OK, time to give this subject its own thread. You can read about previous efforts here: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1113066. In particular, http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1113066&page=11 is where I started.
Background: the policy database is essentially the Access Control List (ACL) store for WP7. ACLs are typically attached to objects (files/folders, registry keys/values, drivers/services, possibly even APIs). When a process tries to do something, the OS uses the process's security identifier (called a "Token", it identifies the account running the process and therefore the permissions that process has) and looks up the ACL specific to that operation. If the ACL authorizes that account to perform the operation, the kernel permits it. If not, it blocks the operation and indicates an error (most famously on WP7, 1260 or 0x4EC, meaning blocked by policy). For some OSes, like NT, that attachment is in the metadata which describes the object (for example, NTFS stores ACLs for each file and folder). Apparently, WP7 uses a centralized database of ACLs, stored as "policies", instead.
Why I'm doing this: the policy database is the key to fully unlocking the phone. I mean that literally; "full unlock" ROMs achieve that state by basically turning off policy enforcement. I don't necessarily want to do that - at least not phone-wide and constantly - but I want to be able to set my own policies, and possibly modify existing ones.
What can be done with it: well, one example is the subject of the thread I linked above: homebrew native EXEs require first being able to add policies for them. There are some other cool possibilities, like turning off ID_CAP_INTEROPSERVICES enforcement or allowing apps to write to the MaxUnsignedApp registry value directly. That gets around the risk of phones being re-locked and unable to interop-unlock again. Basically, it allows an app to do anything short of modify the ROM.
Purpose of this thread:
* Provide a central location of information about the policy system, policy database, and creation of custom policies.
* Collaborate on the project of understanding and modifying the policy database and policy system overall.
* Share interesting policies we've found in the database, or post custom policies that can be added to enable a cool hack.
* Discuss and share ways to preserve, going forward, our control over the policy system.
There has been concern raised that this work should not be mde public, because Microsoft will look at what we are doing and use that knowledge against us. There is some validity to that argument; if the work is done in secret, and any files posted that use the fruits of that work are heavily obfuscated, it would probably take Microsoft a little longer to block it if they decided to do so. Not terribly *much* longer though, I suspect - they have many tools at their disposal, full source code and documentation, and full understanding of the system in their engineer's minds. Any hack we find, they can reverse engineer or simply block access to whether or not they can read a thread about it here on XDA-Devs.
There's also the risk of malware. Malicious homebrew apps could abuse this knowledge to do serious damage to your phone, to steal info, and possibly even for direct financial effect (send premium SMS, for example). However, I see no real way around that problem; it's an inherent risk of unlocking a device. The simplest and best step to combat it is to not install untrasted apps, and the best way to be sure an app is trusted is to be able to analyze it. (This is one of the reasons I include the source for my apps, and encourage others to do the same.) Besides, it's already possible to do plenty of damage with existing homebrew hacks, yet somehow that problem hasn't materialized.
So, instead of secrecy, I propose openness. The best option we have to offset Microsoft's tools, knowledge, and source code is to collaborate, pooling the knowledge and effort of many hackers. If people want to keep certain things secret, by all means use email or PMs. In general, though, I think the failure to spread knowledge does more harm than good.
OK, that turned into a long enough intro that I'm going to post my first actual findings in a reply.
Policy-related files
There are actually two databases: one is for policies, and one is for accounts. They are located in \Windows\Security\ and are called policydb.vol and accountdb.vol. These files are locked (opened without sharing permitted) while the OS is running. There are two additional files in this folder: PolicyMeta.xml and PolicyCommit.xml. These files can be accessed using provxml, TouchXplorer, WP7 Root Tools, or HtcRoot Webserver.
The PolicyMeta XML file contains macros describing accounts, and metadata about the policies in the database. In particular, it contains a large number of bit masks that indicate different permissions. By itself, this file doesn't tell us much of use, but it will be a big help for understanding binary data in the the database. It's small and not commented, but easy to read.
The PolicyCommit.xml file contains the merged result of combining all the policy files on the phone. I don't know if anything actually reads this fine, but it's a nice human-readable (and searchable) view of the data that goes into the policy database. It contains a number of comments, but most are just where the various policies were merged from. It is the largest file.
The policy database file ("Volume" to use the term of the CEDB APIs) itself is large-ish (mine approaches a megabyte) and contains three CEDB databases. The first is a small single-record "database" (in SQL you'd call it a table) that appears to be used for transaction locking. The second is a single large record (several KB) that appears to be a bloom filter (Wikipedia has a pretty good article, the short version is that it is a quick and compact data structure for checking whether a given item is in a collection). The third database (named "PatternDBmultimap") is the real deal, containing thousands of policy records.
I haven't looked at the Accounts database much yet. It's smaller than the Policy database volume, but still a few hundred KB. A substantial portion of that is probably custom accounts created for each app that is installed (since each app has different permissions - specifically, each app has read and write access to a different set of folders - there must be a unique account for each).
The policies appear to come from a few sources. One of them is the many *.policy.xml files (the first part is usually a GUID) in the Windows folder. These files are locked in ROM, and define the core system policies (system accounts, permissions for system objects, etc.). The \Windows\Security\PolicyCommit.xml file (which is not in ROM, or even marked read-only) appears to be simply the result of merging all these files.
Another source of policies must be the application installer. Application-specific polices are not present in the PolicyCommit.xml merged file, but are in the database itself. It is reasonable to expect that they are created and removed by the package manager. This is a good sign for being able to modify policies ourselves.
The initial creation of the policy files appears to be up to a program, \Windows\PolicyLoader.exe. This program takes policy.xml files, merges them, and produces the merged result file and the policy database(s?). It's even possible to run it, given sufficient permissions. Unfortunately, it seems unable to modify the policies on a running device, and is believed to only run at first boot (or after a hard reset) or when an update CAB installs new policy XML files.
EDIT: Attaching the \Windows\Security\*.xml files from my phone, along with the decompiled source for PolicyLoader that was posted on the other thread.
The LG MFG app has a section for editing certain security policies. I can post the info from there, if it'd be of any help. By the way, it specifically says "Edit security policy through registry" so it might not be the same policies that you're talking about, I don't know.
EDIT: Actually, looks like those policies are a subset of the ones listed here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb416355.aspx
Analysis of the policy database
I wrote a function to dump the policy database to a text file (with inevitably some embedded binary). Each record in the database has four fields. I'll do my best to describe them below.
