Vista Features You'll Never See

A quick one this week...

Ran into an interesting posting at shell: revealed about features of Longhorn that didn't make the cut. The post paints the picture that after the Longhorn reset (described here), a lot of features were yanked, and then goes on to describe some rather humorous things that just make you think... "What if?"

»

Fix Available for Performance Problems with Internet Explorer 7's Phishing Filter

I don't know how I missed it (well, I suspect it's related to quirks in the method(s) in which Microsoft makes notifications of new KB articles available), but it seems that Microsoft has released an update to Internet Explorer 7 to address the performance issues with the Phishing Filter that I had previously (here and here) encountered.

The KB article (The computer may respond very slowly as the Phishing Filter evaluates Web page contents in Internet Explorer 7) is dated December 12, 2006, and contains links to download pages for various versions of Windows that Internet Explorer 7 can run on. Your copy of Windows has to pass the Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) check before Microsoft will allow you to download the fix. Once downloaded, installation is straightforward; depending on what programs you have open at the time, you may be required to reboot after the installation finishes.

It is interesting to note that the Cause section (below) explains exactly the conditions I was operating in, and the behavior I observed.

---

CAUSE

This problem occurs when one or more of the following conditions are true:
• The Web page contains many frames.
• You browse many frames in a short time.
Internet Explorer 7 evaluates the whole Web page when you browse a frame. Therefore, CPU usage may be very high.

---

Additionally, the workaround (at the bottom of the article) is to disable the Phishing Filter on the "Advanced" tab of the "Internet Options".

Prior to installing the update, I set the Phishing Filter to "Turn off automatic website checking" ("Advanced" tab of "Internet Options") and made sure it was "Enabled" for the Internet Explorer Security Zone I was working in. I then verified that I was able to recreate the behavior I witnessed in The Case of the Sluggish Internet Explorer 7.

I installed the update and needed to reboot (I forgot I had SharpReader open, and it had loaded MSHTML.DLL). Upon reboot I attempted to cause the CPU to spike by doing precisely the things that had caused the problem in the past. I didn't have any luck in doing so. In fact, none of the threads in the iexplore.exe process were consuming an inordinate amount of CPU. It would appear that the fix involved, to some extent at least, changing the technique Internet Explorer uses to queue up requests to have something evaluated by the Phishing Filter (previously, I had hypothesized that Internet Explorer 7 was using the ThreadPool API and was creating a new thread for each request). Based on my explorations so far, the fix takes care of the problem. Kudos to Microsoft for recognizing the problem and taking appropriate steps to address it.

The fix updates 2 Windows / Internet Explorer program files in %windir%\system32 - ieapfltr.dll (the "Microsoft Phishing Filter") and mshtml.dll (the "Microsoft (R) HTML Viewer"). I didn't take the time to save off copies of the previous versions of these DLLs to try to compare differences (perhaps an exercise for another day). However, the new MSHTML.DLL has a date of 2006-11-09, and the new IEAPFLTR.DLL has a date of 2006-11-08. Internet Explorer 7.0 was released on 2006-10-18. So it appears that Microsoft knew of problems with the Phishing Filter performance prior to launch; obviously this wasn't a showstopper issue. It also would appear to have taken just over 1 month for the fix to make its way through the testing / release process. I guess that's not too bad, considering that some high-priority / critical security updates take at least that long. On the other hand, this is a new feature so it didn't have the legacy behind it that some of the security updates have to contend with. I guess I should just be happy to have a fix... ;)

»

Unspecified Potential Security Risk!

Oh, my. Two weeks in a row with ambiguous security-related messages from a web browser.

This week, we have the following:


Internet Explorer

This page has an unspecified potential security risk.
Would you like to continue?

If it wasn't for the fact that I wasn't browsing the web - I was trying to open a ZIP file on a network share - I probably would have said "No". But since I really needed to get into the ZIP file, I decided to take my unspecified potential chances. I think I'm OK.

»

Puritanical Security? And a Few Other Notes on HTML Help

I was going through some CHM help files the other day and I wound up copying one of the links to the clipboard and tossing it into Maxthon. I wasn't even really aware of what I was doing (just plodding along mindlessly) so I was rather surprised when I was presented with the following dialog:


Security Warning !

Using MK: protocol in browser may cause puritanical security problems.
Do you really want to enable this protocol during this session?

Of course, I had no desire to cause puritanical security problems, so I went with the default "No". The URL I had copied was in fact a "Microsoft Infotech" protocol link in the form of:
mk:@MSITStore:f:\file.chm::/Whatever/Whatever.html

The InfoTech protocol has changed several times over the last few years to reduce security vulnerabilities in HTML help. See MS05-026: A vulnerability in HTML Help could allow remote code execution and MS04-023: Vulnerability in HTML Help could allow code execution for more information.

Another issue that is seen rather frequently is the inability to open CHM / HTML Help files from a network path (UNC path or mapped drive). The article "You cannot open remote content by using the InfoTech protocol after you install security update 896358, security update 840315, or Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1" discusses various registry settings that can be manipulated to allow the display of content in CHM files in this scenario.

»

mtpstoolkit RatingBehavior related to AJAX?

Unfortunately, I forgot what website I was visiting when I encountered the following dialog:



Assertion Failed: Unrecognized tag mtpstoolkit:RatingBehavior

Break into debugger?

