIK the manifest would have to be a file named "our_application_v13.exe.manifest" in that case.
Since they're just downloading a file from our web site, how do we make sure they get the manifest too? Can we build it into the executable in some way, or otherwise flag the executable as requiring elevation? We are using an installer tool from hundreds of years ago that we can't change, so it doesn't have any capabilities relevant to this.
Thanks!
If the installer tool allows you to change/attach/edit the resources of the generated EXE file, you can add the manifest file as a resource with a resource type of 24 (RT_MANIFEST in the windows headers) and a resource id of 1.
If The installer tool does not have the built in facility to insert resources, then you might have to write a tool to post-process your install.exe file to insert the resource. Look up the Windows APIs BeginUpdateResouce and EndUpdateResource. They have some limitations - they tend not to work if the EXE doesn't already contain any resource files at all, but most install tool generated exe files contain at least a version info resource.
Also, if the install is digitally signed that will have to be done after insertion of the manifest resource.
Also, mt.exe included with the Platform SDK and most versions of visual studio has options to embed, extract and merge manifest resources.
The manifest can also be in the application's native resource section (inside the EXE).
There is Resource Tuner Console from Heaventools Software.
Resource Tuner Console is a command-line tool that enables developers to automate post-processing of your install exe file and insert the manifest resource. See specifically the Adding Application Manifest page for greater details:
http://www.heaventools.com/rtconsole-embed-manifest.htm
Related
I have two executable files, the first one should run the second one. The second one comes with different types of manifests: asInvoker, requireAdministrator, etc.
Is it possible to change the manifest of executable file? I'm searching a simple solution on C.
I would like not to keep few copies of executable with different types of manifests, and not to keep third party tool that could change it. BTW, it is possible and this tool exists: MT (manifest tool) from visual studio package, link.
Yes, you can change the manifest file using mt.exe from the Win32 SDK. But that is only something you should do during development or testing. You cannot deploy this tool to customer's machine, so you can't use it to dynamically change the manifest back and forth.
But that's okay, because you don't ever need to change the manifest file back and forth at runtime. The executable's manifest file should specify the minimum required privileges for that EXE. Thus, if it's possible for the user to run the EXE without administrative privileges (i.e., without elevation)—even if it means the app runs with limited functionality—the app's manifest should specify "asInvoker". The user can always choose to run the app with administrative privileges if they need those extra features.
And, of course, you can launch the EXE programmatically with elevation. You do this using ShellExecuteEx, specifying the "runas" verb for the lpVerb parameter. This will have the same effect as setting the permissions level in the application's manifest to "requireAdministrator".
It is not entirely clear from your question how your application is set up. Normally, the first EXE has "asInvoker" set in its manifest so that any user can run it. It doesn't need administrative privileges in order to do anything. However, if there is something it might need to do that requires administrative privileges, it displays some bit of UI with the UAC shield icon, and clicking on that will launch a second EXE (with "requireAdministrator" set in its manifest) that performs whatever task requires elevation. This second app doesn't need to be distributed in an "asInvoker" form because what it does always requires elevation. You'll notice that this is how all of Microsoft's apps are set up, including the bits shipped with the operating system.
Thanks #RbMm for his comment.
Also I found later that my question is duplicate. Sorry for that, I haven't found this earlier.
So, the solution (error handling and includes omitted):
HANDLE handle = BeginUpdateResourceW(file, TRUE);
UpdateResourceW(handle, RT_MANIFEST, CREATEPROCESS_MANIFEST_RESOURCE_ID, MAKELANGID(LANG_NEUTRAL, SUBLANG_DEFAULT), manifest, strlen(manifest));
EndUpdateResourceW(handle, FALSE);
Notes for further generations:
Manifest should be in short chars - char * instead of wchar *
Errors (e.g. incorrect XML syntax) could be tracked in Event Viewer, section Windows Logs -> Application
Some tools (Resource Hacker) could open and show manifests, but they show unicode manifests without error too...
This question might seem to be duplicated with this and this that are similar. But it is not! First- I am getting this error from the setup file and not from the program that I am distributing Second -the version is different, the directories in Installshield 2009 an 10.5 differ. .
I'm trying to fix an error caused by Windows compatibility mode in my setup, which is built with Installshield 10.5. So far my research led me to a conclusion that i need to add [this][3] to my manifest file. I saw that Microsoft's tool mt.exe could extract a manifest file from a dll, however I did not see anywhere that it can extract it from an executable file.
So my questions are the following:
Is there any way to view the manifest file of a Setup.exe built with Installshield?
Is there any way to configure this manifest file for the certain project in Installshield?
[3]Can one edit an InstallShield setup.exe's manifest file?
As far as I know, mt.exe will work fine on EXE files; both EXE and DLL files are Portable Executable (PE) files, and PE files use the exact same structure for resources such as the manifest. Visual Studio, CFF explorer, and countless other tools (including raw resource APIs) will also work to view and possibly update manifests in general.