1) The first is a DATETIME struct (two 32-bit integers). This is the only 64-bit numerical type available except for a DOUBLE, so it might be selected just as a convenient way to store that many bits rather than because it's actually a date and time. In particular, when I converted them to actual dates and times, the years ranged from the 1970s well into future centuries... this seems an unlikely candidate for an actual set of dates.
What I think it actually is, is some kind of hash of the second field. It might be the index bits for the bloom filter, for example. The reason I think so is that, when there are multiple records with the same value in the second field, they also have the same value in this field, but even a slight difference in the value of the second field results in a very different first field.
This field is not unique, but it does appear to be the default sort order for the database. I don't know if that's ust because it's the first field, but it would make sense to have it be indexed using this field for fast lookup (binary search) after the bloom filter finds that the item is (probably) present.
2) This field is a binary BLOB struct (a size and a pointer). This field contains Unicode strings, sometimes with a bit of binary data (small, typically less than 20 bytes) tacked on the end. Strings plural; each one is NULL-character terminated.
This field appears to be the paths that indicate the object (or objects, since it can contain wildcards) that the policy applies to. If there is a policy in the XML for ResourceIri="/REGISTRY/HKLM/SOFTWARE/MICROSOFT/CAMERA/READWRITESETTINGS" then there will be a record in the database with the second field that would be written like this in C source code: L"REGISTRY\0HKLM\0SOFTWARE\0MICROSOFT\0CAMERA\0READWRITESETTINGS\0". I'm not sure what the occasional binary afterwards means, although there appears to be a specific value for a wildcard (represented in the source XML as ResourceIri=/PATH/WILDCARD/BASE/(*)", but the last part doesn't translate to Unicade the way you'd expect).
As mentioned above, I'm pretty sure that the first field is related to this one. Since the value of a bloom filter on this database would be to quickly establish "Is there a policy for this object?" it makes sense that the path (second field) is the data that gets hashed to produce the bits of the key. It's not really required to then store the key bits, but they make a reasoanble value to sort on.
3) The third field is also a binary BLOB, but the value of it is much more opaque. Typically in the range of 50-300 bytes in length, there are certain patterns that I've noticed within it (0x01 00 01/02 00 65 is a common prefix, and they typically end with 0x00 3X) but I have not yet determined what they actually represent.
Some logical possibilities are an account identifier (though that seems needlessly long for such a purpose) or possibly the permissions data directly. When the second field has a path to related objects (for example, the isolated storage of an application), the third field is often similar as well.
4) The fourth field is another DATETIME struct, but in this case is obviously not an actual date value. The high four bytes are (almost?) always 0xFFFFFFFC, and the low four bytes are typically 0x0000XXXX where the Xs can be anything. This value is not unique - there are numerous instances of 0xFFFFFFFC00000001, for example - but I'm not yet sure what it is.
The same guesses I offered for field 3 apply as well, with the caveat that it's probably not just a different representation of field 3 because two records can have the same value on field 4, and their field three values may not only differ, but be different sizes. I need to look at the XML files and see if there's a pattern between policies with the same field 4 and an equivalent data item in the XML.
I'm attaching the dump file I created of the policy database. It's best opened in a hex editor (Visual Studio does well enough) although you can also use Wordpad (Notepad won't respect the line endings). Wordpad can't show you the binary, of course, but it's a readable layout of the data.
The format is as follows:
ASCII string: "Index "
ASCII representation of an Integer for the index.
ASCII string: ": Prop0 (FILETIME): 0x"
ASCII representation of the DateTime, with a space between the high and low DWORDs.
ASCII string: " | Prop1 (BLOB, "
ASCII representation of the blob's integer size.
ASCII string: " bytes): "
Direct dump of the second field's BLOB buffer (multiple UNICODE strings).
ASCII string: " | Prop2 (BLOB, "
... and so on. I intentionally used ASCII to make the direct memory dumps, which are in UNICODE for the second field at least, stand out.
@Arktronic: Interesting. Those policies (in the registry) are a legacy holdover from WinMo, and at least some of them have been superceded by the new policy system, but the fact that LG gave them specific mention in their app suggests that they still have some relevance.
However, you're correct that those aren't the policies I was speaking of elsewhere in the thread. It may be a good idea to explore them both in parallel, though. Which ones does the LG app list?
Arktronic said:
The LG MFG app has a section for editing certain security policies. I can post the info from there, if it'd be of any help. By the way, it specifically says "Edit security policy through registry" so it might not be the same policies that you're talking about, I don't know.
EDIT: Actually, looks like those policies are a subset of the ones listed here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb416355.aspx
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We already did some testing with those policy settings, but the ones granting more access were not available and the others could not get the app itself into an "unsafe" mode. But then again, I'm far from a professional when it comes down to these things, I just crossreferenced them all against the MSDN DB and looked for the ones that would make fileops possible, no luck.
I'm not sure if they added policies to the LG MFG app in the meanwhile (unlikely) but it might be worth it to investigate how the MFG app modifies those select policies.
GoodDayToDie said:
@Arktronic: Interesting. Those policies (in the registry) are a legacy holdover from WinMo, and at least some of them have been superceded by the new policy system, but the fact that LG gave them specific mention in their app suggests that they still have some relevance.
However, you're correct that those aren't the policies I was speaking of elsewhere in the thread. It may be a good idea to explore them both in parallel, though. Which ones does the LG app list?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The latest ROM's MFG app has the following policy IDs: 4104, 4105, 4108, 4109, 4110, 4111, 4113, 4119, 4120, 4121, 4124, 4131, 4132, 4141, 4142, 4143, and 4149.
The last one isn't in the MSDN doc; it calls itself "FIPS Self Test Policy" or SECPOLICY_FIPS_SELF_TESTS.
There are potentially useful things like SECPOLICY_OTAPROVISIONING (4111), which has the value of 3732 - no idea which flag(s) that represents - but if there's a way to send provisioning messages to WP7, that might open up quite a few possibilities.
I believe there's at least a chance for OTA provisioning. Sending custom SMS appears to be possible (click around from the link):
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee498239.aspx
That said, it's almsot certainly either secured or disabled by default.
Hmm... does anybody want to take a shot at getting a decent decompile of lvmod.dll? I don't have the tools, though I probably should. Reading the disassembly is slow and painful.