I have no concrete idea what the dialog is related to, but I suspect it has to do with some AJAX framework. Interestingly, googling mtpstoolkit (groups search here) currently proves to be rather fruitless. The stack of the thread "owning" the dialog (with a large number of calls in jscript.dll) seems to support the AJAX theory:

ntoskrnl.exe!KiSwapContext+0x2e
ntoskrnl.exe!KiFastCallEntry+0xf8
ntdll.dll!KiFastSystemCallRet
USER32.dll!NtUserWaitMessage+0xc
USER32.dll!InternalDialogBox+0xd0
USER32.dll!SoftModalMessageBox+0x938
USER32.dll!MessageBoxWorker+0x2ba
USER32.dll!MessageBoxIndirectW+0x56
ieframe.dll!SHFusionMessageBoxIndirect+0x26
ieframe.dll!CDocHostUIHandler::ShowMessage+0x128
ieframe.dll!CDocHostUIHandler::Exec+0xe6
ieframe.dll!CDocObjectHost::OnExec+0xcb1
ieframe.dll!CDocObjectHost::Exec+0xd7
mshtml.dll!CreateHTMLPropertyPage+0x2503b
mshtml.dll!CreateHTMLPropertyPage+0x22f72
mshtml.dll!CreateHTMLPropertyPage+0x8980
mshtml.dll!CreateHTMLPropertyPage+0x3f40c
mshtml.dll!DllGetClassObject+0xc53d3
mshtml.dll!DllGetClassObject+0xca51f
mshtml.dll!DllGetClassObject+0xca498
mshtml.dll!DllGetClassObject+0xca353
jscript.dll!IDispatchExInvokeEx2+0xac
jscript.dll!IDispatchExInvokeEx+0x56
jscript.dll!InvokeDispatchEx+0x78
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeByDispID+0x7e
jscript.dll!CScriptRuntime::Run+0x1675
jscript.dll!ScrFncObj::Call+0x8d
jscript.dll!NameTbl::InvokeInternal+0x40
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeByDispID+0xfd
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeByName+0x165
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeDispName+0x43
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeByDispID+0xb9
jscript.dll!CScriptRuntime::Run+0x16c9
jscript.dll!ScrFncObj::Call+0x8d
jscript.dll!NameTbl::InvokeInternal+0x40
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeByDispID+0xfd
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeByName+0x165
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeDispName+0x43
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeByDispID+0xb9
jscript.dll!CScriptRuntime::Run+0x1675
jscript.dll!ScrFncObj::Call+0x8d
jscript.dll!NameTbl::InvokeInternal+0x40
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeByDispID+0xfd
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeByName+0x165
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeDispName+0x43
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeByDispID+0xb9
jscript.dll!CScriptRuntime::Run+0x1675
jscript.dll!ScrFncObj::Call+0x8d
jscript.dll!NameTbl::InvokeInternal+0x40
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeByDispID+0xfd
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeByName+0x165
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeDispName+0x43
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeByDispID+0xb9
jscript.dll!CScriptRuntime::Run+0x1675
jscript.dll!ScrFncObj::Call+0x8d
jscript.dll!NameTbl::InvokeInternal+0x40
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeByDispID+0xfd
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeByName+0x165
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeDispName+0x43
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeByDispID+0xb9
jscript.dll!CScriptRuntime::Run+0x1675
jscript.dll!ScrFncObj::Call+0x8d
jscript.dll!NameTbl::InvokeInternal+0x40
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeByDispID+0xfd
jscript.dll!JsFncCall+0x8e
jscript.dll!NatFncObj::Call+0x41
jscript.dll!NameTbl::InvokeInternal+0x40
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeByDispID+0xfd
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeByName+0x165
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeDispName+0x43
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeByDispID+0xb9
jscript.dll!CScriptRuntime::Run+0x1675
jscript.dll!ScrFncObj::Call+0x8d
jscript.dll!NameTbl::InvokeInternal+0x40
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeByDispID+0xfd
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeByName+0x165
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeDispName+0x43
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeByDispID+0xb9
jscript.dll!CScriptRuntime::Run+0x1675
jscript.dll!ScrFncObj::Call+0x8d
jscript.dll!NameTbl::InvokeInternal+0x40
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeByDispID+0xfd
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeByName+0x165
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeDispName+0x43
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeByDispID+0xb9
jscript.dll!CScriptRuntime::Run+0x16c9
jscript.dll!ScrFncObj::Call+0x8d
jscript.dll!NameTbl::InvokeInternal+0x40
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeByDispID+0xfd
jscript.dll!JsFncApply+0xc4
jscript.dll!NatFncObj::Call+0x41
jscript.dll!NameTbl::InvokeInternal+0x40
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeByDispID+0xfd
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeByName+0x165
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeDispName+0x43
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeByDispID+0xb9
jscript.dll!CScriptRuntime::Run+0x1675
jscript.dll!ScrFncObj::Call+0x8d
jscript.dll!NameTbl::InvokeInternal+0x40
jscript.dll!VAR::InvokeByDispID+0xfd
jscript.dll!CScriptRuntime::Run+0x16c9
jscript.dll!ScrFncObj::Call+0x8d
jscript.dll!CSession::Execute+0xa1
jscript.dll!NameTbl::InvokeDef+0x179
jscript.dll!NameTbl::InvokeEx+0xcb
mshtml.dll+0x2234
mshtml.dll!DllGetClassObject+0x24151
mshtml.dll!DllGetClassObject+0x77fb6
mshtml.dll!DllGetClassObject+0x7925f
mshtml.dll!DllGetClassObject+0x6f679
mshtml.dll!DllGetClassObject+0x9f5de
mshtml.dll!DllGetClassObject+0xb63c7
USER32.dll!InternalCallWinProc+0x28
USER32.dll!UserCallWinProcCheckWow+0x150
USER32.dll!DispatchMessageWorker+0x306
USER32.dll!DispatchMessageW+0xf
avant.exe+0x5df02
avant.exe+0x5df5b
avant.exe+0x39941f

Anyone know what precisely mtpstoolkit is a part of?

»

Using Process Monitor to Troubleshoot Internet Explorer 7 Performance Issues

[Added 2007-01-18: Fix Available for Performance Problems with Internet Explorer 7's Phishing Filter ...]

Previously, I wrote about sluggish behavior with Internet Explorer 7. I had used Process Explorer to help pinpoint the cause of the sluggishness - in this case, it was Internet Explorer 7's (anti)phishing filter. I could also have used a relatively new tool from Microsoft's Windows Sysinternals - Process Monitor.

