I write a C# app for WindowsMobile.
in order to get a nonrecursive folder size i have this routine:
Code:
static long GetDirectorySize(String path)
{
long size = 0;
String []files = Directory.GetFiles(path);
foreach (String f in files)
{
FileInfo fi = new FileInfo(f);
size += fi.Length;
}
return size;
}
now, my directory (in Storage Card) has about 1000 files that has about 4MB of data alltogether.
the GetDirectorySize takes forever to execute (60 seconds or so) and provide a horribole user expericnce.
executing this in a thread does not help either - i need the response as fast as possibole.
I was wondering if someone could help me figure out how to get folder size (nonrecursive) more rapidly.
in general, i also want to find the older file in the directory and delete it (kid of cache operation). how do i do that without waiting forever to complete?
storing an index file might not be what i'm looking for.
Thanks
I don't know about C#, but in C++ I use GetDiskFreeSpaceEx function, see HERE.
PS,
I think this goes in the Q&A forum?
dgaud007 said:
I use GetDiskFreeSpaceEx function
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This does not help with Folder size.
My intention is to manage Cache folder and monitor its size and clear out some cached files in case the cache size of the folder is too big.
getting the disk size is not the way to deal with folder size
You can use it for individual folders, as the folder name is the 1st input parameter. I've used at least for \My Documents which is a regular folder and it works. Here is an excerpt from MSDN:
lpDirectoryName [in, optional]
A directory on the disk.
If this parameter is NULL, the function uses the root of the current disk.
If this parameter is a UNC name, it must include a trailing backslash, for example, "\\MyServer\MyShare\".
This parameter does not have to specify the root directory on a disk. The function accepts any directory on a disk.
The calling application must have FILE_LIST_DIRECTORY access rights for this directory.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As per MSDN, here is how you implement it in C#:
Code:
[DllImport("kernel32.dll", CharSet=CharSet.Auto, SetLastError=true)]
internal static extern bool GetDiskFreeSpaceEx(string drive, out long freeBytesForUser, out long totalBytes, out long freeBytes);
I tested GetDiskFreeSpaceEx.
- The coredll has to be used instead kernel32dll (for WindowsMobile).
- the TotalBytes returns the SD card size (on which the folder exists)
- the freeBytesForUser equals FreeBytes and returns the free space in the SD card
this does return the folder size.
appreciate further help.
thanks
I double checked and you're right. Looks like you'll have to recurse while adding the individual sizes. I couldn't find an easier method in a brief search in google. Sorry about the confusion!
PS,
checkout this app...
I'm not that much of a C# expert but isn't the 1000 times calling "new" slowing down? I'd try to write a traditional C++ application using simple FindFirstFile and FindNextFile functions and compare speed towards the C# application. If it's faster then you can just build a C++ DLL and PInvoke her. I'm not sure if results are better but at least it's worth a try.
solution found
I managed to resolve this and get a speedy result by replacing with this code.
all the best.
Code:
private static long GetDirectorySize(String path)
{
long size = 0;
[COLOR="DarkGreen"] /* Slow code
String []files = Directory.GetFiles(path);
foreach (String f in files)
{
FileInfo fi = new FileInfo(f);
size += fi.Length;
} */[/COLOR]
DirectoryInfo di = new DirectoryInfo(path);
FileInfo []fi = di.GetFiles();
for (int i = 0; i < fi.Length; i++)
size += fi.Length;
return size;
}
btw: get my app at http://www.logelog.com/utils
Just been experimenting with the new WinMo 6.5.3 emulator images, when I came across an oddity when testing an older WIN32 WinMo 2003SE application.
Works fine under 2003SE WinMo 5, 6, and 6.5 but under 6.5.3, on the Help-About Dialog box, clicking on the (X), now in the bottom right of the command bar, fails to close the dialog box.
The only way to close it was by pressing the Enter key.
The (X) lower right sends a WM_CLOSE message to the Dialog, not the WM_COMMAND - IDOK, as previously sent by the (OK) button. I assume this will happen with all dialog boxes.
The code to respond to this message exists in the shell applications created by 5 and 6 WinMo SDK's under VS2005/2008 but not under the WM2003/2003SE SDK in Embedded C++ V4.0
You have to add this code yourself, to get the dialog to close when (X) is pressed: as per case WM_CLOSE: below
Code:
// Message handler for about box.
INT_PTR CALLBACK About(HWND hDlg, UINT message, WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam)
{
switch (message)
{
case WM_INITDIALOG:
{
// Create a Done button and size it.
