Re: full trus and 1.1 SP1

From: Nicole Calinoiu (calinoiu)
Date: 03/21/05

  • Next message: Jake Holt: "Automate CAS settings on Local Machines"
    Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:52:25 -0500
    
    

    Unless you have other policy changes that need to be preserved, it might be
    a good idea to reset your CAS policy to default settings in order to start
    from a "clean" configuration. To do this, launch the ".NET Framework 1.1
    Configuration" MSC, right-click on the "Runtime Security Policy" node, then
    select the "Reset All..." option from the shortcut menu. Before you perform
    the reset, you may want to back up your existing policy files in case there
    are other changes that should be conserved (or at least reproduced after the
    reset). For the locations of the configuration files, see
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/cpguide/html/cpconsecurityconfigurationfiles.asp.

    BTW, it may be useful to keep in mind that it's possible to instruct the
    .NET runtime to omit verification of execution permission (e.g.: caspol -e
    off) when launching code. If this option is in effect, it's reasonable to
    expect that an assembly with supposedly no permissions would be able to
    execute until it encounters a (link)demand for any code access permission.
    To verify whether the option to skip execution skipping is enabled, you can
    run caspol -l (the option status will be displayed at the start of the
    output), or read the value of the
    System.Security.SecurityManager.CheckExecutionRights property from managed
    code.

    HTH,
    Nicole

    "AndrewEames" <AndrewEames@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:7D0024C3-035A-40E3-B983-C6F71B193160@microsoft.com...
    > OK - I have a few different things going on here which appear to be
    > confusing
    > me.
    >
    > I definitely had the scenario described below where I had executed some
    > code
    > but later got a security exception saying I didnt have execute permission.
    > This was pretty weird and I can't reprodce this in a simple app
    >
    > I then realised that in the past I had trusted this assembly in various
    > ways
    > through the "trust my assembly wizard" It took me a little while to figure
    > out how to undo this - eventually I realized I had to delete the
    > codegroups
    > the wizard had generated - Wizard_0, Wizard_1, etc.
    >
    > I then discovered what looks like a bug to me - after removing the wizard
    > generated code groups, change the machine level security policy - these
    > wizard generated security groups magically reappear! (You have to close
    > and
    > then reopen the 1.1 .Net framework configuration wizard applet to see
    > this)
    >
    > So once I realised this was happening, I changed my machine level security
    > to medium trust and then deleted my magically recreated codegroups. Now in
    > this state, my test application behaves as I would expect and I can
    > successfully check for full trust. However, my real application won't
    > launch
    > and I get the exception
    >
    > An unhandled exception of type 'System.Security.SecurityException'
    > occurred
    > in Unknown Module.
    >
    > Additional information: Request for the permission of type
    > System.Security.Permissions.SecurityPermission, mscorlib,
    > Version=1.0.5000.0,
    > Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089 failed.
    >
    > Why might this be?
    >
    > Hope some of this makes sense :)
    > Anrew
    >
    > "Nicole Calinoiu" wrote:
    >
    >> "AndrewEames" <AndrewEames@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    >> news:B5DEB5D5-E5DB-4D4F-9F22-31AE8438A147@microsoft.com...
    >> >I just applied 1.1 SP1 and I am seeing some changes in behavior wrt.
    >> >security
    >> >
    >> > If I set my security level to no trust, my .NET application will now
    >> > actualy
    >> > execute until Application.Run (previously, it wouldn't even start up
    >> > without
    >> > execute permission)
    >>
    >> This seems rather unlikely. It might be a good idea to confirm whether
    >> your
    >> application is truly being granted no permissions at all
    >> (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/815170/EN-US/). If it really isn't
    >> being
    >> granted SecurityPermission\Execution, could you please post short but
    >> complete sample code (http://www.yoda.arachsys.com/csharp/complete.html)
    >> for
    >> an application that demonstrates this?
    >>
    >>
    >> > So great I thought - I can put up a friendly dialog for my users if I
    >> > dont
    >> > have full trust. so I added the following code
    >> >
    >> > PermissionSet fullTrust = new
    >> > PermissionSet(PermissionState.Unrestricted);
    >> > try
    >> > {
    >> > fullTrust.Demand();
    >> > }
    >> > catch(SecurityException)
    >> > {
    >> >
    >> > However, this demand succeeds even if I am running under no trust - why
    >> > is
    >> > this?
    >>
    >> Probably because the demand applies only to callers, but not to the
    >> method
    >> in which it is used. Try moving the demand into a separate method called
    >> from within your Main method.
    >>
    >>
    >> > Thanks
    >> > Andrew
    >> >
    >> >
    >>
    >>
    >>


  • Next message: Jake Holt: "Automate CAS settings on Local Machines"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: FOR A SKILLED IT EXPERT - WIN2K SERVER - DOMAIN CONTROLLER
      ... So then the policy is disallowing all login by all users at all machines? ... boots up on cached profile only) The interactive logon problem has applied ... manual security reset. ... If you had not tried the reset we could have pulled you out of this, ...
      (microsoft.public.win2000.security)
    • RE: Users are not authorized for remote login
      ... granted permission to connect to the server. ... the administrators group and Remote Desktop Users group have ... To connect to terminal server properly, users need to be granted the "Allow ... have higher priority and will override the configuration of local policy. ...
      (microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services)
    • RE: Users are not authorized for remote login
      ... granted permission to connect to the server. ... the administrators group and Remote Desktop Users group have ... To connect to terminal server properly, users need to be granted the "Allow ... have higher priority and will override the configuration of local policy. ...
      (microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services)
    • Re: FOR A SKILLED IT EXPERT - WIN2K SERVER - DOMAIN CONTROLLER
      ... The message is refering to the effective policy. ... the security. ... If you had not tried the reset we could have pulled you out of this, ... WHY WOULD THE SYSTEM DENY THE ADMINISTRATOR LOGON RIGHTS??? ...
      (microsoft.public.win2000.security)
    • [RFC][PATCH] Permission masking security module (was dpriv)
      ... Change the name to pmask (Permission Masking) ... Add a quota of 500 permission lines per policy ... new file mode 100644 ... - i.e. the security policy ...
      (Linux-Kernel)