In Process Monitor, it is easy to get inundated with all of the data that the tool collects. Filters are very critical to enabling one to find the desired information, and the implementation of filters in Process Monitor is top notch. For this exercise, after starting Process Monitor and checking "Generate Profiling Events" on the "Options" menu, I captured events while exercising the web application with the Phishing Filter set to "Turn off automatic website checking" and "Enabled" for the Security zone the web application was in. After capturing events for a minute or so, I set the following filters:
-Process Name is iexplore.exe then Include
-Event Class is Registry then Exclude
-Event Class is File System then Exclude
-Event Class is Process then Exclude

This displayed all "profiling" events for the iexplore.exe process. I double-clicked an event to bring up the "Event Properties" dialog and clicked on the "Stack" tab, which had the following information:

ntdll.dll!KiFastSystemCallRet
kernel32.dll!WaitForSingleObject + 0x12
ole32.dll!GetToSTA + 0x6f
ole32.dll!CRpcChannelBuffer::SwitchAptAndDispatchCall + 0xf6
ole32.dll!CRpcChannelBuffer::SendReceive2 + 0xb9
ole32.dll!CAptRpcChnl::SendReceive + 0xab
ole32.dll!CCtxComChnl::SendReceive + 0x113
RPCRT4.dll!NdrProxySendReceive + 0x43
RPCRT4.dll!NdrClientCall2 + 0x1fa
OLEAUT32.dll!IDispatch_RemoteInvoke_Proxy + 0x1b
OLEAUT32.dll!IDispatch_Invoke_Proxy + 0xb6
ieapfltr.dll!ATL::CComPtr::GetProperty + 0x56
ieapfltr.dll!FieldContainer::VisitInput + 0x1b9
ieapfltr.dll!FieldContainer::VisitAllElements + 0x21d
ieapfltr.dll!FieldContainer::ExtractFieldCount + 0x10e
ieapfltr.dll!FieldContainer::InitFieldCount + 0x9
ieapfltr.dll!PageDetails::Init + 0x315
ieapfltr.dll!PageDetails::Factory + 0x59
ieapfltr.dll!HeuristicsFeatures::InnerExecute + 0x15b
ieapfltr.dll!HeuristicsFeatures::Execute + 0x55
ieapfltr.dll!ProcessingThread::RunPageAnalysis + 0x1b4
ieapfltr.dll!ProcessingThread::RunUrlAndPageAnalysis + 0xdb
ieapfltr.dll!ProcessingThread::Analyze + 0xd3
ieapfltr.dll!ProcessingThread::AnalyzeFrame + 0x249
ieapfltr.dll!ProcessingThread::EnumerateFrames + 0x2e5
ieapfltr.dll!ProcessingThread::EnumerateFrames + 0x249
ieapfltr.dll!ProcessingThread::Evaluate + 0x1ec
ieapfltr.dll!ProcessingThread::Execute + 0x78
ieapfltr.dll!ProcessingThread::Process + 0x24e
ieapfltr.dll!ProcessingThread::Start + 0x72
ieapfltr.dll!Evaluator::ContinueProcessing + 0x21f
ieapfltr.dll!Evaluator::ContinueProcessingWrapper + 0x21
ntdll.dll!RtlpWorkerCallout + 0x70
ntdll.dll!RtlpExecuteWorkerRequest + 0x1a
ntdll.dll!RtlpApcCallout + 0x11
ntdll.dll!RtlpWorkerThread + 0x87
kernel32.dll!BaseThreadStart + 0x37

With this information from Process Monitor, one could come to a similar conclusion - the Phishing Filter in Internet Explorer 7 seems to cause Internet Explorer 7's performance to degrade in certain environments.

»

The Case of the Sluggish Internet Explorer 7

[Added 2007-01-18: Fix Available for Performance Problems with Internet Explorer 7's Phishing Filter ...]

I like Internet Explorer 7. I've installed it many, many times and on
many systems. I've never had a problem with it. That is, until I had to spend some time working with a web-based application on an Intranet. I had to go through several iterations of repetetive steps in this application. It was the kind of work where it would have been more fun to write a program to achieve the end result, but it would probably have taken more time to write the program than it would to go through the tedious process. That, and the fact that I didn't immediately have access to some of the information that would be required to write the app, prevented me from taking the fun route. So I was stuck copying, clicking, pasting, and... WAITING.

The problem wasn't the responsiveness of the web server - the problem was localized to my system. As I was working on a laptop, I could hear the fan kick into high gear as CPU utilization hit 100%... and stayed there. When I paused for a bit, the CPU usage went back down. So, interacting with the web application was causing the behavior. The task took about 90 minutes to complete, and when I was done, Process Explorer showed iexplore.exe as having used nearly 90 minutes of CPU time. I didn't have this problem with Internet Explorer 6! In communicating with the vendor of the web application, they indicated that they hadn't had problems of this sort in any of their experiences with IE7 or with other customers.

I surmised that there was likely a setting in Internet Explorer 7 that was affecting the performance. But IE7 has no shortage of settings, and to try each one was not a task that I wanted to undertake. I fired up IE7, loaded the web-based app, and started working. Then, while the CPU was taxed, I went to Process Explorer, hit the properties of the iexplore.exe process, and checked the "Threads" tab. There were 89 threads, most having a start address of "ndtll.dll!RtlpWorkerThread", and all vying for CPU time. It appeared that a new thread was created for each request that was made, which seems rather "wasteful". At any rate, RtlpWorkerThread is a private "run-time library" worker thread threadproc function, presumably the threadproc used when one uses the Thread Pool API. The stack of one of these threads at the point that I captured it (obtained with Process Explorer and properly configured debugging symbols) is rather deep:

