DLL Wrapper (I Think?)
in [Visual Basic]
|
Prev: WMI to use or not to use
Next: VB6 on Windows 7 64-Bit
From: Paul Clement on 12 Jan 2010 11:43 On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 08:57:37 -0500, "David" <dw85745NOT(a)earthlink.net> wrote: � I'm hoping a DLL wrapper may be my solution? � � Problem: � If a third party DLL resides on your system, can that DLL be accessed � remotely by the third party or call home when it wants? � � Answer � Don't know. If it can do the above, would creating a DLL Wrapper solve the � problem? � � If the DLL was contained within a directory that had no rights other � than to be accessed by the DLL Wrapper functions would this top access or � call home?. � � � Anyone have any idea if this will work??? � I noticed some mention of DCOM but an easier method would be to configure the ActiveX wrapper to run under a COM+ application and then designate the application to run under a specific identity (which has sufficient permissions to the folder where the DLL is located. Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
From: Ralph on 12 Jan 2010 13:37 Paul Clement wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 08:57:37 -0500, "David" <dw85745NOT(a)earthlink.net> > wrote: > > > I noticed some mention of DCOM but an easier method would be to > configure the ActiveX wrapper to run under a COM+ application and > then designate the application to run under a specific identity > (which has sufficient permissions to the folder where the DLL is > located. > "A rose by any other name ..." "DCOM" was rolled into COM+ Services as shipped with Windows 2000 and beyond (and retroactively applied to Win98 thru SPs). The only difference is the method of configuration, the underlying technology is identical. -ralph
From: David on 13 Jan 2010 09:07 OK: First, thank you again on my behalf. Got everything setup. So hopefully will do as expected. No way for me to test -- incursion -- have a configured XP Auditing to see if Folder accessed. Have a great day David "Nobody" <nobody(a)nobody.com> wrote in message news:e%23IKtxUkKHA.5520(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > "Ralph" <nt_consulting64(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:eOH6uJUkKHA.3792(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> David wrote: >>> >>> I'm starting to get outside my confort zone (need to climb the >>> learning curve on DCOM and OS Security) >>> >>> Any good books or suggestions on "easiest" way to learn this? > > I can't see David's post quoted above. Must have been lost in cyber space. > Here is Google copy which doesn't include it: > > http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion/browse_thread/thread/46ebc61070174321/9f935c6a8051524b > >
From: Paul Clement on 14 Jan 2010 14:42 On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:37:49 -0600, "Ralph" <nt_consulting64(a)yahoo.com> wrote: � Paul Clement wrote: � > On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 08:57:37 -0500, "David" <dw85745NOT(a)earthlink.net> � > wrote: � > � > � > I noticed some mention of DCOM but an easier method would be to � > configure the ActiveX wrapper to run under a COM+ application and � > then designate the application to run under a specific identity � > (which has sufficient permissions to the folder where the DLL is � > located. � > � � "A rose by any other name ..." � � "DCOM" was rolled into COM+ Services as shipped with Windows 2000 and beyond � (and retroactively applied to Win98 thru SPs). The only difference is the � method of configuration, the underlying technology is identical. � � -ralph � DCOM (Network OLE) was the pre-cursor to (MTS) COM+ and provided the network communication infrastructure for interaction with COM+ services. COM+ is simply an enhanced serviced-based version born out of the DCOM architecture. Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
From: Ralph on 14 Jan 2010 21:11
"Paul Clement" <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage(a)swspectrum.com> wrote in message news:kfsuk5tap7muqctbkinjr0hdjt4cecnvk1(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:37:49 -0600, "Ralph" <nt_consulting64(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > � Paul Clement wrote: > � > On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 08:57:37 -0500, "David" <dw85745NOT(a)earthlink.net> > � > wrote: > � > > � > > � > I noticed some mention of DCOM but an easier method would be to > � > configure the ActiveX wrapper to run under a COM+ application and > � > then designate the application to run under a specific identity > � > (which has sufficient permissions to the folder where the DLL is > � > located. > � > > � > � "A rose by any other name ..." > � > � "DCOM" was rolled into COM+ Services as shipped with Windows 2000 and beyond > � (and retroactively applied to Win98 thru SPs). The only difference is the > � method of configuration, the underlying technology is identical. > � > � -ralph > � > > DCOM (Network OLE) was the pre-cursor to (MTS) COM+ and provided the network communication > infrastructure for interaction with COM+ services. COM+ is simply an enhanced serviced-based version > born out of the DCOM architecture. > What an absolutely bizarre post. The only thing you got right was "DCOM" came before "COM+". (Then of course, "network communication infrastructure for interaction" can probably be construed to mean just about anything. <g>) The fact it is nonsense doesn't really matter as it isn't germane to the topic at hand, but I'm actually curious why someone would even feel the need to post such silliness? -ralph |