I've found a few new things:
It's possible for two records to differ *only* on the third field, and even then the binary was more alike than not. Look at indexes 12 and 13 in the dump - they're really similar. They are built from the following policy rules (no promises on order):
Code:
<Rule PriorityCategoryId="PRIORITY_HIGH" ResourceIri="/REGISTRY/(*)" SpeakerAccountId="S-1-5-112-0-0-1" Description="TCB can do anything to all registry keys">
<Authorize>
<Match AccountId="S-1-5-112-0-0X02" AuthorizationIds="KEY_ALL_ACCESS, KEY_READ, KEY_WRITE, KEY_EXECUTE, GENERIC_READ, GENERIC_WRITE, GENERIC_EXECUTE, GENERIC_ALL, DELETE, READ_CONTROL, WRITE_DAC, WRITE_OWNER, SYNCHRONIZE, STANDARD_RIGHTS_REQUIRED, SPECIFIC_RIGHTS_ALL, ALL_ACCESS" />
</Authorize>
</Rule>
Code:
<Rule PriorityCategoryId="PRIORITY_LOW" ResourceIri="/REGISTRY/(*)" SpeakerAccountId="S-1-5-112-0-0-1" Description="Catch all rule to allow Normal and above apps to read/write to all unnamed keys">
<Authorize>
<Match AccountId="S-1-5-112-0-0X23" AuthorizationIds="KEY_ALL_ACCESS, KEY_READ, KEY_WRITE, KEY_EXECUTE" />
</Authorize>
</Rule>
I would have thought that either the different permissions being granted, or the different accounts they were granted to, would result in a different fourth field... but no such luck. Time to look into this further.
The accountdb.vol file has two databases in it, GroupMemberships (1105 records on my phone) and Accounts (291 records). The latter is actually much bigger in terms of data size, though - 70KB vs 31KB for GroupMemberships. The records in GM must be very small, probably just pair mappings.
Hey GoodDayToDie,
Awesome job on sharing all this low level findings from underneat the hood of my favourite mobile OS. While i'm not capable of researching this myself due to lack of knowledge I love to read about how you (and other well known WP7 hackers as well of course!!) tackle the security and are willing to share this with the community to combine power. I think threads such as these are really necessary to get to the finish. Keep up the good work, i've got a strong feeling we will get there eventually .
THANKS
Looks to me like this is the policy database.
Here is an example set of policies that enable/disable tethering on the Arrive.
Is shows the values needed to create/add a policy to the policy database. HTClv.dll shoudl be able do set/modify these values using "LVModProvisionSecurityForApplication"
You may already know this, but figured I would share.
Also, HTC has regedit.exe and HTC uses it to provision/make registry changes.
I will attach the regedit4 file HTC uses to configure the radios.
This also defines where the key UserProcGroup defines the TCB chamber a driver runs under. see... "UserProcGroup"=dword:5 ; TCB chamber
Seems with using the registry editor, we could elevate any driver to the Kernel chamber.
See attached....
Thanks for the info Paul!
I've heard of the "LVModProvisionSecurityForApplication" API before, yes, and it might be possible to use it here (*really* depends on how it works; if it just reads the app's manifest file like the normal XAP installer does, that's not very useful). LVModAuthenticateFile, LVModRouting, and LVModAuthorize may be extremely useful, though. It also might be helpful to try reverse-engineering how it interacts with the policy database.
The weird thing is, I don't have any htclv.dll or htcpl.dll on my phone, at least not in the \Windows folder. Perhaps they were removed in an older firmware update? It certainly sounds like they would provide the APIs I need - only for HTC phones, true, but they would provide.
The policy.xml file is the standard format read by PolicyLoader.exe, but that doesn't really help unless I can convince PolicyLoader to modify the ploicy database on a running phone.
Elevating an (already installed) driver to TCB might be useful (although I'm not certain that LVMod route-to-chamber rules wouldn't interfere) but all the useful HTC drivers are already in TCB, and installing any more drivers... well, I haven't been able to make that work yet, even old versions of official drivers with the necessary changes to the DllName in the registry.
It's really too bad you can't join in on hacking this stuff though, you've got the right ideas. Do you by any chance have a NoDo restore point you could downgrade to in order to try out some stuff on the old firmware?
Dumped the account database
Turns out the account info is quite straightforward. There are four fields per record.
0) String - the SID ("S-1-5-112-0-0X10-0X00000024").
1) Int32 - 0 for accounts, 1 for groups.
2) Int32 - always 0 on my phone.
3) String - account or group name ("TCB" or "ID_CAP_FILEVIEWER:Capability for hybrid file view app such as PDF reader etc." or "Settings3.exe Chamber" or "9BFACECD-C655-4E5B-B024-1E6C2A7456AC").
Not sure why the third field is there if it's always 0, but OK. The first and last were obvious, and the second was easy to infer. The last record has no fields, and the three immediately before it are without a fourth field; not sure why. All three are groups, and their SIDs are:
S-1-5-112-700-4160
S-1-5-112-700-5132A485-ADEE-5842-9490-856FFFFF2D6D
S-1-5-112-700-A22CF327-25C3-DB2A-A8DF-7BE586F11FBD
This database contained no binary blobs, so the dump file is plain ASCII text (the strings were originally Unicode but converted to ASCII gracefully). In the interest of making it easier to analyze, I ran a quick pass over the dump with sed and produced a CSV, which is attached.
Then, there's the GroupMemberships database. I think this one is probably less important for our concerns, but I wanted to take a look anyhow. It's the simplest so far, though that's not necessarily good. Each record has two fields, and both are just 32-bit ints.
0) Ranges from 0x30000006 to 0x3F0004A6, though the the third through fifth hex digits are always 0. Includes duplicates.
1) Ranges from 0x31000008 to 0x3100007A, then from 0x32000380 to 0x3200038C. Includes duplicates.
The mappings appear to be many-to-many (each account in multiple groups, each group holding multiple accounts) as expected. I'm guessing the first column is accounts and groups, and the second is the groups that the account or group belongs to. Given that some values appear in both columns (through in different records), I'm guessing nesting of groups is allowed.
I dumped and CSV-d this database, and it is attached as well. Ideas as to what's up with it are welcome too.
Related
I need (or in fact, we all need...) someone that can read and write to the registry and send SMS messages in C++. (A code example for sending SMS is here)
The objective here is to create a program which we can include in the ROMkitchen and which will allow for theft-protection of the device. Basically when you select this option, you enter the GSM number of a friend and your name at the time you create the ROM. The device regularly checks whether your name still appears in the Owner Information. If not, it sends an SMS to your friend, including the new owner info, and then it is silent until the Owner Information changes again.