ntkrnlpa.exe!KiSwapContext+0x2e
ntkrnlpa.exe!KiSwapThread+0x46
ntkrnlpa.exe!KeWaitForMultipleObjects+0x284
ntkrnlpa.exe!NtWaitForMultipleObjects+0x2a2
ntkrnlpa.exe!KiFastCallEntry+0xf8
ntdll.dll!KiFastSystemCallRet
ntdll.dll!ZwWaitForMultipleObjects+0xc
kernel32.dll!WaitForMultipleObjectsEx+0x12c
ole32.dll!CoWaitForMultipleHandles+0x100
ieapfltr.dll!AntiPhishingMutex::AntiPhishingMutex+0x91
ieapfltr.dll!AntiPhishingHashTable::Find+0xaf
ieapfltr.dll!CacheManager::FindUrlInUrsCache+0xa5
ieapfltr.dll!AntiPhishDataSeeker::MatchRollUps+0x2cf
ieapfltr.dll!AntiPhishDataSeeker::MatchRollUpsInCache+0x43
ieapfltr.dll!AntiPhishDataSeeker::FindOMOTarget+0x2d
ieapfltr.dll!PageDetails::CountTargetRollups+0x34
ieapfltr.dll!PageDetails::Init+0x1da
ieapfltr.dll!PageDetails::Factory+0x59
ieapfltr.dll!HeuristicsFeatures::InnerExecute+0x15b
ieapfltr.dll!HeuristicsFeatures::Execute+0x55
ieapfltr.dll!ProcessingThread::RunPageAnalysis+0x1b4
ieapfltr.dll!ProcessingThread::RunUrlAndPageAnalysis+0xdb
ieapfltr.dll!ProcessingThread::Analyze+0xd3
ieapfltr.dll!ProcessingThread::AnalyzeFrame+0x249
ieapfltr.dll!ProcessingThread::EnumerateFrames+0x2e5
ieapfltr.dll!ProcessingThread::EnumerateFrames+0x249
ieapfltr.dll!ProcessingThread::Evaluate+0x1ec
ieapfltr.dll!ProcessingThread::Execute+0x78
ieapfltr.dll!ProcessingThread::Process+0x24e
ieapfltr.dll!ProcessingThread::Start+0x72
ieapfltr.dll!Evaluator::ContinueProcessing+0x21f
ieapfltr.dll!Evaluator::ContinueProcessingWrapper+0x21
ntdll.dll!RtlpWorkerCallout+0x70
ntdll.dll!RtlpExecuteWorkerRequest+0x1a
ntdll.dll!RtlpApcCallout+0x11
ntdll.dll!RtlpWorkerThread+0x87
kernel32.dll!BaseThreadStart+0x37

As you can see, after the thread pool plumbing is out of the way, the first function in the stack is ieapfltr.dll!Evaluator::ContinueProcessingWrapper - a function in ieapfltr.dll. ieapfltr.dll describes itself as "Microsoft Phishing Filter", though I suspect IEAP is an acronym for Internet Explorer Anti-Phishing. At any rate, it certainly seemed that the settings surrounding the (anti)phishing filter would be a good place to start.

I went into "Internet Options" in the Control Panel (Start Run inetcpl.cpl) and hit the "Advanced" tab. Toward the bottom was a setting for the Phishing Filter where there were three options:
-Disable Phishing Filter
-Turn off automatic website checking
-Turn on automatic website checking

Mine was set to "Turn off automatic website checking". I changed it to "Disable Phishing Filter" and hit OK, and re-tried the web application. The application was responsive as ever, and the "excess" threads that were previously being created were nowhere to be seen. Changing the setting back to "Turn off automatic website checking", and hitting the web application again caused iexplore.exe to consume as much of the CPU as it could. It appeared that I found the cause of the sluggish performance.

It is worth noting that in the "Internet Options", on the Security tab, each Internet Explorer Zone has its own setting for the Phishing Filter. If one selects a Zone, and clicks the "Custom level..." button, about 75% of the way down is a setting for "Use Phishing Filter" that has 2 options - Disable or Enable. The setting on the Advanced tab overrides this - if the Security zone setting is set to "Enable" and the Advanced setting is set to "Disable Phishing Filter", the Phishing Filter is disabled for all zones. However, if the Advanced setting is set to "Turn off automatic website checking" or "Turn on automatic website checking", one can exercise more granular control over each Security zone by choosing to enable / disable the filter where it makes sense.

»

Driver Framework Resources

Finally got through watching some good overview videos on MSDN's Channel 9.

Doron Holan talks about the Kernel Mode Driver Framework (KMDF) in this Channel 9 Video Segment. Check out the state machine diagrams!

Peter Wieland goes over the User Mode Driver Framework (UMDF) in this video segment. There's even some discussion about writing a driver with managed code (C# / VB.NET).

»

How DOES this warrant a KB article?

In How does this warrant a KB article?, I pondered the existence of a Microsoft KnowledgeBase article that discussed how to set the SmtpMail.SmtpServer property of the System.Web.SmtpMail class.

In my travels, I encountered a blog posting in the "The CDOs and CDONTS of Messaging Development" blog - MYTH: SmtpMail.SmtpServer.Insert(0,"127.0.0.1") Actually Does Something. This posting is interesting because it's possible that it prompted the aforementioned KB article (922777: You receive an error message when you try to send an e-mail message by using the System.Web.Mail namespace in the .NET Framework 1.0). It's also interesting because it talks about the source of the infamous code - a Code Project article.

»

Brief Frustration With Global.asax

It was maddening, I tell you. I like to write C# code in a C# source file, not inline in a script tag. So I went about modifying Global.asax to allow me to do so:

<%@ Application language="C#" CodeBehind="Global.asax.cs" Inherits="Global" %>

I then went about defining a class called "Global" in Global.asax.cs. I added the code I needed and proceeded to build the ASP.NET app in Visual Studio 2005. But I got an error:

Global.asax(1): Build (web): Could not load type 'Global'.

Of course, I was perplexed. Why not? Why couldn't the type be loaded?
I thought for a bit, but then went about doing some more coding. Eventually, I had to address the problem, though. How? On a whim I placed Global.asax.cs in the App_Code ASP.NET folder. Once I did that, I was able to build the app.

»

Microsoft / Sysinternals Process Monitor

Microsoft / Sysinternals recently released a new tool named "Process Monitor" (that Mark Russinovich has talked about for over a year). Process Monitor blows FileMon and RegMon (great tools in their own rite) out of the water with a well thought out filtering mechanism and NON DESTRUCTIVE filters! Filtering data no longer destroys the original! Now, since all events are captured, the amount of disk space required to store the events can grow quickly - it's easy to get a few GB of data in a short amount of time - but the data can be captured and stored for later analysis. There are plenty of other features in Process Monitor including the ability to get the FULL stack (userland and kernel!) of a thread at the time of an event, the ability to organize and persist filter sets, highlighting, and more. Thanks Mark & Bryce / Microsoft!

