|
manish_c wrote: OpenProcess API fails...
So why aren't you calling GetLastError() to find out why?
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for, in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
|
|
|
|
|
hi all vc++ masters
please tell me how to access c: drive of other system in network from my system
please i need this and please help me
thanks all for their valuable help![Rose | [Rose]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
thanks
|
|
|
|
|
p_ wrote: please tell me how to access c: drive of other system in network from my system
\\SYSTEM_NAME\\c$ is of any help!
"Opinions are neither right nor wrong. I cannot change your opinion. I can, however, change what influences your opinion." - David Crow
Never mind - my own stupidity is the source of every "problem" - Mixture
cheers,
Alok Gupta
VC Forum Q&A :- I/ IV
Support CRY- Child Relief and You
|
|
|
|
|
ThatsAlok wrote: \\SYSTEM_NAME\\c$
If that works, someone needs to be hit on the head. With a club. Hard and fast. Multiple times. And again. And again. If you or he starts to like it, keep on. He deserves it.
This old security-hole should have been closed for years now...
-- modified at 11:03 Thursday 25th October, 2007
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"
|
|
|
|
|
What on earth are you waffling on about? The only security hole is access rights on the remote machine, which by default are extremely limited.
Waldermort
|
|
|
|
|
If you think that accessing your CEOs (or any coworker for that matter) C: (D:, E:, F:...-Drive is not a security-hole, I think no one can help you.
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"
|
|
|
|
|
jhwurmbach wrote: If that works, someone needs to be hit on the head. With a club. Hard and fast. Multiple times. And again. And again. If you or he starts to like it, keep on. He deserves it.
have you ever work on network!? \\SYSTEM_NAME\\c$ is still available except now you have to provide username and password.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh - thats new, then. The hole is closed here for years, now.
In XP you still could access anything not hidden well enough.
E.G. Your bosses USB-Stick (FAT-Formated as it is).
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"
|
|
|
|
|
jhwurmbach wrote: Oh - thats new, then. The hole is closed here for years, now.
i don't understand ... what you want to say!
"Opinions are neither right nor wrong. I cannot change your opinion. I can, however, change what influences your opinion." - David Crow
Never mind - my own stupidity is the source of every "problem" - Mixture
cheers,
Alok Gupta
VC Forum Q&A :- I/ IV
Support CRY- Child Relief and You
|
|
|
|
|
OK, again slowly:
Until recently, even in XP (I think), you could scan all mounted drives on all computers in the local windows-network (that is anything up until the next network router).
Anything between you and full access was the Windows file security. Non-existant e.g. on USB-Sticks.
That IS a security hole. Regardless what Microsoft-cultists say.
This could have been switched off in the registry. See here[^].
Our network policy enforces this.
Now you tell me, that this no longer the case. Fine.
It should have been never. And the ones responsible for that need to be disgraced until their fourth decendant.
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"
|
|
|
|
|
As an owner of a small local area network with only 3 PC's in it all on my desktop I am glad this feature exists it makes it so much easier.
|
|
|
|
|
Easier than just creating a real share where you need it?
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"
|
|
|
|
|
well actually no, because I know how to use Net Share from the commandline, but yes if all I had was the poxy windows folder share prpoerty sheet it is much easier because the property sheet sharing page wants to reset all permissions on every thing below the share point which is totally unneccessary in a desktop lan environment.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
I have a tab control, contents of which are displayed by a CDialog. This dialog contains different controls on it. I am having following issues :-
1) After I run my app, if I put another window on top of it (say calc.exe) and switch back to my app, I see the area convered by calc.exe is erased!
2) I have a menu which pops up if I do a right control on the header of my Clistctrl .. after the menu goes away, the area covered by the menu is erased and comes back only when I move my mouse over the area...
3) If I hit enter the contents on the tab control (which are displayed by CDialog) go away completely!
Thank you in advance for your help...
|
|
|
|
|
neil4781 wrote: 1) After I run my app, if I put another window on top of it (say calc.exe) and switch back to my app, I see the area convered by calc.exe is erased!
2) I have a menu which pops up if I do a right control on the header of my Clistctrl .. after the menu goes away, the area covered by the menu is erased and comes back only when I move my mouse over the area...
I guess it is because of z-order problem. What is the parent child relation of tab and the dialog having the controls?
neil4781 wrote: 3) If I hit enter the contents on the tab control (which are displayed by CDialog) go away completely!
