Re: Does UAC features an exception list?
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 23:33:36 +0200, "Serge Wautier"
<serge_dontusethisaddress@mailinator.com> wrote:
>Hi Jesper,
>
>Thanks for your reply. Sorry to re-ask a FAQ.
>Please note that this is not _my_ app and I don't want to distribute it.
>This install.exe is part of cygwin, which is used by the make process of
>Wavecom embedded wireless modems applications (together with the GCC
>compiler). The app I'm writing is not Windows-based. It's compiled on my
>Windows machine using and intended to run inside a Wavecom GSM chip, which
>uses their own proprietary OS. The app is sent to the modem using X-Modem.
>
>I certainly don't want to distribute an app that would turn off UAC! I may
>be stupid but not that much ;-)
>
>All I want is to tell MY computer that C:\OpenAT\....\install.exe is safe
>and should not pop up a UAC check. I'm not sure why being able to do that
>would defeat UAC as long as there is no public API to access this exception
>list. ok, ok, even if it's not public, one can imagine that it wouldn't be
>long before some smarty finds out and throws the info out in the wild.
>
>And why something which is not an installer is called install.exe is beyond
>my understanding. Damn, I don't even know what it does.
>I just don't have any control over that.
>
>I'll investigate the manifest route but I confess I'm not very confident: If
>I can simply write a manifest to say "hey, UAC, don't be scared", this is
>soon going to be a feature of all InstallShield, Wise, InnoSetup et al. Or
>did I miss a boat?
>
>Regards,
>
>Serge.
>
>"Jesper" <Jesper@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>news:4DFC1D52-34AE-4339-A66F-B529F88ACD90@microsoft.com...
>> Just remembered, there is one more thing you may be able to do: create a
>> manifest for the file and configure it to run as the invoker. I'm not sure
>> if
>> that supersedes the installer detection goop, but it would be worth a
>> shot.
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Your question may already be answered in Windows Vista Security:
>> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0470101555?ie=UTF8&tag=protectyourwi-20
>>
>>
>> "Jesper" wrote:
>>
>>> This question has been answered at least 20 times before: no. To have
>>> such an
>>> exception list would defeat the entire purpose of UAC.
>>>
>>> You can disable the automatic installer detection. However, if you do and
>>> then redistribute your app you are likely to really screw up your end
>>> users
>>> since installers would no longer be automatically detected as needing
>>> elevation.
>>>
>>> Why does your executable have to be named "install.exe?"
>>> ---
>>> Your question may already be answered in Windows Vista Security:
>>> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0470101555?ie=UTF8&tag=protectyourwi-20
>>>
>>>
>>> "Serge Wautier" wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hi All,
>>> >
>>> > I'm using a 3rd-party SDK to develop some embedded apps. It's based on
>>> > cygwin and the make process repeatedly calls a programm called...
>>> > install.exe. Which of course pops up UAC several times each time I
>>> > compile!
>>> > Let me tell you: It drives UAC crazy. Actually, it drives _ME_ crazy.
>>> >
>>> > Hence I had to turn off UAC. The 3rd party support tells me "We
>>> > recommend
>>> > you don't develop on Vista". Thanks very much guys. Very useful. :-(
>>> >
>>> > Which leads to the question: Is there a list of exceptions for UAC
>>> > heuristics checks where I could had this program's full path?
>>> >
>>> > TIA,
>>> >
>>> > Serge.
>>> > http://www.apptranslator.com
>>> >
>>> >
A comment, Serge: (sorry to butt in)
If the filename "install.exe" is hard-wired into the code of the
installer itself somehow, and the installer won't install without the
installer having the hard-wired file name (as was the case many years
ago), the installer must be named on disk what the internal name is."
But this is an old, old method, and is rarely used today.
Otherwise, it is just a "convention" to name the installer
"install.exe", because it is more descriptive of its function. But
it's really not necessary.
I know that in Windows (or OS X), the installer name can be changed
with no hit to the installation process, as long as the file type is
correct (an executable), making it unnecessary to name the installer
"install.exe". It could be named "my blue ribbon is nifty.exe", and
it would still work normally to install the program it was designed
for..
Using the name "install.exe" was an old DOS "convention", not a hard
and fast rule.
Windows programmers "usually" use the filename "setup.exe" for the
name of a program's installer, but again, it is a"convention", rather
than a hard and fast rule.
This is possible because every executable file compiled for Windows
has a special header which tells the OS that the file is an
executable, rather than a data file, along with other necessary
information, such a pointer to the location of the first byte, and the
length of the program, making it unnecessary to hardwire the program's
name in its own code in order to be reentrant.
