C / C++ / MFC

Fullscreen weirdness in XP

13-Sep-04 7:46

Timothy1982 wrote:
Is there a way to return the value from the choice to my App1 ??

Have a look at GetExitCodeProcess().

"When I was born I was so surprised that I didn't talk for a year and a half." - Gracie Allen

Re: Return value

Timothy198214-Sep-04 0:15

Timothy1982

14-Sep-04 0:15

thx for the help Wink | ;)

;)

Re: Return value

BlackDice13-Sep-04 12:04

BlackDice

13-Sep-04 12:04

if it's a dialog app, shouldn't it be:

if(dlg.DoModal == IDOK)<br />
  //DO THIS<br />
else<br />
  //DO THAT

[insert witty comment here]

bdiamond Sleepy | :zzz:

Jörgen Sigvardsson13-Sep-04 5:34

Jörgen Sigvardsson

13-Sep-04 5:34

When I make a main window fullscreened, the taskbar sometimes won't hide itself under my window. It does that arbitrarily it seems. Confused | :confused:

I'm doing this right now:

ModifyStyle(WS_OVERLAPPEDWINDOW, 0);
ShowWindow(SW_MAXIMIZE);

Is there a better way to make a window fullscreened?

--
Arigato gozaimashita!

Re: Fullscreen weirdness in XP

mcgahanfl13-Sep-04 7:09

mcgahanfl

13-Sep-04 7:09

I have seen similar problems with XP. Try Start->Run->Accessabilty Wizard. Just hit next on all questions. Restart you program. Is the problem still there?

Show 2 dialog windows

Larsson13-Sep-04 5:07

Larsson

13-Sep-04 5:07

Hello,
I need to show 2 dialog window and I need to show them side by side how can I do that?

Re: Show 2 dialog windows

David Crow13-Sep-04 7:49

anyone knows of this control?

13-Sep-04 7:49

You've not privided enough information to generate a specific answer. For example, who owns each of the two dialog boxes? Will both need to be active at the same time (i.e., how does the modality of one affect the modality of other)?

"When I was born I was so surprised that I didn't talk for a year and a half." - Gracie Allen

GerhardC13-Sep-04 4:50

GerhardC

13-Sep-04 4:50

is there anyone there that knows of a control that
is a CCheckListBox with the functionality of a
CDragListBox?

Execute an .exe read in memory

mich213-Sep-04 3:35

13-Sep-04 3:35

Hi,

I just want to execute an .exe program already read by myself in memory, say:

:
uchar *buf = (uchar*)malloc(file-byte-size);
FILE *fp = fopen("test.exe", "rb");
fread(buf, 1, file-byte-size, fp);
// Cool | :cool:

do some specific codes here Cool | :cool:

run-exe-image(buf); // This is what I want
:

Seemingly, I could't find any API function so far to do this.
All execution functions require .exe file name. (e.g. CreateProcess, ShellExecute, spawn..., exec..., what else?)
I have a need to modify some data in the binary image on the fly without using external parameter file nor modified version of the .exe in temporary folder because of security reasons.
Could someone point me out or lead to links?
Thanks in advance.

mich

David Crow13-Sep-04 3:55

13-Sep-04 3:55

mich2 wrote:
Seemingly, I could't find any API function so far to do this.

Probably because one does not exist. This question has been asked many times over the years, and to date, I've never heard of a solution. Good luck.

"When I was born I was so surprised that I didn't talk for a year and a half." - Gracie Allen

Alexander ^M.,13-Sep-04 4:05

Alexander ^M.,

13-Sep-04 4:05

then you didn't read carefully. I'm sure I've already given an answer to this question. It is possible!
You need to build a custom PE loader. There is one at http://mitglied.lycos.de/yoda2k/[^].
Have a look at section "Code Snippets", the code is called "InConEx 1.0".

Don't try it, just do it! Wink | ;-)

David Crow13-Sep-04 4:07

13-Sep-04 4:07

If it works and solve the OP's problem, then great.

Alexander M. wrote:
then you didn't read carefully. I'm sure I've already given an answer to this question.

Where might I find said answer?

"When I was born I was so surprised that I didn't talk for a year and a half." - Gracie Allen

mich213-Sep-04 4:17

13-Sep-04 4:17

Alexander M. wrote:
then you didn't read carefully. I'm sure I've already given an answer to this question. It is possible!

Oh, Yah?
I tried many keyword searches, all day long today!!
Many thanks to you, and also David.
OK, I gonna dig into that!