SHINITDLGINFO shidi;
shidi.dwMask = SHIDIM_FLAGS;
shidi.dwFlags = SHIDIF_DONEBUTTON | SHIDIF_SIPDOWN | SHIDIF_SIZEDLGFULLSCREEN;
shidi.hDlg = hDlg;
SHInitDialog(&shidi);
}
return (INT_PTR)TRUE;
case WM_COMMAND:
if (LOWORD(wParam) == IDOK)
{
EndDialog(hDlg, LOWORD(wParam));
return TRUE;
}
break;
case WM_CLOSE:
EndDialog(hDlg, message);
return TRUE;
}
return (INT_PTR)FALSE;
}
Ignore the above...........
Found it!!!
The WM_CLOSE message handler can be left in, just in case, but you need to add the SHIDIF_EMPTYMENU value to dwFlags in the WM_INITDIALOG message
This forces the button to appear as an (OK) button, and send IDOK when pressed. Notice also that the menu buttons disappear. In fact they should not have been there in the first place.
Code:
shidi.dwFlags = SHIDIF_DONEBUTTON | SHIDIF_SIPDOWN | SHIDIF_SIZEDLGFULLSCREEN | SHIDIF_EMPTYMENU;
This value can be safely added as it is ignored by all WM versions prior to WM6.0
It appears in the WM2003 SDK for VS2005 but not in the SDK that Embedded C++ 4.0 uses, haven't checked EVC 3.0, but I assume you will have to add it there too.
Marvellous!!!
P.S. 5x5 shown in the example below can be found here http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=509413
Update to this: If want to add this permanently to the wizard that creates the shell applications, so you don't have to remember to add it for every new app, use Res Hacker or similar to edit C:\Program Files\Windows CE Tools\wce420\POCKET PC 2003\Wizards\ceexewz_mer.awx
The shell source is in TEMPLATE\ROOT.CPP\1033
Edit the source, 'compile' the script, and save the new file.
[2012/06/03] IMPORTANT UPDATE HERE
Hi hackers,
This is meant as a little update on one of the projects I've been working on. I'm kinda stuck now. I have a suspicion of what the problem is. I thought that maybe if I write a post about it, me or someone else will have an idea on how to get this working.
The goal is to run native homebrew executables on WP7
This has not been done yet. All apps are Silverlight apps that are compiled as DLL and run by Taskhost.exe with least privileges. All other executables are signed by Microsoft. Executables that are compiled as ARM executable cannot be started.
The angle is to create a certificate that allows to sign a WP7 executable. Then add that to the appropriate certificate store. Create an executable. Sign it with the private key. Load it onto a WP7 device. Copy it to the Windows folder. Use an OEM driver to launch the executable.
First I did research on the certificate stores. I can now with certainty state that there are 4 certificate stores:
- CA
- Root
- My
- Code Integrity
After a lot of research I finally got complete read/write access to all of these stores. The Code Integrity store contains all the certificates that are used by the Loader Verifier to verify the executable that is being launched. When the device is launched for the first time, the certificates that are in \Windows\ciroots.p7b are installed to that certificate store. These certificates have these properties:
Key Usage = 0x86 = Digital Signature, Certificate Signing, Off-line CRL Signing, CRL Signing
Entended Key Usage = Code Signing (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3.3) + Unknown key usage (1.3.6.1.4.1.311.10.3.14)
So I used OpenSSL to create such an certificate (with private key) for myself. And I installed the certificate in the Code Integrity store.
I then used VS2008 to create a completely barebone executable (ARMv4 Console app with only Sleep(-1) in the Main). I signed it with SignTool from Microsoft.
I loaded the executable to my device and I copied it to the \Windows folder (I think the policies restrict executing to only from that folder, but I'm not sure about that).
I use the Samsung driver to launch the executable, because I need at least Standard Rights to launch an executable. The Samsung driver has Elevated Rights. My own app has only Least Privileges. Using the Samsung driver does not return any success or fail codes. But looking at the Running Processes list, I don't see my Test.exe running. It should be, because the main thread is put to sleep infinitely.
So why is this not working?
Well, I have a guess. I think it's the policies that bind the certificates in the Code Integrity store to the different accounts/chambers. In the \Windows folder there are a lot of policy xml-files. On fist boot, these are merged into PolicyCommit.xml and then compiled to policydb.vol. When the Loader Verifier (lvmod.dll) loads an executable, it queries the policies to determine access rights and chamber for that executable. The policies that matter in this context are defined in 8314B832-8D03-444f-9A2A-1EF6FADCC3B8.policy.xml. It's an xml-file that basically says this:
Code:
Microsoft Mobile Device Privileged PCA - ced778d7bb4cb41d26c40328cc9c0397926b4eea - not used in this context
Microsoft Mobile Device TCB PCA - 88bcaec267ef8b366c6e6215ac4028e7a1be2deb - honored by System Identity Group
Microsoft Mobile Device Unprivileged PCA - 1c8229f5c8d6e256bdcb427cc5521ec2f8ff011a - honored by Standard Right Identity Group
Microsoft Mobile Device VSD PCA - 91b318116f8897d2860733fdf757b93345373574 - not used in this context
VeriSign Mobile Root Authority for Microsoft - 069dbcca9590d1b5ed7c73de65795348e58d4ae3 - honored by LPC Identity Group
I should find a way to add a policy with my certificate in it. Any ideas?