However for a built InstallShield setup.exe, there is a twist. InstallShield uses areas in the file to store information that are not described in the PE format. Tools that update the resources on an EXE can inadvertently destroy this data as they do not expect it to be there, nor do they know how to detect or adjust it.
InstallShield 12 or so and later allow you to specify a manifest, and it selects the manifest from files it ships that you can update before it adds them to the setup.exe. In addition, there is a tool called ISReMan that is aware of the extra information and can update the manifest correctly when that data is present.
By the way, it's generally helpful to mention the actual problem you're trying to solve, in case the method you've chosen (in this case updating the manifest) is not the correct solution. Note as well that InstallShield 10.5 is over 10 years old, and knows nothing about UAC, PCA, and other Vista and later technologies; adjusting the manifest may not help fix, say, an elevation-related problem.
Note as well that I am paid to work on InstallShield, so I may be biased when I recommend things like upgrading. :)
I have an old Legacy Application Developed in VB 6.0. They used some 3rd Party controls using IGSplash40.OCX,PVCalendar9.OCX etc..The code works fine in one server.
They have installed Infragistics NetAdvantage 2004 Vol.1 tool to use those controls in VB Application. Now I have to move the application to another computer.
When I open the application especially forms..It says unable to load xxxform.refer logs for details and while running also It says 'License information for this component not foud. you do not have appropriotate permisson to use this functionality in designer environment'.
Also, I collected those ocx files from another server and tried to run my application.
How to resolve this?
The developer package for controls normally includes not only the OCXs and DLLs involved, and not only the documentation, but an installer that puts the libraries, docs, and any necessary design-time licenses in place and registers them.
If you find yourself copying such files in place and manually registering them you're likely to fail unless you have some freeware library.
Even freeware libraries should come with a proper set of docs, a DEP file, and dev machine install package to put everything in place. Merge modules are a nice thing to offer as well. Sadly most freeware authors are generous if they offer a readme file.
There is more to the ecosystem of an OCX than just the OCX file itself.
The only fix is to replace these controls with controls that you do have licenses for, buy alternatives, or try to contact the original vendor about supplying a replacement install package or acquiring a new license and new package.
In Windows 7 you will find the usual .ocx files in the folder Windows\SysWOW64. In that folder there are a number of .srg files that seem to be the corresponding licenses. My problem was with richtx32.ocx and I had to open the corresponding RICHTEXT.SRG file, and create in the registry the corresponding key and introduce the license string manually.
Due to severe limitations of the Microsoft Windows Installer (MSI) system it is required to create a bootstrapper in order to install multiple MSI files (due to pre/post-requisites). However, this introduces an distribution problem because you now have multiple files that need to be included with the distribution. There are of course multiple ways to distribute this as a single file.
1: An archive
You can put all the files into a single archive that users download. The obvious choice for MS Windows is of course a PK-ZIP archive. But this is not very user friendly. Users will first have to extract the archive, and then run the bootstrapper (which would be called setup.exe).
2: A SFX archive
Instead of distributing an plain archive file you could wrap it into a self extracting archive. Executing this SFX archive would prompt the user to extract and/or run the contents. But this adds yet another prompt to the whole installation process (#1: SFX prompt, #2: bootstrapper prompt, #3: main installer prompt). This is also not very user friendly, as it increase annoyance due to multiple prompts.
3: Single file bootstrapper
Of course there is the option to embed all the extract files into the bootstrapper. This is probably the most user friendly for a normal end-user. However, this is less friendly for system administrators, because usually bootstrappers are less manageable than the MSI files. An admin would rig the system so that all requisites are also installed when the main MSI is installed, thus the bootstrapper would not be needed.
4: Other?
An other unlisted method?
So what do you think is the best way to distribute a installer for MS Windows software that requires a bootstrapper?
We provide a single file bootstrapper for retail distribution and all single-user installations.
Volume licensing customers (e.g. 10+ seats) receive one (or more) MSI files along with instructions and a list of prerequsites that must be installed before our application will run (which slightly differ between XP, Vista and Win2k). The EXE blocks installation if the prerequisites are not installed, the MSI will permit installation under the assumption that the sysadmin knows what they're doing and might be installing the prereq's at the same time, before the next reboot.
Basically the single bootstrapper is for non-sysadmins, people who want a single click solution. System administrators and corporate IT support who prefer more fine grained control over their installation are happy for multiple files, even if it means more work for them. The single EXE file is available publicly, the instructions + multiple files are only available by contacting our sales team.
This method gives us the best of both worlds, as well as the ability to provide different default configurations for home and corporate customers - hints, tips, splash screens, auto-updates and welcome dialogs are all disabled by default for corporate installations but enabled for "single" users.
We use Wix to create MSI files which is hugely flexible and can easily be automated with build scripts.
