From: RossettoeCioccolato on
Is there a canonical way to determine the base address of the NT kernel (or
at least an undocumented but stable way) targeting Windows 2003 SP1 and
later?

Regards,

Rossetoecioccolato.


From: Doron Holan [MSFT] on
why?

--

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.


"RossettoeCioccolato" <rossetoecioccolato(a)newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:OiRkX36uKHA.4220(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Is there a canonical way to determine the base address of the NT kernel
> (or at least an undocumented but stable way) targeting Windows 2003 SP1
> and later?
>
> Regards,
>
> Rossetoecioccolato.
>
From: RossettoeCioccolato on
Doron,

> Why? <

To calculate the RVA of a vector that is supposed to be located within the
kernel. The absolute address of the vector may change but the RVA should
remain constant across reboots unless the underlying code base changes.
This application will tolerate an error in a small number of cases as long
as the only consequence is that the calculated RVA will be incorrect (i.e.
false positive).

I am not planning on dereferencing the kernel base address, if that is your
question.

Regards,

Rossetoecioccolato.


From: Maxim S. Shatskih on
> kernel. The absolute address of the vector may change but the RVA should
> remain constant across reboots unless the underlying code base changes.

....unless the security patch from Windows Update is installed.

--
Maxim S. Shatskih
Windows DDK MVP
maxim(a)storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

From: RossettoeCioccolato on
Maxim,

> ...unless the security patch from Windows Update is installed. <

That would be a change in the code base. Whether it is a malicious change
or not depends on your point of view (and the location from which Windows
Update pulled the patch). :-)

Regards,

Rossetoecioccolato.