Ciao,
Heathcliff74
If you are able to re-sign an executable that is already in the ROM, i would try that, so you know the problem isn't within the native code, but only with the signing. Or maybe the other way round which would be awesome.
regards
Flow WP7 said:
If you are able to re-sign an executable that is already in the ROM, i would try that, so you know the problem isn't within the native code, but only with the signing. Or maybe the other way round which would be awesome.
regards
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's a good idea. I must say that I don't have much faith in the current RecMod tools for WP7 right now. I am able to get the binaries recmodded so that I can disassemble them correctly. But I don't think they can be easily launched. But there are executables that are on the rom as complete binaries, instead of rom-modules. To begin with, I have to select one that does not need much privileges to run and try to sign that one and then run it.
I'm really busy with work right now, so I think I won't be able to try it until the day after tomorrow. But I will try it and will let know how that went.
Thanks!
Decompiled taskhost.exe, so it gets more easy for us to see if its able to make taskhost to start another exe for us. Lots of code tho (C code).
taskhost.c (276 KB) in attachments.
edit: Oh, WOW, this really shows how to call those anonymous methods without call signature "Hello" (signature: "??z_Hello_?mze")
Hmm, pretty much about the pause part?
Code:
if ( v10 )
{
a7 = sub_178E7(v10);
if ( a7 >= 0 )
{
a7 = sub_180A5(v7, v7 + 64);
if ( a7 >= 0 )
{
a7 = ThemeInitialize(v7 + 136);
if ( a7 >= 0 )
{
v11 = sub_1862B(v13, v7);
EnableHostAutoDehydration(v11 == 3);
v16 = 0;
a7 = InitializeEmClientEx(&a2, 0, &v16);
if ( a7 >= 0 )
{
a7 = RegisterPausedHostCallback(sub_19D0D, 0);
if ( a7 >= 0 )
{
a7 = RegisterResumingHostCallback(sub_19D31, 0);
if ( a7 >= 0 )
{
if ( v11 != 3
|| (a7 = RegisterDehydrateHostCallback(sub_19D76, 0), a7 >= 0)
&& (a7 = RegisterFreezeHostCallback(sub_19D97, 0), a7 >= 0) )
{
a7 = RegisterExitHostCallback(sub_19D55, 0);
if ( a7 >= 0 )
a7 = sub_17C0A(*(_DWORD *)(v7 + 128), 0);
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
UIX framework entry-point (exe)
Code:
int __cdecl sub_11114(int a1, int a2, int a3)
{
int v4; // [sp+0h] [bp-38h]@1
char Dst; // [sp+4h] [bp-34h]@1
int v6; // [sp+8h] [bp-30h]@1
int v7; // [sp+Ch] [bp-2Ch]@1
int v8; // [sp+18h] [bp-20h]@1
int v9; // [sp+28h] [bp-10h]@1
v4 = 0;
memset(&Dst, 0, 0x34u);
v8 = a3;
v6 = (int)L"res://FlightModeUXDLL!FlightMode.uix";
v7 = (int)L"FMMain";
v9 = 2;
RunApplication(&v4);
return dword_12034;
}
C++ converted
Code:
UIXApplicationInfo app;
app { ... }
RunApplication(&app);
struct UIXApplicationInfo
{
int UNK_v4 = 0;
char Dst = {0};
char* uixFile;
char* uixEntryPoint;
int UNK_v8;
int UNK_v9 = 2;
}
Then just figure out the UIX part (or test the existing "res://FlightModeUXDLL!FlightMode.uix" if it launches, if so, we made it).
___
Found this in mango dump:
> Uninstall provxml
Code:
<!-- Uninstall Xbox LIVE Extras App -->
<characteristic type="AppInstall">
<nocharacteristic type="{0c17d153-b5d5-df11-a844-00237de2db9e}"/>
</characteristic>
Is there a reason you can't just use COM interop to run native code? Check out this thread for a discussion covering the technique: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=820455
athompson said:
Is there a reason you can't just use COM interop to run native code? Check out this thread for a discussion covering the technique: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=820455
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hello "co-founder of native code on WP7"
I'm fully aware of the possibility of native code through COM. I use it for example in the WP7 Root Tools. But I just wanted to take it a step further. Running native executables give a lot more freedom. Not being bound to the watchdog, getting higher privileges and running in the background for instance. But there's a whole lot more. So that's why I started research on it. Thanks anyway. You helped making native code possible on WP7.