To chain multiple MSI/EXE files together for distribution via single bootstrapper I would highly recommend DotNetInstaller. I'm in no way connected or affiliated with this product, but it has been a lifesaver on projects for generating highly configurable bootstrappers in unmanaged code.
I wrote up my recent experiences in developing a multi-language MSI and bootstrapper using these technologies here. This talks through the process from start to finish. Using DotNetInstaller you can download and install dependencies from a URL on demand, or embed them directly within the bootstrapper with ease. I did also consider WIX's own SETUPBLD bootstrapper generator and the GenerateBootStrapper MSBuild task but they are pretty basic. That said WIX 3.5 Burn utility is currently in the pipeline and could be a pretty decent alternative once it's released.
Regarding: 1: An archive: 2: A SFX archive
You could use a self-extracting .ZIP that automatically launches a Setup.exe. WinZip offers this support inexpensively. That way, it would be more customer-friendly. It can be configured to launch the bootstrapper without a prompt.
Regarding: 3: Single file bootstrapper
At the risk of sounding like an InstallShield salesman, InstallShield 2009 will take care of everything you're asking about -- it smooths over the MSI shortcoming of needing a bootstrapper. You could use the Release Wizard to create a single-.EXE all-in-one bootstrapper. Or you could create a web-deploy setup that is very small and then downloads the payload from a web site. Or you could put different features in separate .CAB files, and the user only needs to deploy those CAB files corresponding to the features he wants to install. InstallShield comes bundled with dozens of prerequisites ready to add to your Setup.
Depending on your siutation, MSI v4.5 and 5.0 might help you -- they have native support for multi-package transaction chaining. Of course, depending on what OSes you support, you may still need a bootstrapper to make sure the right level of MSI support is present.
I had a similar problem where I needed to distribute some optional support software, MSI installer, and another file just incase the MSI file needed it. I basically created a native application to handle the whole process. I wrote a blog about it here (http://blog.foldertrack.com/?p=45)
I have a VB6 application that needs to be installed on Windows Vista as a Standard User. Using Visual Studio 2005 I have created a setup project that will place the application in a standard user safe place or folder. I also have a dll that I want to install and register to the users application data folder. Once my windows installer is created in VS'05 I flipped the word count properties' 3rd bit using msiinfo.exe so that Vista will not prompt Admin credentials when it runs the msi. The application installs without any problems until it tries to register the dll to the users application data folder. When it reaches that point it throws an error stating that it cannot register the type library for the dll. It appears the installer does not have the authority to register a dll to the users folder. Is this correct? My understanding was that Vista only complained about standard users updating or changing items that affected all users of a machine. Any ideas? Thoughts? Suggestions?
Steve
My suggestion is, if you are able, to use regfree com / manifest files instead of registering the ocx/dll files, which as you mention is a real chore under a basic user account.
There is an excellent free app you can use to build the manifest for you as well here: http://mmm4vb6.atom5.com/
We have been using this for a few years now, with no issues.
EDIT The MMM website is down. I see here that the author was having trouble with their hosting and has provided another location to get Make My Manifest - download it here.
Instead of registering your DLL files directly, you can use RegFree COM.
This involves creating an XML manifest file for your app, so Windows will look for your DLL files in the application folder, instead of using the system registry to find them.
This means your app will run properly without your installer having to register DLLs.
These links have more info:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc188708.aspx
http://www.devx.com/vb/Article/32888/1954
You can use the free Make My Manifest software to create the manifest files you need:
http://mmm4vb6.atom5.com/
Generally I agree to what Joel Coehoorn says in his answer.
However, knowing how the registry works in this regard, I can make the suggestion that you try to manually register your DLL to HKEY_CURRENT_USER\SOFTWARE\Classes, basically repeating what regsvr32.exe would do to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes.
It's a bit of a hack, and maybe it won't work, but you can try it.
related post on MSDN: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms693350.aspx (thanks to MarkJ pointing this out in the comments)
related post on vbforums.com: http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.php?t=507228
Unattended Make My Manifest is a remake of MMM that can be used to generate manifests in automated builds. It uses a script file to add depended COM components.
Registry-free COM: MakeMyManifest is well spoken of. It is an automatic tool for creating manifests for VB6 projects: I haven't tried it myself.
DirectCOM is an alternative to registry-free COM. It also has fans, again I haven't tried it.
EDIT The MMM website is down. I see here that the author was having trouble with their hosting and has provided another location to get Make My Manifest - download it here.
There is a semi-automatic technique for creating manifests for registry-free COM. You can create the manifests with Visual Studio 2008 (you can use a free version like Visual Basic Express Edition). Then make a couple of edits by hand to make the manifests suitable for use from VB6. See this section of this MSDN article for step-by-step instructions - ignore the rest of the article which is about ClickOnce.
Registering a DLL does impact all users (DLLs are registered globally) and therefore requires Admin permissions. There is no way around that.
The solution for newer programming environments is that the DLL doesn't need to be registered to be used. However, since vb6 relies on COM you're probably out of luck.