View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
jules Professional Member
Joined: 14 Sep 2001 Posts: 1043 Location: Cumbria, UK
|
Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:47 pm Post subject: LIST REGKEYS / REGVALS bug |
|
|
I found a bug in LIST REGKEYS / REGVALS when testing something under Windows Vista. These commands are denied access to the registry in a limited user account because they ask for too many access rights (not just read only.) It would probably be a problem in a limited account under XP as well, but I haven't actually tested this. _________________ The Tech Pro
www.tech-pro.net |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Garrett Moderator Team
Joined: 04 Oct 2001 Posts: 2149 Location: A House
|
Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wouldn't consider this a bug with VDS, as these are issues caused by
Vista's over zealous security implementations, which were not present
in XP when the current version of VDS was released.
-Garrett _________________ 'What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.' - Confucius (550 b.c. to 479 b.c.) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PGWARE Web Host
Joined: 29 Dec 2001 Posts: 1563
|
Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Garrett, not necessarily. XP limited user may exhibit the same problem; a limited user account if trying to load a key using a modify or read/write token will also return an internal error denying permission. When calling the registry you need to make sure to specify the READ only token when loading a registry key; otherwise Windows is under the assumption you are attempting to load the key for any type of manipulation - it cannot read your mind and know you only want to read from the registry. This is not something which is configurable by VDS itself but it is in many langauges which allow registry access - specifically for this instance - you define what type of access to the registry you need. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jules Professional Member
Joined: 14 Sep 2001 Posts: 1043 Location: Cumbria, UK
|
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
PG is right. It's an inexplicable oversight and I'm really surprised that no-one has noticed this before. The issue with requiring more than just read access was fixed for the @regread function a long time ago. _________________ The Tech Pro
www.tech-pro.net |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|