I am trying to execute an .exe file from my C# code. The .exe file requires some key to exist in the registry. Now I have two options:
1. Either I can add the key, execute the file, and then delete what I added from registry.
2. OR If possible, I can fake the key in registry so that .exe can execute and I don't have to modify the registry.
Can someone please tell me if #2 is possible? If not then is there any other better way to deal with this situation (perhapds undo changes I made from registry)? or do I have to stick with #1?
Please guide me on this.
Thanks
Intercepting registry reads is not for the faint of heart and will almost certainly require several orders of magnitude more work than option 1.
There is a function for that, but it only affects the process which calls it. So you would have to use DLL injection. C# (or any type of managed code) would not be my choice for accomplishing this.
If you must intercept the read, then start developing a driver in C/C++ that calls CmRegisterCallback to hook system-wide calls and filter out the ones you need. But I think you'll seriously regret even starting the project... just go with option 1 instead.
It's technically possible to intercept calls to the registry using something like Detours. However, the intercept code cannot be written in C# and must be in C++ (or C, I suppose). Not to mention, doing this in a robust manner is going to be a lot of work.
Related
I have a DLL file (cf.dll) in my project.
It has some methods for encrypting and decrypting a string To/From a file.
My "cf.dll" have some methods for:
write "mystring" ---to-->> new encrypted dll
and
read encrypted dll ---to--->> "mystring"
Now i want publish my project, but if end user use my dll in his/her visual studio (by reference to dll), he/she can decrypt my encrypted files.
Another hand i need this dll in my published project because my project use theirs methods some times.
Now my question is:
How can i change this published dll (cf.dll) to a none-reference dll, for prevent any hack by it.
Edit (more details):
What i want to do:
I want encrypt some connection strings (as a DataTable) to a file and read this file agin.
I have a dll file for doing this work. it is cf.dll. it has some methods for encrypting and decrypting.
Encryption workflow>
DatatTable ------to------>> Xml as String ------by cf.dll methods to------>> enc.dll
Decryption workflow
enc.dll ------by cf.dll methods to------>> Xml as String ------to------>> DataTable
Everything is working properly and encrypted file (enc.dll) is created.
But if the end user use my magic DLL (cf.dll) in a new project in the visual studio (by reference to it), he/she can decrypt my encrypted file (enc.dll) and hack my program.
So, i want to prevent this hack by changing my DLL (cf.dll) to a none-reference DLL OR use another safe solution.
Edit:
My Table Columns for keeping connection string data:
Server DbName DbUser DbPass FileName
But may i ask save another DataTable by this encryption mechanism. so please help me by a solution for saving any string, not only a ConnectionString.
I want a very secure encrypted file from any data. in my solution i conver each object to a string then use my dll methods for save it as a encrypted file (i can do it nice, my problem described above).
You cannot make your dll "non-reference dll", but you can hide all your classes/methods with "internal" keyword (instead of public). This means that this classes/methods can be used only inside of current dll or in DLL/EXE which were specified with InternalVisibleTo attribute. So nobody can use them directly, but you should know that this is managed code, so anybody can take a look inside of your DLL and extract your keys for decryption and write the same code as you have in your dll.
Surprisingly you can not archieve your goal by using a .NET Assembly.
You could even obfuscate your code and it would still be decompilable and reusable.
There's nothing which can prevent that. You can rise the bar, but someone - if she want's - will be able to get the information you are trying to hide.
(Have you seen copy-protection mechanisms that really work besides doing something crucial online?)
Always think of the following:
If you want to hide information from a user DO NOT DELIVER that information. Everything else is just protection through obfuscation, wich can be cracked with more or less effort.
That's a really nice question RAM.
Some solutions to your problem:
1) Don't make a separate assembly (DLL), but put the code of your DLL in your EXE and make the encryption/decryption function of your DLL "internal" (so that no-one can use it from outside the EXE). Then use a free tool like Eazfuscator to obfuscate your EXE (because, if you don't, your code will be easy to decompile and read).
2) You could put the DLL in your EXE's resources (perhaps encrypted too). Then perhaps you can find a way to get it from there and load it into memory for your app to use. But this is quite complex thing to do if you are a beginner and I'm not 100% sure if it's doable in .NET (I haven't done it myself). However, I think it's doable.