Ciao,
Heathcliff74
The taskhost.exe is our RAM, because our app run in it, giving us full RAM access inside our "viritual ram". So that means we own all strings, int, floats etc. Then rewrite the ram to change strings in mscorlib. The checksum if an exe has been modified is only checked at startup, without checking if we modify the dll at runtime.
My purpose with this is that some function's call external apps, where we rewrite the args going in to the function. Just find an exploitable function and modify it after JIT has been there one before generating the pre ram, that we modify and call yet again but with the modified ram values behind.
Marshal.Copy, my friends, there.
[SecurityFuckingSafeCritical]
(byte[] source, IntPtr destination, int length)
> Interopservices leaked dll (\windows)
destination = our ram ptr to modify.
fiinix said:
The taskhost.exe is our RAM, because our app run in it, giving us full RAM access inside our "viritual ram". So that means we own all strings, int, floats etc. Then rewrite the ram to change strings in mscorlib. The checksum if an exe has been modified is only checked at startup, without checking if we modify the dll at runtime.
My purpose with this is that some function's call external apps, where we rewrite the args going in to the function. Just find an exploitable function and modify it after JIT has been there one before generating the pre ram, that we modify and call yet again but with the modified ram values behind.
Marshal.Copy, my friends, there.
[SecurityFuckingSafeCritical]
(byte[] source, IntPtr destination, int length)
> Interopservices leaked dll (\windows)
destination = our ram ptr to modify.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmmm. 10 Points for inventiveness But I don't think it's going to work. Even if you could find a function where the executable is passed as argument you still don't have enough privileges. Most code will have the path to the executable hardcoded instead of an argument. And you will still run under TaskHost with Least Privileges. And you need to have at least Standard Privileges or higher to launch most executables with CreateProcess() or ShellExecuteEx().
Sent from my OMNIA7 using XDA Windows Phone 7 App
Heathcliff74 said:
Hmmm. 10 Points for inventiveness But I don't think it's going to work. Even if you could find a function where the executable is passed as argument you still don't have enough privileges. Most code will have the path to the executable hardcoded instead of an argument. And you will still run under TaskHost with Least Privileges. And you need to have at least Standard Privileges or higher to launch most executables with CreateProcess() or ShellExecuteEx().
Sent from my OMNIA7 using XDA Windows Phone 7 App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"And you will still run under TaskHost with Least Privileges"
I know, i dont need standard rights to do it. Because i call a mscorlib function that is trusted code. I think you saw my idea wrong, let me show you.
[mscorlib, SecuritySafeCritical]
public static void example(string str)
{
string mscorlibStr = "you cant change my value ";
Debug.WriteLine(mscorlibStr + str);
}
This is where we modify "mscorlibStr" in ram and the function is still trusted code. But its doing something totally different from that it would do.
fiinix said:
"And you will still run under TaskHost with Least Privileges"
I know, i dont need standard rights to do it. Because i call a mscorlib function that is trusted code. I think you saw my idea wrong, let me show you.
[mscorlib, SecuritySafeCritical]
public static void example(string str)
{
string mscorlibStr = "you cant change my value ";
Debug.WriteLine(mscorlibStr + str);
}
This is where we modify "mscorlibStr" in ram and the function is still trusted code. But its doing something totally different from that it would do.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I really hate to break it for you. But the [SecuritySafeCritical] is indeed trusted code, but it will still check your privileges. All the API functions that do system modifications like that, do the security checks. Read the note under SecuritySafeCriticalAttribute here. Also read this; same problem. You are in process TaskHost.exe and it is launched in LPC (Least Privilege Chamber), so every CeImpersonateToken() to do the important stuff will fail and return an error code. I also wouldn't know how you would modify the stack-frame of a function that you call. Seems impossible to me, because at the moment you call the function, that stack-frame has not been allocated yet.
Anyway, although I don't think that is going to work in any way, I absolutely don't want to discourage you, because my experience is that when you try enough, sooner or later you will find an exploit
Ciao,
Heathcliff74
Currently installing "Windows Embeded Compact 7", because this lousy ARMv4 compiler (from WM5-6) maybe generates wrong ARM op-codes (WP7 runs ARMv7), therefore it says "Invalid program signature" (or what error it was).
Maybe ARMv7 is'nt even backwards compatibility with ARMv4.
By compiling with the ARMv7 compiler from WEM7, it will probably (hope) generate a valid exe.
Thats it..
edit:
*Research
"Armv7 is the processor instruction set used starting with the S5L8920 in the iPhone 3GS and in all subsequent devices. Processors that support Armv7 instructions are backward compatible with Armv6 instructions, but attempting to run binaries compiled for Arm7 on older, Armv6 processors will result in the error: "Bad CPU type in executable"."