Override OnOK() and OnCancel() in the dialog having the controls. Like OnOK() { } and OnCancel() { } in the class declaration. Rebuild the project to avoid compilation issues.
- NS -
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks NS...
>> I guess it is because of z-order problem. What is the parent child relation of tab and the dialog having the controls?
How do I find that out?
Also, another problem I forgot to mention was .. if I hold on move my app window, the controls start disappearing ...
|
|
|
|
|
See, if a button is placed in a dialog, then the dialog becomes the parent of the button and the button is a child of the dialog.
Similarly, if the tab and the controls' dialog are the childs of the same parent, then there can be painting issues like you specified.
- NS -
|
|
|
|
|
<br />
class __declspec(novtable) CIOMessageMap<br />
{<br />
public:<br />
virtual bool ProcessIOMessage(IOType clientIO, ClientContext* pContext, DWORD dwSize) = 0;<br />
};<br />
<br />
#define BEGIN_IO_MSG_MAP() \<br />
public: \<br />
bool ProcessIOMessage(IOType clientIO, ClientContext* pContext, DWORD dwSize = 0) \<br />
{ \<br />
bool bRet = false; <br />
<br />
#define IO_MESSAGE_HANDLER(msg, func) \<br />
if (msg == clientIO) \<br />
bRet = func(pContext, dwSize); <br />
<br />
#define END_IO_MSG_MAP() \<br />
return bRet; \<br />
}<br />
Why class CIOMessageMap should be declared by declspec(novtable)?
The macros implements the member function of CIOMessageMap --ProcessIOMessage();But in other places of project,there no any inheritances of CIOMessageMap.
Who can tell me the advantages about this coding style?
There are will best in detail.;)
|
|
|
|
|
ProcessIOMessage() is defined as virtual, so the compiler wants to add a vtable for the class. But, because it's an abstract class (due to the = 0) it cannot be instantiated and doesn't need the overhead of the vtable. __declspec(novtable) instructs the compiler to not generate a vtable.
A more detailed explanation can be found here[^].
Cyril Connolly wrote: Truth is a river that is always splitting up into arms that reunite. Islanded between the arms, the inhabitants argue for a lifetime as to which is the main river.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
I was able to set particular cell's content by CRange::put_Item() from MFC typelib class, but how can I set cell's background color and put comment into it? I've googled it but got no result so far.
Thanks,
|
|
|
|
|
To set the background color, look for an Interior property of the Range object, Interior has a Color property that specifies the color of the background, the Range can span cells.
To add a comment, use the AddComment method of the Range object.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Roger!
But how can I reference the color property?
range.get_Interior();
and when "range.AddComment(COleVariant("1234"));" was reached an exception happened.
|
|
|
|
|
I am not using the same environment as you I am looking at the VBA for Excel and porting it into VC++6 wherein I get the Interior property which is an IDispatch and which has a Color property which I can set
Same with AddComment all I did was look in the MSDN documentation for the VBA Model of Excel and it told me Range had an AddComment method I have never actually used it, and even if I had it would be in VC++6 which doesnt use a CRange class.
|
|
|
|
|
Inside <<inside c++="" object="" models="">>, it wrote
"It is stll a bad design choice to declare all functions virutal and to depend on the compiler to optimize away unnecessary virtual invocations."
I can't understand it very well.
class Abstract_base {
public:
virtual ~Abstract_base()=0;
virtual void interface1() const = 0;
virtual const char*
mumble() const {return _mumble;)
protected:
char *_mumble;
};
As the source above.
"virtual const char* mumble() const {return _mumble;)"
If you define a member function to be virtual, you insert a vptr in your class object.
but as the function's defination has been claimed within the head file, it must be looked as an linline function. Is it right?
Tomorrow is another day!
|
|
|
|
|
I think what the author meant was that the compiler does not generate a vtable entry that is never needed. If you declare a function as virtual in a base class, and that function is always called in the scope of a known class, the compiler might as well skip the vtable entry for that function. Or if you declare a virtual fuction in a class with no sub- or superclasses, there's no point in using a vtable at all.
As for the inline declaration of a function, it only tells the compiler that you would prefer to have the code generated inline. If the function is virtual, you will still get a pointer in the vtable to that function (unless optimized away by the compiler).
Might add that I'm not an expert on the inner logic of an actual compiler, so the case may be a bit more complicated than this 
-- modified at 12:33 Thursday 25th October, 2007
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