3) The fact is that, if your code executes on the client's machine, there's not much you can do to prevent people from analysing it. The best you can do is to make it a little (or much) difficult for them to do it. E.g. you can add a lock mechanism in your DLL that requires the caller to respond to a random question. If he responds correctly, you execute the decryption. If not, throw an exception, return null or, even better, return a wrong output. The random question could be an integer that your DLL will generate on initialization and the EXE should process this integer to generate a new integer based on some "secret" algorithm. Then the EXE will "feed" this into the DLL somehow and it's functionality would be "unlocked".
4) Perhaps you could use reflection to analyse the caller assembly in order to find characteristics or even the author signature (if you put one in your EXE). That way, you could execute the decryption if the EXE is signed by your private key and the signature is valid. But that's a bit complex too.
5) I think there are tools called "EXE packers" that pack your EXE and DLLs into one EXE file and protect them at some degree. I haven't used one of those yet.
6) You can move the encryption/decryption process on a web site that will ask for authentication in a complex manner, similar to the one described in (3) for the DLL. This may keep your encryption algorithm safe, but the authentication process could still be analysed and hacked.
I would suggest the 3rd solution since it's the most easy to implement. The 4th (using signed code) is the most secure one but it takes a lot of knowledge to implement it (knowledge that even I don't have right now).
Have a nice coding! :)
I am not sure the best way to explain this so please leave comments if you do not understand.
Basically, I have a few libraries for various tasks to work with different programs - notification is just one example.
Now, I am building a new program, and I want it to be as lightweight as possible. Whilst I would like to include my notification engine, I do not think many people would actually use its functionality, so, I would rather not include it by default - just as an optional download.
How would I program this?
With unmanaged Dlls and P/Invoke, I can basically wrap the whole lot in a try/catch loop, but I am not sure about the managed version.
So far, the best way I can think of is to check if the DLL file exists upon startup then set a field bool or similar, and every time I would like a notification to be fired, I could do an if/check the bool and fire...
I have seen from the debug window that DLL files are only loaded as they are needed. The program would obviously compile as all components will be visible to the project, but would it run on the end users machine without the DLL?
More importantly, is there a better way of doing this?
I would ideally like to have nothing about notifications in my application and somehow have it so that if the DLL file is downloaded, it adds this functionality externally. It really is not the end of the world to have a few extra bytes calling notification("blabla"); (or similar), but I am thinking a lot further down the line when I have much bigger intentions and just want to know best practices for this sort of thing.
I do not think many people would
actually use its functionality, so, I
would rather not include it by default
- just as an optional download.
Such things are typically described as plugins (or add-ons, or extensions).
Since .NET 4, the standard way to do that is with the Managed Exensibility Framework. It is included in the framework as the System.ComponentModel.Composition assembly and namespace. To get started, it is best to read the MSDN article and the MEF programming guide.
You can use System.Reflection.Assembly and its LoadFile method to dynamically load a DLL. You can then use the methods in Assembly to get Classes, types etc. embedded in the DLL and call them.
If you just check if the .dll exists or load every .dll in a plugin directory you can get what you want.
To your question if the program will run on the user's machine without the dlls already being present - yes , the program would run. As long as you dont do something that needs the runtime to load the classes defined in the dll , it does not matter if the dll is missing from the machine. To the aspect you are looking for regarding loading the dll on demand , I think you are well of using some sort of a configuration and Reflection ( either directly or by some IoC strategy. )
Try to load the plugin at startup.
Instead of checking a boolean all over the place, you can create a delegate field for the notification and initialize it to a no-op function. If loading the plugin succeeds, assign the delegate to the plugin implementation. Then everywhere the event occurs can just call the delegate, without worrying about the fact that the plugin might or might not be available.
Ok, so I was wondering how one would go about creating a program, that creates a second program(Like how most compression programs can create self extracting self excutables, but that's not what I need).