Source: http://theiphonewiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Armv7
___
"As I said in the past, the ARMv6 CTR was kept backwards compatible with
> > > earlier versions of the ARM architecture (and ARM tried to keep it like
> > > this as much as possible). With ARMv7, you have multiple levels of cache
> > > and different types (e.g. ASID-tagged VIVT I-cache). There is no way you
> > > could encode the useful information while keeping the same (and only)
> > > register, hence the the need for a new register."
Source: http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg58813.html
As i see this (^), all ARMv > 6 == no backwards
ARMv6 had backwards to 4
ARMv7 >> ARMv6 compatibility, not more.
_
Problem officer even running ARMv4???
>On a non ARMv4 backwards compatibility CPU.
Profit!!
__
[ExeX.exe] (the one that i recompiled to a state: "this has to work")(ARMv4)
Decompilation:
Code:
; Attributes: bp-based frame
EXPORT start
start
var_20= -0x20
oldR4= -0x1C
oldR5= -0x18
oldR6= -0x14
oldR7= -0x10
oldR11= -0xC
oldSP= -8
oldLR= -4
MOV R12, SP
STMFD SP!, {R4-R7,R11,R12,LR}
ADD R11, SP, #0x1C
SUB SP, SP, #4
MOV R4, R3
MOV R5, R2
MOV R6, R1
MOV R7, R0
.
Next up, decompile a ARMv7 from a raw device. (how, someone has one)
fiinix said:
Next up, decompile a ARMv7 from a raw device. (how, someone has one)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you'll find what you're looking for here: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=681659 in the dump of the IMAGEFS. What did you use to decompile it? IDA Pro, or a different thing?
athompson said:
I think you'll find what you're looking for here: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=681659 in the dump of the IMAGEFS. What did you use to decompile it? IDA Pro, or a different thing?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
IDA Pro, yes. Ill see if i can dump that "nbh" (used to nb0), and extract a fully operable exe that is not corrupted.
fiinix said:
IDA Pro, yes. Ill see if i can dump that "nbh" (used to nb0), and extract a fully operable exe that is not corrupted.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First use Andim's WP7 Rom Tools to extract the rommodules. Remember to always dump a folder, not a single file.
Then use Denomitor's version of Recmod and follow the instructions in the post. That works most of the time.
Going forward
Currently building the WP7 ARMv7 commandline, getting closer.
Current cmd (not working, no need to help):
Code:
"C:\WINCE700\sdk\bin\i386\arm\cl.exe" /Od /D "_DEBUG" /D "_WIN32_WCE=0x700" /D "UNDER_CE" /D "ZUNE_HD" /D "WINCE" /D "DEBUG" /D "_WINDOWS" /D "ARM" /D "_ARM_" /D "_UNICODE" /D "UNICODE" /D "_CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS" /Gm /EHsc /MTd /Gy /fp:fast /GR- /Fo"C:\Users\Steven VM\Desktop\ARMv7\Build\Debug/" /Fd"C:\Users\Steven VM\Desktop\ARMv7\Build\Debug/vc80.pdb" /W3 /c /Zi /TP /QRfpe- /QRarch7 "C:\Users\Steven VM\Desktop\ARMv7\main.cpp"
/QRarch7 is the ARMv7.
edit:
HOORRY SHEEAT
generated:
> main.obj
> vc80.idb
> vc80.pdb
, feels soo good:
main.exe is there.
IDA Pro says "ARM AND THUMB MODE SWITCH INSTRUCTIONS", just like others.
Code:
; Input MD5 : B50E8D8395DE7CA2419464DC3CE0BC74
; File Name : C:\Users\Steven\Desktop\burn\main.exe
; Format : Portable executable for ARMI (PE)
; Imagebase : 10000
; Section 1. (virtual address 00001000)
; Virtual size : 00000018 ( 24.)
; Section size in file : 00000200 ( 512.)
; Offset to raw data for section: 00000400
; Flags 60000020: Text Executable Readable
; Alignment : default
; Processor : ARM
; Target assembler: Generic assembler for ARM
; Byte sex : Little endian
; Segment type: Pure code
AREA .text, CODE, READWRITE, ALIGN=4
; ORG 0x11000
CODE32
EXPORT start
start
var_4= -4
SUB SP, SP, #4
MOV R3, #1
STR R3, [SP,#4+var_4]
LDR R0, [SP,#4+var_4]
ADD SP, SP, #4
BX LR
; End of function start
Made an empty entry point as from above ^:
Code:
int wWinMainCRTStartup()
{
return 1;
}
PE Explorer (main.exe):
Machine: THUMB
Operating System Version: 7.0
Image Version: 7.0
Subsystem Version: 7.0
Subsystem: WinCE GUI
**** so CLOSE!
Successful copied "main.exe" and "ExeX.exe" to "\Windows", where i have the right to launch them remotely.