Note that Process Monitor does require a "modern" operating system - Windows XP SP2 or later, Windows Server 2003 SP1, Windows 2000 SP4 with Update Rollup 1, Vista, and x64 versions of XP, Server 2003 SP1, and Vista. Some people have issues with this, but the requirements are not arbitrary. Bryce explains a bit here.

»

Microsoft Vista and Application Compatibility

There's an article entitled "Inside the New Microsoft Application Compatibility Toolkit" on TechNet that (surprise!) discusses some things about compatibility of applications running on Vista. It provides a good overview of some of the changes that can affect compatibility and some of the progress that has been made with Vista. For example, Windows Resource Protection redirects / sandboxes file and registry accesses to resources that the app wouldn't generally have permissions to when run under a standard account. The changes aren't persisted across invocations of the application, but nonetheless it could enable apps to work under a standard account when they previously were "admin or bust".

The article also discusses how to go about analyzing the applications running on one's computers and assessing the compatibility impact. There is a central database of applications called the "Microsoft Compatibility Exchange" which contains information provided by other community members about the compatibility "levels" of various applications. I like the idea of leveraging community experiences for the benefit of all.

The "Application Compatibility Toolkit" has other capabilities that are touched on in the article and are described in more detail in the documentation that accompanies the toolkit and at the Windows Application Compatibility website.

»

Physician, Heal Thyself

I was working on a system that was suspected of being infested with malware. Sadly, it was clean - the flakiness was caused by all of the security utilities and software that had been installed on the system. But that's a rant for a different day. In the process of dealing with the system, an application crashed. I don't recall specifically what it was, but whilst gathering information about the crash, Dr. Watson had some problems himself. The good doctor just couldn't cope, apparently.

I cracked open Process Explorer and looked at the process hierarchy. It seemed a bit odd to have Dr. Watson spawn Dr. Watson (drwtsn32.exe was the parent of drwtsn32.exe).

I love the standard wording: "DrWatson Postmortem Debugger has encountered a problem and needs to close. We are sorry for the inconvenience."

I think in this case I chose to send the error report to Microsoft. =8->

»

Key Containers and Visual Studio 2005: What's Microsoft Trying To Say?

As noted in Signing Assemblies in Visual Studio 2005 with Key Containers, Visual Studio 2005 doesn't exactly deal well with key containers (there's no way to use the UI to specify one, as one can do with key files).

And when I was exploring Web Deployment Projects, I was reviewing "Managing ASP.NET Precompiled Output for Deployment Using the aspnet_merge.exe Command" (aspnet_merge.exe is used by Web Deployment Projects to combine the assemblies produced by aspnet_compiler.exe). That article states that "...you can use the following options with aspnet_merge.exe: -keyfile, -keyContainer, or -delaysign...". I'm a strong advocate of signing assemblies. While there may not be a strong (ha, ha) case for doing it in this instance, it at least provides some level of assurance that the code deployed is truly the code that is supposed to be running. And I prefer key containers to key files. So given the way that specifying a key container works in Visual Studio 2005, I was excited to see that aspnet_merge.exe supported key containers.

Then I checked out the Web Deployment Project property pages. The Signing tab had a place to specify a key file location, but no way to specify a key container.



Argh! Here we go again, I thought. So I went about the process of trying to tear up the .WDPROJ file that is the Visual Studio 2005 project file for Web Deployment Projects. I tried the same technique that worked for .CSPROJ files, but that didn't work. I checked Microsoft.WebDeployment.targets in %programfiles%\MSBuild\Microsoft\WebDeployment\v8.0 to see if there was some way to specify a key container there. I couldn't find anything for key containers, but there were certainly ways to specify a key file and that the merged assembly should be delay signed. Dead end there.

Next I cracked open Reflector and inspected Microsoft.WebDeployment.Tasks.dll (also from %programfiles%\MSBuild\Microsoft\WebDeployment\v8.0). In that assembly, there is a class named "AspNetMerge" that implements the merge task as instructed by MSBuild. (The class inherits from Microsoft.Build.Utilities.ToolTask.) The "AspNetMerge" class has the following private fields (as reported by Reflector):

    private string _applicationPath;
    private string _assemblyInfo;
    private string _contentAssemblyName;
    private bool _copyAttributes;
    private bool _debug;
    private bool _delaySign;
    private bool _errorStack;
    private string _exePath;
    private string _keyFile;
    private string _logErrorFile;
    private bool _mergeXmlDocs;
    private bool _nologo;
    private string _prefix;
    private bool _removeCompiledFiles;
    private string _singleAssemblyName

Sigh. A setting for a key container name is nowhere to be found. If the tool doesn't support key containers, no amount of creative configuration will get it there.

The next thing I did, in retrospect, was probably the first thing I should have done:

aspnet_merge -?

In short, aspnet_merge only supports the following parameters:

• -?
• applicationPath
• -keyfile
• -delaysign
• -o
• -w
• -prefix
• -copyattrs
• -debug
• -nologo
• -errorstack
• -r
• -xmldocs
• -a
• -log

Aspnet_merge.exe does NOT support the -keycontainer option, as the "Managing ASP.NET Precompiled Output for Deployment Using the aspnet_merge.exe Command" article had stated.

So, given that there's no way to use a Web Deployment Project / aspnet_merge.exe to use a key container to sign an assembly, and one needs to edit the raw .CSPROJ file to get VS2005 to use a key container to sign an assembly, it seems that Microsoft is trying to say something about key containers.

I wouldn't be surprised to see key containers completely dropped in Orcas...

Deploying ASP.NET 2.0 Applications

I was recently exploring deployment options for ASP.NET applications and I encountered a couple of Visual Studio 2005 add-ons - Visual Studio 2005 Web Deployment Projects and Visual Studio 2005 Web Application Projects. I could go into some detail about each of these post-Visual Studio 2005 release features, but Rick Strahl's got it covered with an extensive article entitled Compilation and Deployment in ASP.NET 2.0.

