Why repeatedly check the integrity of a shared assembly on each load?
It's a waste of cycles. Only an admin can subvert this protection.
The Runtime always checks the integrity of a private assembly that
contains a strong name. It takes only a minute to check this. Create a
strongly named assembl
You have to run as the Administrator to write to the directories
containing the GAC, An Administrator can do anything s/he wants already,
such as install software as part of the operating system.
-- Brent Rector, .NET Wise Owl
Demeanor for .NET - an obfuscation utility
http://www.wiseowl.com/Prod
Did you test this with private strong named assemblies also? I find this to
be a very strange behaviour... CLR should ensure the integrity of a strong
named the assembly everytime (my opinion).
If private assemblies can also be replaced this way then there isn't an
integrity check at all. Or mayb
I'm betting you're doing all this work using an account that has
administrative rights. Try mucking around in that directory without
admin privileges - you won't be able to. So it's still secure, because
hey, an admin can do whatever they want. We don't try to protect
ourselves against admins. Onl
Ming,
as you said, CLR only check the assembly during GAC installation.
When the assembly is private and has a strong name, CLR check the
signature on every assembly load.
When some months ago I discovered this behaviour, someone explained me
the assumption is that GAC directory is sure exactly a
Hi Brady,
I just digged into my mind and remembered a phrase from someone of the
.NET XML/Web Services team at Microsoft. It seems that it is currently
not possible to do these super dynamic things as the XmlSerializer does
not support dynamic assemblies ... anyhow, I always stand corrected :-)
B
L.S.,
I have a question on weak referencing and garbage collection.
Let's say I have an object reference A. The object A is referring to, A*,
itsself holds a reference B to another object, B*. A is the only reference
to A*, B is the only reference to B*.
Now I use A to obtain a weak reference W
i've been tinkering around with an idea for the past few days, and i've
explored just about all the options i can think of.
i've seen a sample of inspecting and using reflection to generate source
code on the fly from accessing a WSDL file. it appears as though the
majority of the dynamic code ge
If there is a thread change from ur impersonated thread to the one executing
system.IO.File.Copy() then u would lose thread level impersonation. In order
to find that create a file using the system.IO.File and then find out its
DACL (in Explorer, check its owners, etc.)
HTH
-Original Messa
> I have a Windows form app. It switches identity by calling LogonUser, then
> calls WindowsIdentity.Impersonate. While I'm impersonating, I'd like to copy
> a file from my machine to another machine in the domain via
> system.IO.File.Copy. The impersonation works just fine, however, the copy
> fa
This is a post which I posted on msnews group days ago.
Unfortunately, I don't get any real answer there. I guess that may be I
could get
some valuable help here. Thanks.
My original thought on why Strong Named Assembly MUST be sign
Both LOGON32_LOGON_INTERACTIVE and LOGON32_LOGON_BATCH should work.
Are you sure you are impersonating a domain user?
Willy.
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Morgereth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 5:13 PM
Subject: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Copy a file w
Still speaking about COM+ vs SQL Server transactions, how problematic can be
using a class like the following (some kind of a decorator for a SQLTrans
object)? It's probably full of minor & MAJOR bugs but that's not the point,
the point is how usable can be something like this? I'm specially sensi
13 matches
Mail list logo
