|
|
|
Don't cross post, it's considered rude
|
|
|
|
|
Hi !
I want to make some kind of Process/application/EXE that cannot be terminated using the task manager. for the security purpose.
Thank you
Sunil Patel
|
|
|
|
|
Sunil123 wrote: for the security purpose
I think you might want to rethink your security strategy.
|
|
|
|
|
Sunil123 wrote: I want to make some kind of Process/application/EXE that cannot be terminated using the task manager. for the security purpose.
Sounds to me like you are trying to create some sort of a virus. If not I agree with the previous reply, in that you should change your security strategy.
Pete Soheil
DigiOz Multimedia
http://www.digioz.com
|
|
|
|
|
yes, it seems some what difficult. but i found that some system process that can not deleted using the taskmanager. when i try to do so it gives
Unable to Terminate Process
The operation could not be completed.
The operation is not valid for this process.
so I am looking for some what like this.
Thank You.
|
|
|
|
|
Sunil123 wrote: but i found that some system process that can not deleted using the taskmana
That's because they're running either as part of the kernel or are running under the System account, which you cannot use yourself.
There is no way to do what you're describing in a user-level application.
|
|
|
|
|
I have seen some other process that also can not be deleted using the taskmanager. like some anti virus program's process.
|
|
|
|
|
These applications have typically been allowed to modify the kernel that give them systemwide privileges. There was a whole furore when Vista was released because it prevented AV programs from doing precisely that.
|
|
|
|
|
Yep. These are services that have been installed and allowed to run as part of the kernel. Users cannot stop system services.
Also, you have never seen a USER LAUNCHED process with this ability.
|
|
|
|
|
There is generally no legitimate need to do this. There are some of the critical operating system processes that are protected like this but user processes shouldn't need to do this.
Scott.
—In just two days, tomorrow will be yesterday.
—Hey, hey, hey. Don't be mean. We don't have to be mean because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are. - Buckaroo Banzai
[ Forum Guidelines] [ Articles] [ Blog]
|
|
|
|
|
Hello to everybody,
I need to use .NET remoting to create a remote object with a 3parameter constructor, I'm not able to find an example, can anyone provide me a working example?
I've also tried to call a parameterless constructor then using the properties but I got the error below:
myDBHelper = (DBHelper) Activator.CreateInstance(typeof (DBHelper));<br />
myDBHelper.IdCup = 1; <-
int i = 0;
Thanks
Paolo
|
|
|
|
|
You could always do this like this:
myDBHelper = (DBHelper) Activator.CreateInstance(typeof (DBHelper), new object[]{"Param1", 1, "Item"});
|
|
|
|
|
hello Pete,
I've tried with this :
myDBHelper = (DBHelper)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(DBHelper), new object[] { idCup, idSeason, idMatchCode });
but I get this error :
{"Cannot run a non-default constructor when connecting to well-known objects."}
Getting bored.... with CAO object I'm able but I got the memory used by the server increase a lot and won't free in any way...
Thank
|
|
|
|
|
Ponzano Paolo wrote: I've tried with this :
myDBHelper = (DBHelper)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(DBHelper), new object[] { idCup, idSeason, idMatchCode });
but I get this error :
{"Cannot run a non-default constructor when connecting to well-known objects."}
Getting bored.... with CAO object I'm able but I got the memory used by the server increase a lot and won't free in any way...
You're using a Server Activated Object which means that you can't use nondefault constructors. When you think about it, this makes perfect sense because the instantiation of the proxy and the actual object occur at different times. Either you have to use CAO, or you have to change your remote object to use a separate mechanism, such as a remote method, to populate these values.
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I have the following line of code in my app...
logFilePaths = Directory.GetFiles(logDirPath,"*", SearchOption.TopDirectoryOnly);
I'm looking at the folder, and there's a file there. But the app doesn't pick it up!! I've tried with just passing the path and no search options, same result. When I drop a new file onto the folder, it sees the new file, and not the old one.
W.
T.
F.
I've also checked to see if the file was marked as "hidden" or "archive". Nope.
This is really bugging me. It's some stupid thing and it's holding me up. Does anybody have ANY ideas?
Smokie, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules.
|
|
|
|
|
What happens if you use *.*?
|
|
|
|
|
"*.*" returns no more files than "*", does it? it skips the ones without period...
I would like to see the full path of the missing file; may well be one of those non-
existing files that Explorer shows as a file.
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
This month's tips:
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google;
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get;
- use PRE tags to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets.
|
|
|
|
|
I've tried a couple of different things but to no avail. I've deleted it, restored it, actually gone in and changed it with notepad, the damn file exists. ut the getfiles method isn't seeing it. It isn't happening with any other files, that I can see. I'm just gonna have to move on and write it off. If i figure out what's going wrong I'll let you know.
Smokie, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: "*.*" returns no more files than "*", does it? it skips the ones without period...
Indeed - however, I was trying to see if it was a problem with dodgy files.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: "*.*" returns no more files than "*", does it? it skips the ones without period...
The period is the separator between the name and the extension. Every file has an extension, even if the extension is an empty string, so it doesn't exist any file names without a period. Even folder names has a period.
Experience is the sum of all the mistakes you have done.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Guffa,
I have been using both Unix and Windows systems, and that is why I had chosen the special wording,
so my statement remains intact, but I can add your clarification plus some, leading to:
"*.*" returns no more files than "*", it does skip the ones without period which exist
on unix-based systems, but do not exist on Windows; Windows file systems always have
an extension, which may be empty in which case the period is optional, typically not shown,
but still acceptable when refering the file.
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
This month's tips:
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google;
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get;
- use PRE tags to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets.
|
|
|
|
|
Using standard C++ it is a little more complicated, but I can write code to load and run a COM dll that isn't registered with the system (avoiding the need to have administrator privelages). Is this possible with .NET, or do I absolutely have to register a COM dll in order to use it from C#?
Nathan
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Holt at EMOM wrote: do I absolutely have to register a COM dll in order to use it from C#?
Not sure. Most of the time I use a COM dll, I just add a reference to it and all works.
"I guess it's what separates the professionals from the drag and drop, girly wirly, namby pamby, wishy washy, can't code for crap types." - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