Visual Studio 2005 Web Application Projects bring ASP.NET 1.x style deployment capabilities (website compiles to an assembly at build time for later deployment with the display-side components compiled when accessed at runtime). Visual Studio 2005 Web Deployment Projects allow one to manage web application build configuration and deployment options, and provide a tool to merge multiple assemblies into one. This allows one to, if desired and configured, deploy a web application rolled up into one assembly and a number of "marker" files. Display-side components can even be compiled into the assembly. Note that other assemblies that the web application depends on - such as assemblies from the Enterprise Library - and other resource files such as images also need to be deployed. One could potentially use ILMerge (here and here) to merge all required assemblies into one, if that was important.

I really like the idea of minimizing the number of files that need to be deployed to a web server so I hope to work with Web Deployment Projects and Web Application Projects more in the future.

Determining System Uptime, and A Bit More

I'm probably being way too picky here.

A new Community Solutions article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base entitled How to find Windows uptime? has been posted. The article is short (four steps and a summary for Option 1), but from my perspective this short article has a couple of errors, and / or at least could be a bit clearer.

While I know what is meant by uptime (how long the computer has been "up" or running), someone looking for this information may not know that's what to call it or what it might mean, so in the event they are able to find the article they may gloss over it because they don't recognize the term. Perhaps a brief description of what is meant by "uptime" in the context of this article would be appropriate.

Further, the steps detailed in the article (basically, instructions on how to run a command - net statistics server - and then parse the output) don't provide one with the information the article indicates will be provided. Granted, this is likely an academic detail, but the command really displays the amount of time that the Server service has been running - not the amount of time that the computer has been up. It is possible (but admittedly not all that likely) that the Server service has been restarted since the computer was booted.

As an alternative, I might suggest using Process Explorer. (Boy, it seems that I've been pushing PE a lot lately. Oh well. It's a great tool.) One can get a pretty good figure on the system uptime by examining the start time of the Session Manager process - smss.exe. Smss.exe is the first user-mode process created when the system boots. It is created by Ntoskrnl.exe and is a purely native application - it doesn't use Windows APIs. Instead, it uses what is known as the Windows Native API. An overview of the Native API can be found on the Sysinternals site at Inside the Native API. Gary Nebbett also wrote the book on the Native API - Windows NT/2000 Native API Reference.

Process Explorer and Different Versions of the .NET Framework

Previously, I had discussed an enhancement to Process Explorer that would allow it to identify / indicate what version of the .NET Framework a process had loaded. I have submitted this as a feature request on Sysinternals Forums (here and here).

Process Explorer and Vista's Protected Processes

FWIW, on Sysinternals Forums I have submitted a feature request (here and here) for Process Explorer to be able to identify "Protected Processes" in Vista.

Not much discussion on it yet, though...

Idea for Process Explorer Enhancement

In a recent blog entry's exploration, I was determining which ".NET" processes were using what versions of the .NET Framework. The method that I was using for this was to find the ".NET processes" in Process Explorer (highlighted in Yellow by default) and either note the version of MSCOREE.DLL, or check the path of DLLs that are loaded into the process' address space - if %WINDIR%\Assembly and 2.0.0.0 or 2.0.50727 show up, the process is using the .NET Framework 2.0. Substitute appropriate version numbers for other versions of the .NET Framework.

Then, because I'm lazy, I started thinking... what if Process Explorer could tell me this information without me having to dig a little bit for it? Process Explorer could highlight processes, using a configurable color, to indicate the version of the .NET Framework the process is using. E.g., processes with DLLs from the .NET Framework 1.1 would be highlighted in yellow, processes with DLLs from the .NET Framework 2.0 would be highlighted in blue, etc. By default, the colors could all be set to yellow, but the user could specify their own color for each version of the .NET Framework.

Another consideration might be to add this information in a column that can be displayed in the upper pane of Process Explorer.

Force an App to Use a Specific Version of the .NET Framework

I was whipping through the list of processes in Process Explorer that were ".NET" processes (processes that had some version of MSCOREE.DLL loaded into their address space). I'm still under ten, out of 75 processes total. I was curious as to what versions of the .NET Framework were being used as I had 1.0, 1.1 SP1, and 2.0 installed.

As How to: Use an Application Configuration File to Target a .NET Framework Version states, by default an application will run on the version of the .NET Framework that the application was built on, if it is present on the computer.

Most ".NET" processes were using the .NET Framework 2.0, which is what I expected. But two were using version 1.1. Since many / most apps should work fine with any "future" version of the .NET Framework (it's supposed to be backwards compatible) I thought I would try running them against the .NET Framework 2.0. The apps in question are SharpReader (0.9.7.0) and Red Gate Software's FREE SQL Prompt 2.0.

To get the apps to run against the .NET Framework 2.0, I simply added the supportedRuntime element to the startup section in the app's app.config file (progname.exe.config). At its most basic (for this purpose) the config file would look something like:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<configuration>
    <startup>
        <supportedRuntime version="v2.0.50727" />
    </startup>
</configuration>

After making or changing the app config files for SharpReader and SQL Prompt, I ran the applications. Without extensive testing, the apps appear to be running and functioning just fine while using the .NET Framework 2.0.

Yet Another Potential Resolution for Error 0x8ddd0009 from Windows Update / Microsoft Update

[See the sidebar at the right on the entry page for more links to information about error 0x8ddd0009 and Microsoft Update / Windows Update.]

Microsoft released Knowledge Base article 916089, FIX: The computer may stop responding for 40 or more seconds when you run a scan for updates or when you try to apply an update on Windows Server 2003, on Windows XP, or on Windows 2000. As many people report an unresponsive system and high CPU utilization prior to receiving the 0x8ddd0009 error from Microsoft Update / Windows Update, it stands to reason that applying the hotfix presented in the article may be of help to some people.

Unfortunately, the hotfix requires one to contact Product Support Services.

The culprit appears to be Windows Installer. Windows Installer 3.1 v2 is a prerequisite, and the only file included in the hotfix is MSI.DLL (dated October 2006).

The KB article states:

This update decreases the duration of a scan that uses the Windows Update Agent. However, a scan is still a CPU-intensive operation. The Svchost.exe process contains the Automatic Updates service. When you perform a scan, the Svchost.exe process can cause CPU utilization to reach 100 percent for a prolonged time. For example, Microsoft Office updates use Windows Installer. When Microsoft Office updates are detected, these updates can contribute to 100 percent CPU utilization for a prolonged time.