More formally:
Code:
Loop forever
SLEEP 1 hour
IF reg-key '\HKEY_CURRENT_USER\ControlPanel\Owner'
value 'Owner' != reg-key '\HKEY_CURRENT_USER\
Software\XDA-developers\IIWPO' value 'LastOwner'
THEN
COPY 'Owner' to 'LastOwner' (See above)
IF value 'Owner' doesn't contain the string
held in '\HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\
XDA-developers\IIWPO' value 'Name' THEN
Send data from Owner field above
via SMS to number held in '[...]IIWPO'
value 'Number' (REG_SZ)
Only slightly complicating factor is that the 'Owner' field is a binary field holding unicode, and that I'd like the 'Name' field in our own entry to be REG_SZ because ROMkitchen does that without hassle. But otherwise this is all pretty straightforward.
Because our IIWPO (which, by the way, stands for 'Interesting Interaction With Previous Owner') program is meant to be in 'Startup', it would be nice if memory footprint was as small as possible. Since it's going to sleep most of the time, performance should be unaffected no matter what.
The sleep is at the beginning so that you have one hour after a cold boot to set your name before it starts sending the SMS.
Ofcourse everyone that has read this could change the registry. We're assuming for a moment that it's much more likely that your phone will be stolen by someone that didn't read this. A little Security By Obscurity never hurt anyone.
I just wonder
very interesting concept, very...
I can code this feature easy, but I just wonder: what to say, if your stoles device will stay hundreds kilometers away from you a few days later? ask the new owner to mail it to you?
hmmm? maybe it is worth?
improve the concept
I have an idea to improve the above concept:
1. we can save the original owner and "sms to send" number in the random generated register key, encrypted binary - it will be hard to find and delete for most of users
2. we provide a shortcut to the application allows the oroginal user to run it and type the name and the above number and save
3. after the above point 2 happen once, the shortcut and even the application are deleting completely, so nobody can do that again
the quextion is:
the execute part of the application: to check the current name and eventually send the sms, have to be placed in the Startup folder to run after the reset. How to hide this shortcut?
Re: improve the concept
JGUI said:
1. we can save the original owner and "sms to send" number in the random generated register key, encrypted binary - it will be hard to find and delete for most of users
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nice idea: but any thief that knows about this danger will just cook themselves a new ROM and install it.
2. we provide a shortcut to the application allows the original user to run it and type the name and the above number and save
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why not just do it in the ROMkitchen?
And besides, it already done: a kind gentleman by the name of Charles Warner has written the app, and it'll be in the ROMkitchen later today, hopefully...
When loading user setting from a file, it stores the values to 3 arrays within the "io profiles" class. the command that loads the data from the file is run through the command "public void Load(int profile)" in the same classes as the 3 arrays. In the LoadScreen form, there is a for loop which collects profiles form the txt file, make a new sealed class, retrieves data from the "io profiles" class, stores the information in the newly made class, and finally stores the class to a block in the hashtable. through each loop, there is a int PIndex which increments and is used as the key for the hashtable.
my problem is that through each loop after it loads the specific profile and leaves the scope of the "io profile" class, it changes the same variable name in all the hashtable items. there is 6 items in the class that is stored to the hashtable and its always the same variable that gets changed "string[] DateTime". i tried making it a int[] like the others, but the same problem was there. stepping through the code didn't show the problem ether. i was recommended by a friend to use Dictionary<K,V> instead, but the same problem existed.
looking online doesn't seem to mention anything about the problem and I'm VERY tempted to complain to microsoft. this isn't the first glitch ive had with the program. I'm using 32bit Visual Studio 2008 on XP: Media Center SP2. im very unsure if its a problem with the program. the problems seem to be specifically related to certain things which are un-related
if you would like to try to code yourself or see cliplets of the code, reply saying you could help and wish to see the code. any help is welcomed
*Anyone get the reference? Haha*
Resident Mort
The Scripter's Companion​
Current News / Status:
Resident Mort is currently Under Development
Resident Mort is planned to be a background EXE that will extend the functionality of MortScript available to developers through the usage of the "PostMessage" function.
Resident Mort is planned to extend functionality by adding extra, possibly more complex, functions or even adding in the ability for more complex GUIs.
Features (Green = Implemented, Blue = In Testing, Orange = Planned, Red = Failed):
GetProcessList - Gets a list of Running Programs
GetRecentApps - Gets a list of Recent Apps (10)
CreateScript - Creates a MortScript with the provided info
MakeFile - Makes a file of any kind with the provided info
MakeFolder - Makes a folder at the specified location
RegToEvent - Registers a File to an event​
UnRegFromEvent - Unregisters a File from an event
IsIdEventRegistered - Checks to see if a File is registered to an event.
DispImg - Displays an Image to the screen [and gets where the user Presses]
MakeForm - The Initial call for setting up an 'advanced GUI' form
FormAddObject -A Call that will add one of the predefined objects to the form being created
DeployForm - The Final call for setting up an 'advanced GUI' form, displays it to the user
This application is being made for MortScripters, to possibly make some projects easier. Since I don't use MortScript so much any more, I do rely on you the developers who use MortScript, to tell me what you want in the program.
Since I have a good deal of Functions there, I will commence work on a primary release
Saved For Future Use - Features and Screenshots
like the idea! advanced guis would be very useful
so this is a compiler? I am not sure what this is about
-sorry
No, this is a Resident App, an EXE that is always running in the background. It will have certain functions in it which can be accessed by MortScripters.
All the functions can be called with PostMessage ( I will provide documentation on how to do so, when I make a first release ). Then the results will either be written in the REGISTRY, written to a FILE, or copied to the CLIPBOARD (depending on how the scripter wants to handle the task).
Does this clarify it a bit?
Thanks for sharing!
A small update:
I am using this 'decent' planning utility, to help me keep track of my growing projects. According to this utility, the program is close to 30% complete. Then again, this is just a 'decent' utility haha. I would say, in my estimation (since some Code is "Copy + Paste"), I am close to 60% to 75% done.
A small change in my plans:
While I originally had the intentions of making this program as simple as a PostMessage in MortScript, I found out the following two Limitations:
1) MortScript's PostMessage/SendMessage only support(s) sending Numbers in the wParam and lParam parameters...very disheartening.
2) Due to #1, I made an assistant EXE, which would be run instead of calling PostMessage [this way I could do it Natively in my own control], but it is MUCH harder to transfer data between two applications that I would have thought! Due to Virtual Stacks and Memory Allocation 'rules', I couldn't EASILY do this.
So Here is my change:
In order to use Resident Mort, scripters will have to do about 3 or 4 commands to run. The only real commands that need to be used are PostMessage and RegWriteString (Did I get those right?).
In any case, my Resident Mort will read the Registry for corresponding wParam and lParam values and use those [in the future I will attempt Clipboard integration, to avoid Registry Interfacing].