BlackDice13-Sep-04 12:07

BlackDice

13-Sep-04 12:07

i have an app I wrote that stores files in bytes in a SQL Server database. When the user chooses to open one, my program creates a folder in the current directory of my app called 'temp' then I write the bytes to a file and do a shellexecute. It's seamless and very fast. When my app closes, I have a CleanTempFiles() function that goes through that directory and deletes all the files. This may not be what you wanteed, but that's the best a novice like myself can do.;)

[insert witty comment here]

bdiamond Sleepy | :zzz:

mich213-Sep-04 14:34

13-Sep-04 14:34

Thanks for your reply.
I often do the same kind of things, but this time I can't make use of a temporary file creation as I noted.
Anyway, thanks. Smile | :)

Arsalan Malik13-Sep-04 19:31

Arsalan Malik

13-Sep-04 19:31

I posted a similar query a month ago on this forum, and got the same response. So far, I am unable to solve the problem. I am looking for PE headers stuff. If you (or anyone) are able to run the exe image from memory, then please guide me in right direction. Sleepy | :zzz:

ARSALAN MALIK

mich213-Sep-04 19:45

13-Sep-04 19:45

Hi, all

Let me post the same topic again.
Last day (for me), Alex indicated me the exact way to execute an .exe in memory buffer. (Also thanx to the author, yoda.)
After a few digging, I found I can't take the way unfortunately because it's only applied for an .exe that has "Relocation Information" included, while my ones do not.
Does anyone have alternatives?
Thanks again, in advance.

mich

Creating shareware

Hoornet9313-Sep-04 3:15

Hoornet93

13-Sep-04 3:15

Does any1 have any expiriance with shareware programming. I'm especially interested in some sort of SERIAL NUMBER PROTECTION. Any tutorials or source examples to be seen?
Tnx for an answer.

Love is the law, love under will.

Antti Keskinen13-Sep-04 3:42

Antti Keskinen

13-Sep-04 3:42

The best way to do shareware is always supply the user with an executable that is not fully functional at all, such as, some features are disabled in the code already.

If you use a serial number or an evaluation period, you need to go to very great lengths in protecting the application from hacking or date changes. While this is continous struggle as serial number generators and BIOS date modifiers are released by underground groups, it will eventually always end up as a victory for the underground. A human cannot make so good a protection that another human couldn't break it.

So, use two builds. The first one is the evaluation version, and will pop up a "Not supported in evaluation" message box, and the other build is a sales version, which you will send to the customer after he/she has paid the price. Of course, this method doesn't prevent the customer from copying the full software to his/her friends, but neither does a serial number system.

The best way to protect a software for single-machine use is to generate a checksum from the processor and motherboard serial numbers and then register this into your company's database when the program is first ran. If this registration fails, the software will not run. An alternative is to use a serial number system that is sent to you for validation. If the validation is not done, the software won't run either. This naturally assumes a network connection, but how many PCs are not connected into a network of some kind these days ?

-Antti Keskinen

----------------------------------------------
The definition of impossible is strictly dependant
on what we think is possible.

Hoornet9313-Sep-04 5:02

Hoornet93

13-Sep-04 5:02

yes ok, but our company already supplies software (in question) and it is already based on serial number protection. What I wanna do is an automatic upgrade system based on serials. My app must check the server for new version and then update it. Our company makes bussines on annual fees. So fro example when a company does not pay 4 the nexgt year we just remove their encripted serial number from the server. They can still download it from out ftp but the program must not work.

Love is the law, love under will.

Alexander ^M.,13-Sep-04 4:07

Alexander ^M.,

13-Sep-04 4:07

Always avoid to build software with serial checks, it is easy for crackers to hack it!
If you want to code a shareware then I propose that you put some features of the software in #ifdef blocks and undefine them when compiling the shareware. So crackers won't be able to reenable the features.

Don't try it, just do it! Wink | ;-)

Henry miller13-Sep-04 4:33

Henry miller

13-Sep-04 4:33

I have to disagree with the other two responses. True someone can crack a serial number easially, but your goal should not be to stop the crackers, you will either fail, or incure other costs that are more than the gain. Remember, the crackers wouldn't buy your product anyway, so it isn't a lost sale.

The goal is to keep the honest people honest. It is easy to justify using a product a little more than allowed because you are planning on registering, but never get around to it. These are the people who you want to gently remind to pay.

There never will be a scheme that cannot be cracked. If it is hard enough it becomes an interesting challange and you just get more attention. Hardware checks are annoying at best, they drive some legitimate customers to buy your product, and then get a version from the underground so they don't have to deal with the stupid stuff!

I recomend you read all the articles at:
http://www.dexterity.com/articles/
I found several of them interesting.