If you try this update and it helps, please post a comment about your experience!

How do you apologize to an audience that's not likely to see the apology?

Sigh.

To all that are not finding what they're looking for because they were directed to what is now a non-existent page on the TechRepublic site, I apologize. I understand that you may not find this apology, but what else can I do?

TechRepublic has gone and decided to do away with Member Blogs. I received the following email on 2006-10-03:

TechRepublic Blogger:

As many of you know, we are preparing to launch a new version TechRepublic. This revamp brings a fresh new look-and-feel to the site as well as improvements to features and functionality.

http://techrepublic.com.com/html/tr/preview/updated_TechRepublic.html

The process of revamping the site forced us to make some tough decisions about which features we would support going forward. Unfortunately, our member blogging feature didn't make the cut. So, with the launch of the revamp, we will be changing our approach to blogging on TechRepublic. Instead of giving every member the option to blog individually, we will be building a dozen or so topical blogs that have multiple contributors.

Starting next week, member blogs will no longer be available on TechRepublic. THIS MEANS THAT YOUR BLOG POSTS WILL NO LONGER APPEAR ON THE SITE AFTER THE LAUNCH. We apologize for any inconvenience that this causes; however, we feel that our new approach to blogging will better serve all of the members of TechRepublic.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns you may have.

Sincerely,

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Morton
Site Manager - TechRepublic, CNET Networks

So, they're basically pulling my TR blog. That's fine, I guess - the blogging software sucked (it wouldn't work well with IE, it couldn't / refused to pull from the atom feed here, etc). But I wish they could account for the fact that they're effectively breaking links. Redirect people somewhere useful (perhaps this blog) when they go to my old TR blog. Or let me put up a message. Something. Now, you (usually) just get barfed out to the root topical blog collection they've started. Some of the old blog content is still accessible but I suspect that as they continue on with their site mods that stuff will be pulled.

So again, if you went to TR looking for something and couldn't find it, I'm sorry.

On a brighter note, at least I didn't have all of my eggs in one basket...

Using the Command Prompt with Network Drives

I've been using the command prompt with mapped network drives lately. I usually set up my PROMPT so that the UNC path that the drive letter represents displays, along with the normal prompt info. There are a couple of ways to do this. It can be accomplished on an ad hoc basis by simply entering set PROMPT=$M$P$G at the command prompt. The prompt will change to something like \\server\share\foldername X:\> when one is on a mapped drive. One could further simplify this by putting it into a batch file and running it when necessary.

Of course, setting the prompt to this doesn't hurt anything, so why not make it a bit more permanent? One can use the "System Properties" to get to the "Environment Variables" on the "Advanced" tab (in XP, at least). From there, set either a USER (applies to the user currently logged on) or SYSTEM (applies to all users) variable named "PROMPT" to $M$P$G.

I also usually prepend $+ to my PROMPT. This adds one '+' character to the front of the prompt for each level into the PUSHD stack that one is. PUSHD / POPD are commands that can be used to push / pop directories to / from a stack of directories that the command prompt keeps for you. If you're 10 folder levels deep and need to bounce to \TEMP, PUSHD to \temp (PUSHD C:\TEMP) and do your work. When you're done, POPD and you'll be back to the folder that's 10 levels deep. With $+ in the PROMPT ($+$M$P$G), the prompt will look like ++\\server\share\foldername X:\> when the "PUSHD" command has been executed twice without POPDing.

Attacking DCOM with Metasploit

EthicalHacker.net has a pretty cool video showing how to use Metasploit's Meterpreter to launch a DCOM attack.

Using COM in UMDF Drivers

On WHDC Microsoft has posted A COM QuickStart for UMDF Developers. The document goes over some high-level COM details as they apply to use in the user-mode driver framework.

The COM run time is not used. Rather, the core COM programming model is used to make programming the drivers easier. It is naturally expected that C++ will be used to write the UMDF drivers, though C can be used at the expense of simplicity / convenience. Of course, if past experience is any indication reference counting will likely be a sore spot...

Windows Vista and Protected Processes

On WHDC, Microsoft has a document entitled "Protected Processes in Windows Vista". While I'm not yet living in Vista-land (though I do visit at least weekly), I don't have my head buried in the sand, either. But I can honestly say that this is the first I've heard about this new type of process introduced in Vista. The new type of process was created "to enhance support for digital rights management functionality in Windows Vista". Heh heh. Seems a bit interesting that DRM is specified as the the driving force behind this.

Anyway, the paper outlines what one can and cannot do with protected processes (from the perspective of utility software that does process reporting and other interaction with processes running on the system). There's really only 3 pages of meat in the document, but it seems like a good overview.

The paper states that "...due to the restrictions of running inside a protected process, the operating system requires that these processes be specially signed". That's a good thing... Imagine malware running as a protected process. Blech.

I'm probably being too literal here, but does the process need to be signed, or is it the binary image on disk that needs to be signed? And what is meant by "specially signed"? Is that something different from the standard implied meaning?

And that statement makes me wonder further - there are restrictions on running inside a protected process? The paper also states that the "primary difference between a typical process and a protected process is the level of access that other processes in the system can obtain to protected processes". This seems contrary to the previous statement. However since the paper is about interacting with protected processes, rather than restrictions that may be imposed upon code running in the context of a protected process, the answers will have to come from elsewhere.

Protected process can pose a "problem if memory scanning is critical to the operation of the application [that wishes to interact with protected processes]". Should be interesting to see how vendors of AV and other security software deal with this new class of process.

Another blurb at the bottom of the document caught my attention...

Do not attempt to circumvent this restriction by installing a kernel-mode component to access the memory of a protected process because the system and third-party applications may rely on the fact that protected processes are signed code that is run in a contained environment.

What? I'm ignorant. What does this mean: "may rely on the fact that protected processes...run in a contained environment". What happens if a kernel-mode component plays with "the memory of a protected process"? Nothing may happen now, but it could break things later? If anyone would care to provide clarification, I would appreciate it.

Also Channel 9 has a video on Process Management in Windows Vista which I have yet to find time to watch. The summary states:

Vista introduces a new type of process called a protected process. What are "protected processes"? How do they work?