Say I have 2 programs. Each one containing a class. The one program I would use to modify and fill the class with data. The second file would be a program that also had the class, but empty, and it's only purpose is to access this data in a specific way. I don't know, I'm thinking if the specific class were serialized and then "injected" into the second file. But how would one be able to do that? I've found modifying files that were already compiled fascinating, though I've never been able to make changes that didn't cause errors.
That's just a thought. I don't know what the solution would be, that's just something that crossed my mind.
I'd prefer some information in say c or c++ that's cross-platform. The only other language I'd accept is c#.
also
I'm not looking for 3-rd party library's, or things such as Boost. If anything a shove in the right direction could be all I need.
++also
I don't want to be using a compiler.
Jalf actually read what I wrote
That's exactly what I would like to know how to do. I think that's fairly obvious by what I asked above. I said nothing about compiling the files, or scripting.
QUOTE "I've found modifying files that were already compiled fascinating"
Please read and understand the question first before posting.
thanks.
Building an executable from scratch is hard. First, you'd need to generate machine code for what the program would do, and then you need to encapsulate such code in an executable file. That's overkill unless you want to write a compiler for a language.
These utilities that generate a self-extracting executable don't really make the executable from scratch. They have the executable pre-generated, and the data file is just appended to the end of it. Since the Windows executable format allows you to put data at the end of the file, caring only for the "real executable" part (the exe header tells how big it is - the rest is ignored).
For instance, try to generate two self-extracting zip, and do a binary diff on them. You'll see their first X KBytes are exactly the same, what changes is the rest, which is not an executable at all, it's just data. When the file is executed, it looks what is found at the end of the file (the data) and unzips it.
Take a look at the wikipedia entry, go to the external links section to dig deeper:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Executable
I only mentioned Windows here but the same principles apply to Linux. But don't expect to have cross-platform results, you'll have to re-implement it to each platform. I couldn't imagine something that's more platform-dependent than the executable file. Even if you use C# you'll have to generate the native stub, which is different if you're running on Windows (under .net) or Linux (under Mono).
Invoke a compiler with data generated by your program (write temp files to disk if necessary) and or stored on disk?
Or is the question about the details of writing the local executable format?
Unfortunately with compiled languages such as C, C++, Java, or C#, you won't be able to just ``run'' new code at runtime, like you can do in interpreted languages like PHP, Perl, and ECMAscript. The code has to be compiled first, and for that you will need a compiler. There's no getting around this.
If you need to duplicate the save/restore functionality between two separate EXEs, then your best bet is to create a static library shared between the two programs, or a DLL shared between the two programs. That way, you write that code once and it's able to be used by as many programs as you want.
On the other hand, if you're really running into a scenario like this, my main question is, What are you trying to accomplish with this? Even in languages that support things like eval(), self modifying code is usually some of the nastiest and bug-riddled stuff you're going to find. It's worse even than a program written completely with GOTOs. There are uses for self modifying code like this, but 99% of the time it's the wrong approach to take.
Hope that helps :)
I had the same problem and I think that this solves all problems.
You can put there whatever code and if correct it will produce at runtime second executable.
--ADD--
So in short you have some code which you can hard-code and store in the code of your 1st exe file or let outside it. Then you run it and you compile the aforementioned code. If eveything is ok you will get a second executable runtime- compiled. All this without any external lib!!
Ok, so I was wondering how one would
go about creating a program, that
creates a second program
You can look at CodeDom. Here is a tutorial
Have you considered embedding a scripting language such as Lua or Python into your app? This will give you the ability to dynamically generate and execute code at runtime.
From wikipedia:
Dynamic programming language is a term used broadly in computer science to describe a class of high-level programming languages that execute at runtime many common behaviors that other languages might perform during compilation, if at all. These behaviors could include extension of the program, by adding new code, by extending objects and definitions, or by modifying the type system, all during program execution. These behaviors can be emulated in nearly any language of sufficient complexity, but dynamic languages provide direct tools to make use of them.
Depending on what you call a program, Self-modifying code may do the trick.
Basically, you write code somewhere in memory as if it were plain data, and you call it.
Usually it's a bad idea, but it's quite fun.
Is there a way to hook into the Windows File Copy API from C#? I'm aware this would require unmanaged code, but a code sample or starter would be helpful. I've already seen the C++ code, but it's all greek.