When I release this program to the public, I will try to include a MortScript file that shows how to use all the functions. I don't remember much of MortScript [unfortunately], but I was thinking it could be helpful to make a "Library" of MortScript functions so a script will only have to call that function. But that is if some kind dev. would like to help out later on
Anyways, Thats that for this update. Expect a result in the coming week.
That sounds interesting for adv. gui functions.
Cyclonezephyrxz7 said:
1) MortScript's PostMessage/SendMessage only support(s) sending Numbers in the wParam and lParam parameters...very disheartening.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's not MortScript's fault, it is design of whole Windows CE kernel, more here
I'd go with background EXE, that would listen to messages WM_USER+somenumber, maybe even region (for different actions, so you'd have both lParam and wParam free for another parameters). If you need help with this part, drop me PM on MSN, I had to study this a bit in the PinchToZoom project myself.
@OndraSter : Yeah, I know that Windows CE has limitations, however it is not impossible. Such an ability could be implemented in a code-update to MortScript. I did my reseach (if you look at #2, I mention that I found it much harder to transfer data between exe's that I had hoped) and found that you can transfer data via SendMessage (the Synchronous method) using a TRANSFERDATASTRUCT and WM_COPYDATA. If MortScripts interpreter could identify a SendMessage with a String value in either wParam or lParam, then it would create such a structure and transfer it, the receiving app would HAVE to take care of deleting the data though, or you have mis-used RAM.
As for how it is going to work now, I did not consider using WM_USER + a value, mainly because my program won't be using other Messages, and will only act if the correct wParam/lParam are provided (preventing accidental execution if the System decides to post a message with the same ID). I have it mostly covered, and I am closing in on finishing (currently with Reg data retrieval only, no Clipboard yet). I have completed 3 of the 7 Proposed Functions (MakeFile, MakeFolder, CreateScript) and I would have finished RegToEvents, but I got sorta lazy hehe. DispImg shouldn't take me more than a few minutes when I get to it, and once I get the API calls for Processes and figure out how to read the MRU reg-entry, I will have the last 3 complete!
As for Clipboard data retrieval, unless I am using the entirely wrong API calls, MortScript has an interesting way of using the Clipboard...I tried copying simple strings like "hello world" to the clipboard using MortScript, then trying to retrieve them in my Resident Mort, but the clipboard always comes up empty... Any ideas anyone?
Thats that for now I am about ready to release....any other functions you want implemented?
As for how it is going to work now, I did not consider using WM_USER + a value, mainly because my program won't be using other Messages, and will only act if the correct wParam/lParam are provided (preventing accidental execution if the System decides to post a message with the same ID).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms644947(v=VS.85).aspx
Good idea, the only downside being that it will generate the Message Numbers each time it is run... It is not assured that the Post / Send Message MsgIDs will remain constant.
Thanks for the link however
Cyclone,
Sorry about taking so long to post here...
How about, when the BT is on, this reports what is "out there" based on what the BT stack is telling you.
That is, it should read the surrounding area, then report that is saw my BT dongle. In the car, it should report that it saw my BT GPS unit.
Then, I can use that information to change my profile. That is, when it sees the BT dongle, regular phone calls. When it sees the BT GPS unit, run speaker mode, or connect to the GPS unit for phone calls.
Thanks!
--Ironhead
P.S. it would need to support the Touch Pro 2, Rhodium (my understanding is that it is Widcomm BT stack)
I"ll see what I can manage. I am really 'grid-locked' in my work on a couple of projects already So a release of this may have to wait a while....Sorry
I wish I had caught you a little sooner...
AutohotkeyCE may be a better base to work from than Mortscript...
http://www.autohotkey.net/~Micha/AutohotkeyCE/html/index.htm
In fact... AHKCE should be able to cater to all of your needs without the separate resident app
Yeah, I have seen that before. This project is really just a little challenge for myself to expand upon MortScript [because I know it is widely used].
Thank you for the link/suggestion however
I've been playing with Mortscripts for a while, I'm really thinking I can do everything I want, right from there...
EXCEPT:
Actually getting the information from the BT stack. I just need to see if there are any registered BT devices around my phone (so I can tell if I am in my car, at home, at work, etc.).
--Ironhead
Bumpity bump!
Hehe...Yeah, sorry for the lack of work on this. Check out FFP_LockScreen. I am working on a new release. I have very little time now, and I can't manage more than just one or two projects at a time. Once I release FFP_LS 3.0, I can devote some time MAYBE to this project. It all depends on how quickly the XDA-Marketplace idea takes off.
Sorry =\
I you can add a tool to make an GUI... it s must be soo cool...
Webserver (for Mango)
Webserver is now supported for Mango devices!
During NoDo this tool was used much for exploring the "\Windows" directory, but when Mango came none could explore it.
There is probably many new things to find in the new OEM Mangos (that could not be extracted till now (Exception's: ROM dumps))
Source code is available in attachment and should build without any problems (except for the dll reference)
- Follow stem 6 for Microsoft.Phone.InteropServices.dll errors
Install XAP => Navigate to the phone's IP shown in application => Browse and enjoy.
- Change password on first launch (its randomized)
Many thanks to davux for creating the base for this tool.
- Orginal NoDo thread Here
Changelog:
v0.1 - Initial Mango version release
v0.2 (iconizer)
- Thanks MarysFetus aka Suicide Clown for the great icon set and start screen, love em
- Many thanks to GoodDayToDie for informing me that this app can / and will run from now without the <"ID_CAP_INTEROPSERVICES">
- Removed old OEM dll's that where not used (xap size: 812 KB => 250 KB)
//fiinix
Nice works my friends... I Like It
Thankx
@fiinix:
Thx for porting the webserver to Mango !
As I remember the initial version from Davux had an on device execute feature.
Do you plan to implement execute feature ?
Could be very useful for exploring all .exe files in the windows folder.
Greetz
contable
Freaking awesome, man!
One suggestion: I don't believe this app does anything that requires ID_CAP_INTEROPSERVICES (that is, it doesn't need to open any driver handles). I may be mistaken about that, of course. If it doesn't, however, there's a real benefit to removing that capability as people with interop-locked phones could then run it. Note that the library used may try to do things requiring interop even though the app doesn't need it to.
In addition to its uses as a hacker's tool, I also want to point out that this app can be used to store files on the phone for easy transfer between computers. It's less convenient than true USB Mass Storage, but it works (even if you don't have the USB cable with you) so long as there's a WiFi access point that the phone and PC can both connect to.