Method:
WP7Process p = device.LaunchEXE(@"main.exe", "");
main.exe (no signing, ARMv7):
System.UnauthorizedAccessException: Access is denied.
WP7Process p = device.LaunchEXE(@"ExeX.exe", "");
ExeX.exe (signed with CA/ROOT custom, ARMv4):
System.Runtime.InteropServices.COMException (0x800704EC): This program is blocked by group policy. For more information, contact your system administrator.
There IS different things going on! Something is missing, but what
edit:
Signed main.exe with custom XDA ROOT certificate (ARMv7):
signtool.exe sign /sha1 "[CertChomp]" "main.exe"
> Now main.exe also gets "This program is blocked by group policy. For more information, contact your system administrator."
Ill see if i can add it to startup list , if it boot from there.
edit 2:
Nope gonna hijack "fieldtestapp.exe" with my app because policy says:
Risky-mode.Activate();
Backup(fieldtestapp.exe, backupPath);
Copy(main.exe, > fieldtestapp.exe);
"LOADERVERIFIER_ROUTE_BY_NAME"
"LOADERVERIFIER_EXE_AUTHZ_INROM_ROOT"
<Rule Description="Route fieldtestapp.exe" ResourceIri="$(LOADERVERIFIER_ROUTE_BY_NAME)/PRIMARY/WINDOWS/FIELDTESTAPP.EXE" SpeakerAccountId="$(SYSTEM_USER_NAME)" PriorityCategoryId="PRIORITY_LOW">
<Authorize>
<Match AccountId="$(FIELDTESTAPP_EXE_SID)" AuthorizationIds="LV_ACCESS_EXECUTE" />
</Authorize>
</Rule>
<Rule Description="Authorize fieldtestapp.exe be loadable to $(FIELDTESTAPP_EXE_SID) and chambers" ResourceIri="$(LOADERVERIFIER_EXE_AUTHZ_INROM_ROOT)/WINDOWS/FIELDTESTAPP.EXE" SpeakerAccountId="$(SYSTEM_USER_NAME)" PriorityCategoryId="PRIORITY_STANDARD">
<Authorize>
<Match AccountId="$(FIELDTESTAPP_EXE_SID)" AuthorizationIds="LV_ACCESS_EXECUTE,LV_ACCESS_LOAD" />
</Authorize>
</Rule>
edit 3:
Seems like "fieldtestapp.exe" is ROM locked. Need to try out some other targets.
edit 4:
Target acquired "ProximitySensorDisable.exe" > "ProximitySensorDisableBackup.exe"
Successful copy == no ROM lock.
edit 5:
There exists two types of talking to the LoadVerifier (the: This program is blocked by group policy.):
Direct exe name OR special certificate
How we do:
> Direct exe (hijack exe)
How we cant do (SHA1) (Nope, ain't gonna happen):
> We certainly dont have Microsofts certificate so this way is a nodo, haha lol, no do way.
(1: direct exe name) /LOADERVERIFIER/GLOBAL/AUTHORIZATION/PE_AUTHZ/NONE/NONE/PRIMARY/WINDOWS/CFGHOST.EXE
(2: static/pre certificates) /LOADERVERIFIER/GLOBAL/CERTIFICATES/HASH/SHA1/91B318116F8897D2860733FDF757B93345373574
edit 6:
Yep, loads of edits, just for you.
