Windows File Protection
Hello Everyone,
I'm trying to package an application that requires an older version of msorcl32.dll. Since that .dll falls under WFP, is there a way I can disable WFP to add the necessary .dll then re-enable WFP? I appreciate any help
Thanks in Advance!!
I'm trying to package an application that requires an older version of msorcl32.dll. Since that .dll falls under WFP, is there a way I can disable WFP to add the necessary .dll then re-enable WFP? I appreciate any help
Thanks in Advance!!
0 Comments
[ + ] Show comments
Answers (7)
Please log in to answer
Posted by:
urban_diver
18 years ago
Posted by:
jonasm
18 years ago
Posted by:
shogun_ro
18 years ago
Posted by:
viv_bhatt1
18 years ago
Hi ,
Disabling WFP is greater security risk and is not advisable .
If your application is using an older version dll then you should try Application component isolation to make the application load the dll from the installation directory whenever required instead of loading the dll present in windows system folder .
Cheers,
V
Disabling WFP is greater security risk and is not advisable .
If your application is using an older version dll then you should try Application component isolation to make the application load the dll from the installation directory whenever required instead of loading the dll present in windows system folder .
Cheers,
V
Posted by:
brenthunter2005
18 years ago
Posted by:
Robb Thomas
18 years ago
ORIGINAL: urban_diver
Hello Everyone,
I'm trying to package an application that requires an older version of msorcl32.dll. Since that .dll falls under WFP, is there a way I can disable WFP to add the necessary .dll then re-enable WFP? I appreciate any help
Thanks in Advance!!
As I recall, microsoft no longer allows you to disable WFP. I recall having to use debug to do some BIT FLIPS in a DLL file, and then I install the DLL, and disable windows file protection. Once this is done, then you reboot, and WFP is disabled.
Not a fun thing to do!
Why not copy the DLL into the same directory as your application, and do the .LOCAL hack to get round the problem. I forget all the specifics of the .LOCAL hack, but if someone else could fill in the details, that would solve this persons problem, and they wouldn't have to mess around with windows file protection at all.
Regards,
---- Robb ----
Posted by:
MSIPackager
18 years ago
I forget all the specifics of the .LOCAL hack, but if someone else could fill in the details
You create an empty file called myapp1.exe.local for each executable you want to isolate - launching the .exe file then causes the app to look in the current dir for it's resources.. So for example say you have the following 2 executables in your package:
C:\Program Files\FunkyApp\program1.exe and
C:\Program Files\FunkyApp\program2.exe
Then you need to create 2 files:
C:\Program Files\FunkyApp\program1.exe.local and
C:\Program Files\FunkyApp\program2.exe.local and add them to your installation (as well as copying the older msorcl32.dll to the C:\Program Files\FunkyApp folder (rather than System32 or wherever it is now)
Alternatively I believe you can create:
C:\Program Files\FunkyApp\program1.exe.local and
C:\Program Files\FunkyApp\program2.exe.local folders and copy all the dll files etc you want to isolate into them
You'll still have problems if the msorcl32.dll file need to be registered though. MS recommends side by side isolation method for XP - more info here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/sbscs/setup/dll_com_redirection_on_windows.asp
Good luck - WFP is a bitch,
Rob.
Rating comments in this legacy AppDeploy message board thread won't reorder them,
so that the conversation will remain readable.
so that the conversation will remain readable.