UPDATE: I apologize, I should have been more clear about my intentions. I wish to actually change the copy feature of Windows to be more rigid (e.g. allow queing, scheduling, handle restarts, pauses, etc.). When I said hook, I meant API hook so that when someone starts a copy I get the sources and destinations and can handle it to my heart's desire. I'm old school and used to hook the Mac OS API a lot to do these things so I assumed that in the C++ WINAPI world there was some type of equiv.
Update:
As others have stated, why not just use System.IO.File.Copy(...)? It calls this same underlying API. As Michael G points out, perhaps you intend to call the the FileCopyEx API that allows you to hook progress-indication callbacks(???) That's really the only reason to P/Invoke file-copy stuff in .NET. Details on how to implement FileCopyEx that can be found here: http://pinvoke.net/default.aspx/kernel32/CopyFileEx.html
Original answer: (which you really shouldn't use...)
Code snippet removed because you really shouldn't use it...
If you're hell-bent on making busted-code, you can find out how to use it at: Found at http://pinvoke.net/default.aspx/kernel32/CopyFile.html
I wish to actually change the copy feature of Windows to be more rigid
You shouldn't do that in managed code, because of the same reasons you should not write managed shell extensions.
You can do so by calling System.IO.File.Copy. Its internal implementation already uses the Windows API.
Edit: File.Copy also handles permissions correctly and has the benefit of throwing an exception with meaningful data if something fails, so you don't have to manually check and analyze the return status.
You can use Deviare API Hook that lets you intercept any API from .NET and read parameters using VARIANT types. There is a full example very easy to follow in C#.
The other benefit of using unmanaged Copy File API is the ability to have a progress callback.
Note: as stated in other answers, I would use the managed version of File.Copy as it's safer, and can usually do everything you require.
I have a very theoretical question: Is there a way to ban the use of some methods, objects etc. inside of my application/project map in C#, .Net and/or Visual Studio?
To be more specific: I'm developing a DMS System where it should never be possible to delete files from an archive. The archived files are just files inside a Windows folder structure.
So, whenever someone tries to perform a System.IO.File.Delete() this should be forbidden. Instead I would force to use a custom-made FileDelete()-method which always ensures that the file to delete is not a file from inside an archive.
(This doesn't have to happen automatically. It's ok when there is an error/exception that informs the developer of a banned method-call.)
Another way to implement this could be to observe all calls of System.IO.File.Delete() at runtime, catch them and execute my own FileDelete()-method.
Of course these are a really theoretical questions but I would just know if there could be a way to implement this.
P.S.: I'm using C# with Visual Studio 2005. So it doesn't matter if I can realize this through my programming language or by Visual Studio (or by any other way I forgot).
Wouldn't it be simpler to control delete permissions to the archived files?
you can define methods and adorn them with declarative security attributes
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dswfd229.aspx
HTH
The closest I can come to a solution is to write you own System.IO.File class and keeping that in exe project. That way you'll get a ambiguity compile error that can be resolved with giving you own implementation in an alias (using File=System.IO.File, Version=[version], cultuer=[correct culture], publicKey=[public key]). If you're unsure about what to write make a break point and write something like ?typeof(System.IO.File).AssemblyQualifiedName in the immediate window.
It's not bullet proof but at least it will enforce the developer to be concious about the decision and you could even (tho I personally wouldn't do it) change the default class template to include the using directive for every class
Not for existing library functions.
For your own code, you could apply code-access-security on methods, but code running as "full trust" will breeze past this; so to check for abuse via reflection you would probably have to check the caller manually (Assembly.GetCallingAssembly) - which is painful and still not 100% robust...
There is specific file/IO permissions, but again full trust will ignore it.
I think "no" is a safer answer.
One way you could go about doing this is to create a special user account and only grant that account the permissions necessary to remove the files.
Just keep in mind that the user is in control of his computer (if he has administrative privileges ;) and while you can put some obstacles in his way there really is nothing you can do about it (and that's the way it should be).
What about writing your own FxCop rule for that case?
With such a rule it will be impossible to compile if you treat warnings as errors.