I suspect that at least some of my questions will be answered there.

Doesn't look like Process Explorer yet detects / identifies protected processes. The feature isn't listed on the program page, and searches don't turn up much:
Google Search
Google Groups Search
Sysinternals Forums Search

0x8ddd0009 with Microsoft Update / Windows Update Redux: More fixes / workarounds...

[Added 2006-10-15: Another potential fix here...]

In addition to the potential solutions posted here, here, and here, the following are some additional things to try when battling the dreaded 0x8ddd0009 error from Windows Update / Microsoft Update. These suggestions come from comments that others have posted to the aforementioned blog entires, as well as new ideas compiled from various community discussions.

In many cases, update sessions that ultimately result in the 0x8ddd0009 error cause high CPU utilization prior to erroring out. There is suspicion that on older hardware, this can cause "time outs" or other undesirable quirks with the Windows Update / Microsoft Update services / websites. Presumably, pruning some of the applications and services that are running prior to attempting to use Windows Update / Microsoft Update can help in this. Disabling antivirus applications in particular (read on) seems to help. It may be that rebooting the system, exiting as many applications as possible (including those running in the systray, by the clock) when the system comes back up, and then stopping unnecessary services(*) before trying Windows Update / Microsoft Update will do the trick for some people.
* - Of course, it helps to know what services are necessary and what services are merely "nice to have". The following may be of some assistance in determining this. Note that I have NOT reviewed these links; I encountered them when trying to determine what happened to BlackViper's site (blackviper.com); appears he forgot to pay his domain name registration fee and lost it... You may have some luck with Archive.org's archives of the site... Anyway, on to the links:
Services Guide for Windows XP
Windows XP Services Tweak Guide
Windows 2000 Services Tweak guide

One person reported that uninstalling the .NET Framework 2.0 and rebooting took care of the problem.

Another reported that registering / re-registering various components did the trick. The following can be executed from a Command Prompt (Start -> Run -> CMD.EXE):
net stop wuauserv
regsvr32 wuapi.dll
regsvr32 wups.dll
regsvr32 wuaueng.dll
regsvr32 wuaueng1.dll
regsvr32 wucltui.dll
regsvr32 wuweb.dll
regsvr32 MSXML3.dll
regsvr32 qmgr.dll
regsvr32 qmgrprxy.dll
regsvr32 jscript.dll
net start wuauserv

Someone else backed off some of the changes recently introduced to a system, and that enabled Windows Update / Microsoft Update to run successfully - changing the resolution back to 800x600 from 1024x768, and disabling the real-time scanning function of the newly installed anti-virus software did the trick. No word on what AV software was involved...

Another person reported that shutting down services related to McAfee antivirus and using the "Custom" update feature on Microsoft Update enabled him to successfully update his system.

Selectively installing larger items (OS Service Packs, IE, .NET Framework, DirectX, etc) outside of Windows Update / Microsoft Update, and coming back to the Windows Update / Microsoft Update services for the smaller patches worked for another individual.

Hope this update provides additional things to try for those that have tried the things listed here, here, and here.

SOFTWARE_NX_FAULT - ExceptionInformation[0] for 0xc0000005 can be 0, 1, or... 8?

Hmmm...

I noticed this when digging through the dump of an Outlook 2003 crash... EXCEPTION_RECORD.ExceptionInformation[0] for EXCEPTION_RECORD.ExceptionCode == EXCEPTION_ACCESS_VIOLATION can have a value other than 0 or 1... From the EXCEPTION_RECORD documentation:

If this value is 8, the thread causes a user-mode data execution prevention (DEP) violation.

From the Outlook crash dump:
EXCEPTION_RECORD: ffffffff -- (.exr ffffffffffffffff)
ExceptionAddress: 124132d5 (<mytilus.dll>+0x000132d5)
ExceptionCode: c0000005 (Access violation)
ExceptionFlags: 00000000
NumberParameters: 2
Parameter[0]: 00000008
Parameter[1]: 124132d5
Attempt to execute non-executable address 124132d5

DEFAULT_BUCKET_ID: SOFTWARE_NX_FAULT

Blue Screen Of Death: 0x0000007E

Something happened the other day and I was quite surprised by it. I hadn't really noticed how long it had been since I'd experienced a BSOD until there it was, staring me in the face.
0x0000007E (SYSTEM_THREAD_EXCEPTION_NOT_HANDLED).
I wasn't doing anything special - the system wasn't starting up or shutting down, and I wasn't using any exotic hardware or software. Just a flash of the screen, and then FLOOP! BSOD.

I let KeBugCheckEx write out the kernel memory dump, and rebooted. SaveDump did its thing and I tossed Memory.DMP into WinDbg. I'm not very proficient with WinDbg, but WinDbg makes analyzing most crash dumps (that I've run across, at least) rather trivial.

!analyze -v

That's all you need to know.

For my BSOD, WinDbg told me that the likely culprit was HCMON.SYS, which (indirectly) caused an access violation (0xc0000005) when an attempt was made to write to 0x2dc22865.

A search of %windir%\system32\drivers shows that HCMON.SYS is a component of VMware Workstation (and likely VMware Player, and...). The Version Resource of HCMON.SYS indicates that it is the "VMware USB monitor". Of course, I had recently upgraded to VMware Workstation 5.5.2, which was released on 2006-08-10. The timestamp on HCMON.SYS was 2006-08-04.

I don't know if a problem was introduced in the new version of VMware Workstation, or if the fact that a VMware component was implicated in a BSOD that took place shortly after the component was upgraded is merely a coincidence, but it sure is nice to be able to identify the source of the BSOD. If it continues to be a problem, I know where to go...

Cause of regular Outlook 2003 crash...

[2006-09-29: Related post here...]

Found out what was causing my Outlook crash today. MYTILUS.DLL, which happens to be the "Common Shell - Scanners' interface to the engine" part of Network Associates' McAfee VirusScan product, is regularly causing an access violation / SOFTWARE_NX_FAULT (Software-enforced no-execute / DEP fault).

Sigh. At least it only happens when I'm shutting Outlook down.