Oh, and by the way, this app will run happily in the background if you use JaxBot's no-dehydrate hack. You can do other things then, even browsing the webserver from the phone's own browser! Of course, it will also use some resources.
Now slimmer, and no ID_CAP_INTEROPSERVICES
OK, this is just a modification of the XAP file - I didn't even recompile the source (thank you so much for including it, though!)
Things I did:
Removed ID_CAP_INTEROPSERVICES from the AppManifest. This will allow the app to be installed on interop-locked phones. It wasn't using it anyhow.
Removed the OEM-specific DLLs that are only useful if you have ID_CAP_INTEROPSERVICES. They weren't being used, but they made the download and install bigger.
Result: A smaller app that works exactly the same and can be installed on any Dev-unlocked Mango phone.
Really neat. Mind if I design some sort of decent icon for this app?
Regards, Suicide Clown
//Update:
finished the Icon:
Hope you like it.
MarysFetus said:
Really neat. Mind if I design some sort of decent icon for this app?
Regards, Suicide Clown
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sure, go ahead.
Its the freedom of XDA, do what you want
I added the new NativeIO_Mango.dll to my battery status app instead of the old filesystem.dll. I hope that's okay. Thanks so much for your great libraries.
singularity0821 said:
I added the new NativeIO_Mango.dll to my battery status app instead of the old filesystem.dll. I hope that's okay. Thanks so much for your great libraries.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The "NativeIO_Mango.dll" is actually a communicator for "Homebrew.csproj" containing COM+ "IWinSock" and "IFileSystem"
- Homebrew.csproj exists in this projects code.
The battery interop will not talk to NativeIO_Mango.dll (the "Webserver" will tho)
Phone.Battery.GetBatteryAdvanced()
-- goto here
---- DllImportCaller.lib.GetSystemPowerStatusExAdv7(ref str, true);
Homebrew.IO.Directory.GetFiles ( [path] )
-- cctor (static constructor) => Register("NativeIO_Mango.dll", "B0E4E41C-BE1D-4BA2-B8CE-7D632EA1CA37");
---- FileSystem.FindFirstFile ( ... ) & while FileSystem.FindNextFile( ... )
:here
Code:
[COLOR="DeepSkyBlue"]Registrer[/COLOR].Register(BasePath +
[COLOR="RoyalBlue"]#if[/COLOR] RUNNS_UNDER_MANGO
[COLOR="DarkRed"]"DllImportMango.dll"[/COLOR], [COLOR="DarkRed"]"434B816A-3ADA-4386-8421-33B0E669F3F1"[/COLOR]
[COLOR="RoyalBlue"]#else[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Silver"]"FileSystem.dll", "F0D5AFD8-DA24-4e85-9335-BEBCADE5B92A"[/COLOR]
[COLOR="RoyalBlue"]#endif[/COLOR]
);
Filesystem.dll is not used anymore in Mango version (its a NoDo dll)
"Thanks so much for your great libraries."
- Thank you so much
I could swear it didn't work without the filesystem.dll one time I tried haha. I guess that was something else
Thanks~
perfect! Now we'll look for regedit editing & file transfering. Any ideas?
Fiinix this is just amazing work! Because of you, I've need to rewrite a chapter of my thesis
Let me ask some questions regarding the supplied source code:
There are four folders inside the rar archive:
The Lib folder contains all OEM DLLs from Samsung, HTC and LG.
The Homebrew folder contains all old code from davux that is necessary to open up the sockets, files and registry entries (if needed?)
NativeIO_Mango contains your altered native DLL that can be used under Mango
The Webserver folder contains the actual WP7 application, that glues everything together into one nice app.
From the underlying workings:
Davux tried to build an API that resembles C# Sockets from the desktop. This way the C# Webserver project of jgauffin can be reused in the WP7 application. You removed from Davux's NativeIO project the references to all parts that require the native OEM DLLs (which is why GoodDayToDie stripped the unneeded DLL files and removed ID_CAP_INTEROPSERVICE to allow users without interop-unlock to use the app).
If this is so far correct, I'm wondering how some things in this application could work:
Ok, so you've removed the code that allows access to the filesystem and registry which uses the native OEM DLLs. How is it possible, that this application can access folders outside its Isolated Storage??? The application should not be allowed to access the windows folder nor any other folders? I know only of one folder, that should be read/writeable. Its a folder that heathcliff found in the policies, I think it was some kind of log folder. Or is readable access with WM6 native API to all files possible?
In WMAppManifest.xml stands ID_CAP_NETWORKING. This is necessary for navigating between different XAML pages but also necessary if we want to do something with the native network access. Can this capability removed or will the application break?
To sum up, if these assumptions are all correct, the policy system is partly useless from the moment on, where someone is capable to call native code, that does not require ID_CAP_INTEROP. This would theoretically allow a submission to the Marketplace?
Right now, I'm heavily confused and irritated, please explain me my error in thinking
PS: I tried to build the NativeIO_Mango project. I changed to release target and build. However, it exits with error message regarding the missing _CE_ALLOW_SINGLE_THREADED_OBJECTS_IN_MTA setting. I've added it, but then I get 19 more errors. Each time it is unresolved external symbol.
Hi Rudelm,
I can't answer exactly what Fiinix did, but I can resolve a couple other points for you.
The OEM DLLs allow higher-than-normal app permissions (breaking out of the low-privilege "sandbox" that apps normally operate in). However, there are a few parts of the filesystem that can be accessed even without them, by design. One of those is the Isolated Storage for the app, which obviously needs to be readable and writable by the app. Another one is the install directory, which only needs to be readable so libraries and resources can be loaded (the webserver app doesn't allow you to browse this folder, but I'm confident that it could if it was coded to). The third is the Windows directory, which is also read-only (and many files and folders within it can't be read) but is similarly required because the app needs to be able to load system libraries (including the TaskHost.exe binary that hosts the app DLL). "Normal" apps can't access these folders simply because the Silverlight API doesn't have a function to open or list an arbitrary location on the filesystem (only within the isostore, which it abstracts the path to).
I don't know what happens if ID_CAP_NETWORKING is removed. It's quite likely the app would break, since that capability may be checked any time the app tries to open a socket (directly as this app does, or indirectly via the Silverlight APIs). You could experiment and do some research to find out, though. It would be interesting to see.
