PE delayed import table - need a description.
in [Win32 Kernel]
|
From: Chris Becke on 30 Sep 2009 04:13 Remy Lebeau wrote: > "R.Wieser" <address(a)not.available> wrote in message > news:et5PxvSQKHA.220(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > >> I fond the same-named document with a date of 2008 on the MS >> site > > That is the same document as the one I pointed you to earlier. > >> that one had a EULA attached to it. A no-go for a hobbyist like me. > > Whats wrong with the EULA? Well, Its an EULA. I am weak. And I click through such things. I wish I was strong. They're full of leagalease, even if I wasn't too lazy to read them, I am aware enough to know that my legal training means I have no f***ing idea what I'm agreeing too. I *Read* the legal documents that desribed my purchase of a house and still got screwed in interesting ways. I click through on EULAs hoping that they are unenforcable. But that doesn't seem to stop modern courts deciding otherwise: Apparently if enough weak willed people (like me) click on the damend things that implies some kind of massed assent in principal that they're binding. Boo. Hoisted by our own petards. Perhaps we need a national holiday in which no one agrees to an EULA and returns any product having one.
From: R.Wieser on 30 Sep 2009 06:45 Hello Remy, > Whats wrong with the EULA? Don't know, did not bother to try to read it. Most of them are either un-readable or multi-interpretable. The fact that there is one attached to such a piece of information is enough to give me chills along my spine. But now you ask, just try to put the below *single* sentence into plain English and you know what I mean : ============= Microsoft will grant a royalty-free license, under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions, to any Microsoft patent claims (if any exist) that Microsoft deems necessary for the limited purpose of implementing and complying with the required portions of this specification only in the software development tools known as compilers, linkers, and assemblers targeting Microsoft Windows. ============= For the record : I can't even make heads-or-tails from it (can't even divide it up into its sub-sentences), and as a result have *absolutily no clue* to what they are saying there. However, I get the strong feeling that its limiting where I may use the gotten information for. It means that *currently* I can use what I know about the subject for anything I like, but at the very moment I agree to that EULA I am limited in ways I do not even know/comprehend. *That* is what is wrong with this, and with EULAs in general. > That information is described in detail in Microsoft's document. As I allready mentioned, no such info is present in the 1999 version ... > It is free. You mean : as in free-of-monetary-chrage ? Yes, in that you are right. But somehow I get the feeling that this gift-with-EULA-strings-attached is not as free as you might believe it is. Regards, Rudy Wieser P.s. What about you downloading that 2008 version and send it to me ? If you *really* think its free you should be able to do that without a single thought, and I do not need to do something I don't like (signing a EULA for some information). :-) -- Origional message: Remy Lebeau <no.spam(a)no.spam.com> schreef in berichtnieuws eRcw88TQKHA.5032(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > > "R.Wieser" <address(a)not.available> wrote in message > news:et5PxvSQKHA.220(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > > > I fond the same-named document with a date of 2008 on the MS > > site > > That is the same document as the one I pointed you to earlier. > > > that one had a EULA attached to it. A no-go for a hobbyist like me. > > Whats wrong with the EULA? > > > To me the delayed-import table looks like an array of DWORDs, > > which contents I cannot even translate to normal adresses (not > > pointing inside any of the sections). Any ida what these values > > signify (are they actually DWORds ?) > > That information is described in detail in Microsoft's document. I strongly > suggest you agree to the EULA and download it. It is free. > > -- > Remy Lebeau (TeamB) > >
From: R.Wieser on 30 Sep 2009 07:02 Hello m, > Usually this work is done for you by the OS, so I wonder > what you are trying to achieve? At the moment I want to be able to list any-and-all functions a DLL exposes, including the ones by ordinal. Currently I'm able to parse the import-table and do just that. But I would like to be able to list the other functions (delayed-import and relayed functions) too. By the way : if you happen to know how relayed entries work (functions that are seemingly exported by a DLL, but are actually in another one, like in kernel32.dll -> ntdll.dll) I would certainly like to know. Its how-and-why I came to focus my attention to the delayed-import table. :-) Regards, Rudy Wieser -- Origional message: m <m(a)b.c> schreef in berichtnieuws eyQcR8WQKHA.1232(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > IIRC ws2_32.DLL exports by ordinal instead of by name (as with most DLLs). > If you look at the PE spec from Microsoft, you will be able to make more > sense of this, but looking at GetProcAddress in MSDN may also help. > > Usually this work is done for you by the OS, so I wonder what you are trying > to achieve? > > "R.Wieser" <address(a)not.available> wrote in message > news:%23aUcufEQKHA.3540(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > > Hello all, > > > > I'm trying to make sense of the "delayed import" table-data of the ws2_32 > > DLL, but all I see is a table of dwords which meaning escapes me. I've > > searched the Web (to which a Google-search returns surprisingly few > > results), but not even MS itself seems to bother to explain it. > > > > My question therefore is : Does anyone know of a (good) description of how > > to interpret those values, and is willing to share it ? > > > > Regards, > > Rudy Wieser
From: Random on 30 Sep 2009 10:26 On Sep 30, 3:45 am, "R.Wieser" <addr...(a)not.available> wrote: > But now you ask, just try to put the below *single* sentence into plain > English and you know what I mean : > ============= > Microsoft will grant a royalty-free license, under reasonable and > non-discriminatory terms and conditions, to any Microsoft patent claims (if > any exist) that Microsoft deems necessary for the limited purpose of > implementing and complying with the required portions of this specification > only in the software development tools known as compilers, linkers, and > assemblers targeting Microsoft Windows. That sentence is plain English, and very clearly granting you something you in fact didn't have without the EULA. > What about you downloading that 2008 version and send it to me ? So, you're afraid of an EULA for strange unspecified reasons, but you have no problem with copyright infringement? Brilliant.
From: Remy Lebeau on 30 Sep 2009 12:31
"R.Wieser" <address(a)not.available> wrote in message news:OV%23$MsbQKHA.5032(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > But now you ask, just try to put the below *single* > sentence into plain English and you know what I mean : It basically says that Microsoft is granting permission for the reader to use the information in the document to implement their own Windows-based compilers, linkers, and assemblers, and if there are any existing patents on the technology described in the document then the document allows the reader to not violate any related areas of those patents. > As I allready mentioned, no such info is present in the 1999 version ... Because Microsoft was not delay-loading DLLs yet in 1999. Borland had already implemented delay-loading in its compiler by that time, though, which is likely where Microsoft got the idea and then write a formal spec for it later on (some of Borland's compiler gurus went to Microsoft for awhile - the architect behind much of early .NET was originally from Borland). > What about you downloading that 2008 version and send it to me ? > If you *really* think its free you should be able to do that without a > single thought, and I do not need to do something I don't like (signing > a EULA for some information). :-) Kind of hard to do without an email address. -- Remy Lebeau (TeamB) |