Allowed exe's to run (sorted a-z) (direct exe) (pre cert removed):
Code:
ACCESSIBILITYCPL.EXE
ACCOUNTSMANAGER.EXE
ALARMS.EXE
APPCHECKERSHIM.EXE
APPPREINSTALLER.EXE
AUTODATACONFIG.EXE
AUTOSIM.EXE
AUTOTIMEUPDATE.EXE
BRIGHTNESSCPL.EXE
BTUXCPL.EXE
CALENDARAPP.EXE
CALLSETTINGSHOST.EXE
CALNOT.EXE
CALUPD.EXE
CAM_FW_UPDATE_UI.EXE
CELLUXCPL.EXE
CERTINSTALLER.EXE
CFGHOST.EXE
CFLAUNCHER.EXE
CHDIALERHOST.EXE
CIPHASE2.EXE
CLIENTSHUTDOWN3.EXE
CLOCKNOT.EXE
CMACCEPT3.EXE
COLDINIT.EXE
COMMSVC.EXE
COMPOSITOR.EXE
CONFIGDM.EXE
CONFIGXML.EXE
CONMANCLIENT3.EXE
CONTACTS.EXE
CPROG.EXE
DATETIMECPL.EXE
DCVSSWITCH.EXE
DEPOTCOPY.EXE
DEVICEFEEDBACKCPL.EXE
DEVICEREG.EXE
DIAGPORTCHANGETEST.EXE
DLLHOST.EXE
DMSCHEDULERCALLBACK.EXE
DMSRV.EXE
DMSTOOLS.EXE
DUACLIENT.EXE
DW.EXE
EDM3.EXE
EMAIL.EXE
EMAILSETUP.EXE
ENDPOINT.EXE
FCROUTERCMDTEST.EXE
FIELDTESTAPP.EXE
FLIGHTMODE.EXE
GAMESUX.EXE
IEXPLORE.EXE
INITIATEDMSESSION.EXE
INVALIDLICENSEUXLAUNCHER.EXE
KEYBOARDCPL.EXE
LASSCREDENTIALEXPIRATIONCHECK.EXE
LASSRESTARTER.EXE
LIVETOKEN.EXE
LOCKCPL.EXE
LOOPBACKTEST.EXE
MEDIAGROVEL.EXE
MEUX.EXE
MITSMAN.EXE
MMSPRPROXY.EXE
MMSTRANSHOST.EXE
MULTIMEDIALAUNCHER.EXE
MYPHONECPL.EXE
MYPHONETASKSRUNTIME.EXE
NATIVEINSTALLERHOST.EXE
OFFICEURL.EXE
OMADMCLIENT.EXE
OMADMPRC.EXE
OMHUB.EXE
ONBOOTSQM.EXE
ONENOTEMOBILE.EXE
OOBE.EXE
PACMANINSTALLER.EXE
PHOTOENT.EXE
PHOTOENTCAPTURE.EXE
PHOTOUPLOADER.EXE
PPT.EXE
PWORD.EXE
PWRLOGCTRL.EXE
PXL.EXE
RAPICONFIG.EXE
REGIONCPL.EXE
RMACTIVATE.EXE
SAPISVR.EXE
SECSIMTKIT.EXE
SERVICESD.EXE
SERVICESSTART.EXE
SETTELEPORTMODE.EXE
SETTINGS3.EXE
SHORTMSG.EXE
SICLNT.EXE
SIGNALEVENT.EXE
SIREPSERVERAPPDEV.EXE
SMSETTINGS.EXE
SMSTRANSPORT.EXE
SOUNDCPL.EXE
SPEECHCPL.EXE
SPMC.EXE
SQMEVENT.EXE
SSUPDATE.EXE
TASKHOST.EXE
TELSHELL.EXE
TESTSHOW.EXE
THEMECPL.EXE
TOGGLEBROWSERHIBERNATION.EXE
TOGGLEDOG.EXE
UDEVICE.EXE
UIF.EXE
UNIFIEDPAIR.EXE
USBMGR.EXE
WEBSEARCH.EXE
WIFIUXSPLASH.EXE
WLANEXT.EXE
WLIDSETUP.EXE
WWANDATAMGR.EXE
XDRMREMOTESERV.EXE
ZIPVIEW.EXE
ZMFTASKLAUNCH.EXE
How code (yes i know its super un-optimized, fast put together):
Code:
var doc = XDocument.Load(File.OpenRead("SamsungOmnia7_BasePolicy_webserver.xml"));
var ea = doc.Elements().ToArray()[0].Elements()
.Where(x => x.Name.LocalName == "Rule")
.Where(x => x.Attributes("ResourceIri").Count() > 0)
.Where(x =>
{
var r = x.Attribute("ResourceIri").Value;
return r.Contains("LOADERVERIFIER") && r.ToLower().Contains(".exe") && !r.Contains("CERTIFICATES");
})
.Select(x =>
{
var v = x.Attribute("ResourceIri").Value;
var l = v.LastIndexOf('/');
return v.Substring(l + 1);
})
.Distinct()
.OrderBy(x => x)
.ToArray();
edit 7:
yeah, lol i say too.
Unprotected exe (FCRouterCmdTest.exe)
> c:\Project Work\SGH-i707(Cetus)\FCRouterCmdTest\Windows Mobile 6 Professional SDK (ARMV4I)\Release\FCRouterCmdTest.pdb
mfw samsung use "Windows Mobile 6 Professional SDK (ARMV4I)"
Wow, this truly was a big step today
Done hacking today.
"After a day, there comes another day"
@fiinix,
You did a lot of testing. Good job, man.
A few comments:
0x800704ec "blocked by group policy" is THE error of the new WP7 security model. It is basically telling you to go f*ck yourself. Everything you do without enough privileges or capabilities results in this error.
The two ways of policies, exe-path and cert-hash, is result of difference between rom-modules and executables that are signed and added as a file. Rom-modules are not even normal files. You can't open and read them. They are executable sections that are mapped in rom-address-space. You can only call loadlibrary() and createprocess() on them. Since they are only executable sections, they don't have a signature, like a normal executable file would have. Therefore they are referred to with an exe-path. You may safely assume that every path to an executable in the policy files is referring to a rom-module and can't be overwritten in any way (except by cooking your own rom - who is going to unlock our bootloaders?!?) Other than that, there are a few signing certs that Microsoft has. Signing the different executables with different privileges and accordingly a different cert. Their hashes are in the policies.