I wouldn't worry too much about apps in the marketplace running amok with native code (even in the low-privileged process, they could still do some harm). The ComBridge Silverlight API that is required to access native code at all is prohibited from use by independent software vendors - only Microsoft and their partners are allowed to use it for Marketplace apps. Somebody tried submitting a Homebrew app to the marketplace (another opportunity for some research, if you'd like to find out more) and discovered that the use of ComBridge is detected and blocked during the submission process.
There we go, a enchanted new version v0.2
- Optimization's from what everybody has told, the best from all worlds
thanks for the explaination!
It seems like a plausible idea that the native code and the WP7 app needs to access some of the folders to work. So the silverlight managed code won't grant access by design to the Windows folder. Can you tell me where this folder for the installation packages is?
Regarding the capabilities: I've checked it with the marketplace capability test tool:
Result Details
[INFORMATION] : Capabilities used by application :
ID_CAP_PUSH_NOTIFICATION
ID_CAP_NETWORKING
ID_CAP_IDENTITY_DEVICE
I've removed ID_CAP_NETWORKING and it immediately stopped working. No dialogue that shows the IP address, only username and password. That is at least good to hear
Regarding the marketplace certification: You could be right, I've also read somewhere that COM is only available to some third parties like Adobe and manufacturers. Maybe I try to submit a little test app that uses interop.
rudelm said:
thanks for the explaination!
It seems like a plausible idea that the native code and the WP7 app needs to access some of the folders to work. So the silverlight managed code won't grant access by design to the Windows folder. Can you tell me where this folder for the installation packages is?
Regarding the capabilities: I've checked it with the marketplace capability test tool:
Result Details
[INFORMATION] : Capabilities used by application :
ID_CAP_PUSH_NOTIFICATION
ID_CAP_NETWORKING
ID_CAP_IDENTITY_DEVICE
I've removed ID_CAP_NETWORKING and it immediately stopped working. No dialogue that shows the IP address, only username and password. That is at least good to hear
Regarding the marketplace certification: You could be right, I've also read somewhere that COM is only available to some third parties like Adobe and manufacturers. Maybe I try to submit a little test app that uses interop.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Capabilities Test only checks through managed code and its caller references (Dll references, method usage within dll)
Why the ID_CAP_NETWORKING is needed is because of the WP7 policy system; ID_CAP_NETWORKING allows usage to those resource locations:
Allowance to "WINSOCK", windows socket API
Code:
<Rule Description="Authorization rule for capability ID_CAP_NETWORKING" ResourceIri="$(GLOBAL_RESOURCES)/WINSOCK/CONNECT" SpeakerAccountId="$(SYSTEM_USER_NAME)" PriorityCategoryId="PRIORITY_STANDARD">
- <Match AccountId="$(CAPMACRO_ID_CAP_NETWORKING)" AuthorizationIds="GENERIC_ALL" />
<Rule Description="Authorization rule for capability ID_CAP_NETWORKING" ResourceIri="$(GLOBAL_RESOURCES)/WINSOCK/LISTEN" SpeakerAccountId="$(SYSTEM_USER_NAME)" PriorityCategoryId="PRIORITY_STANDARD">
- <Match AccountId="$(CAPMACRO_ID_CAP_NETWORKING)" AuthorizationIds="GENERIC_ALL" />
<Rule Description="Authorization rule for capability ID_CAP_NETWORKING" ResourceIri="$(GLOBAL_RESOURCES)/WINSOCK/ACCEPT" SpeakerAccountId="$(SYSTEM_USER_NAME)" PriorityCategoryId="PRIORITY_STANDARD">
- <Match AccountId="$(CAPMACRO_ID_CAP_NETWORKING)" AuthorizationIds="GENERIC_ALL" />
<Rule Description="Authorization rule for capability ID_CAP_NETWORKING" ResourceIri="$(GLOBAL_RESOURCES)/WINSOCK/SERVICE_PROVIDER_CHAIN" SpeakerAccountId="$(SYSTEM_USER_NAME)" PriorityCategoryId="PRIORITY_STANDARD">
- <Match AccountId="$(CAPMACRO_ID_CAP_NETWORKING)" AuthorizationIds="GENERIC_READ" />
"Can you tell me where this folder for the installation packages is?"
\Applications\Install\9bfacecd-c655-4e5b-b024-1e6c2a7456ac\Install\
Nice, thanks for the policy entry. Where did you find it?
Regarding the installation path: I thought you ment a special path to the place where the compressed xap is deployed or something like that before installation. But now it is clearer to me why the application is able to access Windows, installation dir and isolated storage
I've tried to upload a small app with native code but as GoodDayToDie said, the marketplace will see that it contains access to native API and that my account isn't allowed to do that.
So the world is safe again, I'm calmed down now hehe
The policy is from a ROM dump: BasePolicy.xml (Currently got "WP7 Mango Build 7661" dump), i think its this one i downloaded: [DUMP]WP7.1 Build 7661 "Mango"
Some more clearance: \Applications\Install\{ The application Guid }\Install\
- Each application has its own isolation storage:
\Applications\Data\{Guid}\Data\IsolatedStore\
I don't know if it's possible but can you add access to /My Documents?
voluptuary said:
I don't know if it's possible but can you add access to /My Documents?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry to say but the basics of this app allows only access to \Windows (dll reference location) as used for extracting of xap files, xml and dll (reverse engineer). You will probably need WP7 Root tools.
I have a PhoneGap application designed to work on multiple mobile platforms. I'm loading a dynamic HTML content from an external page on the Internet using jQuery Mobile. The problematic system is Windows Phone 7.
This is what I get from the external page, with the URL of the script tag already replaced to load from the phone instead of from the net to save bandwidth:
HTML:
<script type="text/javascript" charset="utf-8" src="x-wmapp1:/app/www/test.js"></script>
This works fine on Android, iPhone and even BlackBerry when I replaced the x-wmapp1: part by a respective counterpart (e.g. file:///android_asset/www/ on Android). However, on Windows Phone 7 it doesn't seem to work at all.
When I try to load the same URL via $.getScript function, it always returns a 404 eror, even if I try and load it with a relative path only.
Any suggestions?
First of all, this type of question may be better suited to the Software Development or Apps and Games sub-forums, as a lot of the people who hang out here are more familiar with homebrew hacks. I'll give it a shot, though.
First of all, what kind of path are you trying to use? I haven't tried loading scripts or images in HTML or JS, but to dynamically load content within the app itself typically requires some care with regard to the path. For example, is the JS file being built into the assembly (as a resource) or included alongside it (as content)? How about the HTML page?
This is a kind of lame approach, but one option that's sure to work is just inlining the scripts in the page, directly. That won't increase the total app size or load time at all, although it might make maintaining the app take a little bit more effort.
Thanks for the reply, I will try to post this into the more appropriate forum.
With regards to paths - you can see the path in the HTML snippet I provided in the original question. It's all a bit specific and we cannot afford to load JS directly from page, since that does increase the size of the resulting HTML, sent from an external PHP page, thus increasing bandwidth. This is the first reason why we chose to have all JS and CSS files directly bundled with the application and load them internally rather than from Internet.
Also, all of JS files are included alongside the application as content. I'm using the same approach for all images, since if they were included as a resource, they would not show in the application.
GoodDayToDie said:
First of all, this type of question may be better suited to the Software Development or Apps and Games sub-forums, as a lot of the people who hang out here are more familiar with homebrew hacks. I'll give it a shot, though.
First of all, what kind of path are you trying to use? I haven't tried loading scripts or images in HTML or JS, but to dynamically load content within the app itself typically requires some care with regard to the path. For example, is the JS file being built into the assembly (as a resource) or included alongside it (as content)? How about the HTML page?
This is a kind of lame approach, but one option that's sure to work is just inlining the scripts in the page, directly. That won't increase the total app size or load time at all, although it might make maintaining the app take a little bit more effort.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First question: have you set the IsScriptEnabled proerty on the control to True? It defaults to False, preventing scripting within the control. Also, changing it only takes effect
on navigation, so if you already loaded the page and then set this property, it still won't work.
Anyhow, I missed that your HTML was coming externally, and only the scripts and stylesheets were local. That's... interesting, and seems reasonable enough, and I can't find any info online that exactly matches your use case. The way you're structuring the script src URI looks weird to me, but I haven't messed with the WebBrowserControl very much at all.
One solution, though a bit hacky:
Use the WebBrowserControl's InvokeScript function to dynamically load scripts into your pages. To do this, you would first need to load the script file content into a .NET String object. The GetResourceStream function is probably your best friend here, combined with ReadToEnd(). Then, just invoke the eval() JS function, which should be built-in, and pass it the JS file content. That will load the JS into the web page, creating objects (including functions) and executing instructions as the files are eval()ed.
Of course, you'd need to do this on every page navigation, but you can actually automate it such that the page itself requests that the app load those scripts. In your app, bind the script-loading function to the ScriptNotify event handler, probably with some parameter such as the name of the script to load. Then, on each page served from your server to the app, instead of including standard <script src=...> tags, use <script>window.external.notify('load localscript1.js')</script> and so on; this will trigger the app's ScriptNotify function for you.
I hope that helps. I can see your use case, but somewhat surprisingly, I couldn't find anybody else online who had either run into your problem or written a tutorial on doing it your way.
Thank you for your reply, it was very informative. One question though - why do you think the way I'm structuring the SCRIPT URI is wierd? I tried to mess around with relative URIs and the such, however those would load the JavaScript file from Internet rather than from the application itself.
The problem I'm running into with your proposed solutions, however is that:
1. the project is a PhoneGap/Cordova application, using its own components, so I have no idea where I would look for IsScriptEnabled here (although this all worked on an older PhoneGap release, so I'm guessing they have it set up correctly)
2. injecting a script programmatically on each navigation would require me to rewrite much of the code we already use for other platforms, not to mention those custom Cordova components, which I don't even know if they can handle such thing
As for my user case - I was surprised to be the only guy on the internet with this methodology in place as well. So it either works for everyone else or nobody really thought of doing it my way, since it's basically an Internet application (maybe the don't want to disclose their sources, who knows).
CyberGhost636 said:
1. the project is a PhoneGap/Cordova application, using its own components, so I have no idea where I would look for IsScriptEnabled here (although this all worked on an older PhoneGap release, so I'm guessing they have it set up correctly)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In the WebBrowser properties.
CyberGhost636 said:
As for my user case - I was surprised to be the only guy on the internet with this methodology in place as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Of course you not "the only guy". I've tried to port/run a few HTML java-script based games on WP7 (Digger and couple more) more then year ago; they runs well with one HUGE exception - touch screen events are freezing scripts execution and make games not playable.
The "x-wmapp1:" URI scheme was what I was referring to. Not sure where that comes from, but I haven't done anything really with the WebBrowser control.
I have no knowledge of PhoneGap or Cordova; I assume they're "we write your app for you" frameworks? One would assume that such tools would know to set IsScriptEnabled, but you may have to do so manually. A bit of web searching on that direction may be fruitful - maybe earlier versions enabled scripting by default, and now it's disabled by default so you have to specify an option somewhere?
Injecting the script on navigation really doesn't require any major change to the server-side code. I mean, is sending
<script>window.external.notify('load localscript1.js')</script>
really much different from sending
<script type="text/javascript" charset="utf-8" src="x-wmapp1:/app/www/test.js"></script>
? If that's too different, you could instead send
<script src="http://yourserver.com/LoadLocalScripts.js"></script>
and put "LoadLocalScripts.js" on your server with the following code:
window.external.notify('load localscript1.js');
This has only a trivial increase in server traffic and load time, but lets you continue using external scripts instead of inline ones. Very little server-side change needed at all.
Now, the additional client-side code to support the window.external.notify and call InvokeScript... normally I'd say that's dead easy, because it is if you have any experience with the .NET framework, but in your case I get the feeling that this isn't so? I code to the framework, or to the underlying native code, and I tend to code "raw" (very little auto-generated code), so I'm not going to be able to help you solve the problems with a "make me an app" wizard unless I can see the code it generates for you.
For what it's worth, here's the approximate raw code that I'd use (it's over-simplified, but close enough):
void HandleNotify (String param) {
String[] parts = param.split(" ");
if (parts[0] == "load") LoadScript(parts[1]);
}
void LoadScript (String script) {
String content = Application.GetResourceStream(new Uri(script, UriType.Absolute)).ReadToEnd();
theBrowserControl.InvokeScript("eval", content);
}
void theBrowserControl_Loaded (...event handler args here...) {
theBrowserControl.IsScriptEnabled = true;
theBrowserControl.ScriptNotify += HandleNotify;
theBrowserControl.Navigate("http://yoursite.com");
}
the URI comes from Windows Phone itself, with this code, you can see for yourself:
var a = document.createElement('a');
a.setAttribute('href', '.');
alert(a.href);
also, I've been informed that this works in Cordova 2.0, so it might be a 1.8.1 bug... will try and see how it goes
thanks for your help so far!
Looks like it was a problem with PhoneGap 1.8.1 - after upgading to Cordova 2.0 (PhoneGap got renamed) it all works now... thanks for all the help!