Using ARMv7 isn't going to add much I'm afraid. Although it may make a difference in the exe-header. But you've seen tools that were really old, remember And they were signed to have TCB access. And they were compiled for ARMv4. So it should not make much difference.
I did some testing with certificates myself yesterday. Up until Zune totally went bezerk on it. I don't know what happened, but after removing my own cooked certs it all seems normal again. Zune started using 100% cpu on verifying certs and dropping my connection all the time. Help! So I haven't made much progress. I will try again later. Hope it will go better. And I will try to resign an existing executable, as Flow WP7 suggested.
According to policy on my omnia (webserver dumped) there seems to exist two typed of HDD, one ROM hard coded and one that points to internal sd card. It seems that all exe and dll on the sd are not "protected" and therefore can be hijacked.
Seems like ARMv4 will be enough, but to be on the safe side i compile with both, to have more chance getting it work.
Zune, hmm, did not seem to like you, maybe Microsoft DDOS'ed you lol
"Sent from my fingers on my phone", don't expect way too long text
XxXPachaXxX said:
Excuse my ignorance...I'm a noob...This hack may also work on LG devices?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
At the moment fiinix and I are both working on Samsungs and we use a couple of Samsung-specific exploit to get deeper in the system and getting a better understanding of the system. The ultimate goal is to find exploits that will work for all devices. But we're not at that stage yet. Hacking is research, a lot of trying and being lucky sometimes. Just bear with us
Ciao,
Heathcliff74
Hello all,
Just curious about some general knowledge (salute; reference: HIMYM) on whether or not it's possible to see what an app is doing (during installation, in the background, app initialization, and foreground usage)
It's not my own app in question so I understand physically seeing the code is out of the question; however I'm more concerned about what the app is doing and the files/directories it accesses, and whether or not there's a way for me to view these activities.
If you must know, the app in question is the Adidas Confirmed app as RootCloak (and various other apps) DO NOT WORK. I'm attempting to isolate the issue, and I'm fairly certain it has to do with an external resource (within the device; i.e. different partition, files, folders, etc.) that permanently marks the device 'rooted' during initial installation. Maybe if I can see exactly what the app reaches out to, I can then come up with a fix action.
Any input would be greatly appreciated.
You could try to decompile this app, but it might not work very well if the app obfuscates the code http://decompileandroid.com/
Rijul.A said:
You could try to decompile this app, but it might not work very well if the app obfuscates the code http://decompileandroid.com/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This actually worked PERFECTLY. I was able to go inside the src and see exactly the commands the app calls for to check root.
If anyone is interested...I'm going to try a few things out, play with some variables and see if I can't allow the app access on my rooted device.
Code:
// Decompiled by Jad v1.5.8e. Copyright 2001 Pavel Kouznetsov.
// Jad home page: http://www.geocities.com/kpdus/jad.html
// Decompiler options: braces fieldsfirst space lnc
package com.gpshopper.adidas.objects;
import android.os.Build;
import java.io.File;
// Referenced classes of package com.gpshopper.adidas.objects:
// ExecShell
public class Root
{
private static String LOG_TAG = com/gpshopper/adidas/objects/Root.getName();
public Root()
{
}
public static boolean checkRootMethod1()
{
String s = Build.TAGS;
return s != null && s.contains("test-keys");
}
public static boolean checkRootMethod2()
{
label0:
{
label1:
{
boolean flag = false;
boolean flag1;
try
{
File file = new File("/system/app/Superuser.apk");
File file1 = new File("/system/app/SuperSU/SuperSU.apk");
if (file.exists())
{
break label1;
}
flag1 = file1.exists();
}
catch (Exception exception)
{
return false;
}
if (!flag1)
{
break label0;
}
}
flag = true;
}
return flag;
}
public static boolean checkRootMethod3()
{
return (new ExecShell()).executeCommand(ExecShell.SHELL_CMD.check_su_binary) != null;
}
public static boolean isDeviceRooted()
{
return checkRootMethod1() || checkRootMethod2() || checkRootMethod3();
}
}
There is a similar file also in the src using a different language I've not yet been able to comprehend. I'm really new at this in case you couldn't already figure lol...is it possible to view my device's database where apps store variables? It may be possible the app is permanently storing the variable even after its removal so best case would be to start from a fresh ROM install. Just a theory.
The other language is generally irrelevant
Delete /data/data/<packagename>/ or clear app data normally, that will work, no need for a fresh install.
If you need help hooking this method, please quote me in a reply.