Re: WriteProcessMemory

From: Sam Hobbs (samuel_at_social.rr.com_change_social_to_socal)
Date: 01/11/05 

Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 06:37:14 -0800

But that is ignored by Mick. You need to convince Mick and Megatron, not me.
I also pointed out the same thing as you and Pavel have, but unfortuntaely
they don't consider that to be relevant.

I assume you have not read the threads listed below in the other forums. It
is the first one, chronologically speaking, that I reply to Mick saying the
same thing that you are saying, but it has no affect.

I suppose I should go through my bookmarks to find other sample uses of
WriteProcessMemory and ReadProcessMemory for IPC, and research the subject
again to find other sample uses. I will post another reply with that.

"lelteto" <lelteto@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9FB9A519-F28D-4138-A080-B300FB375F79@microsoft.com...
> But Pavel's statement that these are DEBUG APIs are clearly in line with
> Microsoft (as these functions are listed under debugging in the SDK
> documentation).
>
> Laszlo Elteto
> SafeNet, Inc.
>
> "Sam Hobbs" wrote:
>
>> Thank you again.
>>
>> Since you are not a Microsoft representative, I will not assume that
>> your
>> opinion is representative of their opinion.
>>
>>
>> "Pavel Lebedinsky" <m_pll at hotmail com> wrote in message
>> news:%23pffQof9EHA.2804@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> > Read/WriteProcessMemory are already documented as debugging
>> > APIs:
>> >
>> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/debug/base/debugging_functions.asp
>> >
>> > There's no mention of them in the list of supported IPC methods:
>> >
>> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/ipc/base/interprocess_communications.asp
>> >
>> > I think the docs are pretty clear as they are.
>> >
>> > "Sam Hobbs" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Thank you, Pavel. What you say is what I thought is the situation, but
>> >> in
>> >> order to convince others, I need to get people such as you to say
>> >> things
>> >> such as you say. Okay, so that was rather general. The following are
>> >> sample posts from the two people I mentioned.
>> >>
>> >> The first one is a discussion that is still on-going; see:
>> >>
>> >> VBForums.com - send info between apps
>> >> http://vbforums.com/showthread.php?t=315463
>> >>
>> >> That discussion is quite lengthy, and that is the main reason I
>> >> omitted
>> >> it from my original question. If you search that thread for
>> >> "WriteProcessMemory" then I hope you will find the relevant parts
>> >> without
>> >> too much inconvenience. Note that I posted a message ("Is WM_COPYDATA
>> >> special?") in the microsoft.public.vb.winapi newsgroup concerning the
>> >> issue of the WM_COPYDATA message.
>> >>
>> >> Another relevant discussion is older and is in another forum; see:
>> >>
>> >> CodeGuru Forums - Memory problem in C
>> >> http://www.codeguru.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=279338
>> >>
>> >> where Mick says "otherwise use OpenProcess(...) and
>> >> ReadProcessMemory(...)" to which I say "I think that ReadProcessMemory
>> >> is
>> >> not normally considered an IPC solution". So the subject there is
>> >> ReadProcessMemory, not WriteProcessMemory, although I used
>> >> WriteProcessMemory for the subject here. Note that Mick is a Forums
>> >> Moderator and is respected for his knowledge. He is very knowledgeable
>> >> about many very technical Windows subjects, but that is greater
>> >> justification to ensure he does not mislead people.
>> >>
>> >> So I created another thread; see:
>> >>
>> >> CodeGuru Forums - Debate: Is ReadProcessMemory normally considered an
>> >> IPC
>> >> solution?
>> >> http://www.codeguru.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=279541
>> >>
>> >> That thread did help, but it still did not get the point well enough
>> >> that
>> >> ReadProcessMemory and WriteProcessMemory are not as useful as Mick
>> >> indicates.
>> >>
>> >> If we are correct that ReadProcessMemory and WriteProcessMemory should
>> >> not be used for normal IPC, and should not be suggestged for use
>> >> without
>> >> sufficient cautions at least, then I think the MSDN needs to be much
>> >> more
>> >> clear about that.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Politicians
    ... >> This anagram isn't aimed at any particular person, or party, ... >> reflects my opinion of politicians in general... ... Mick. ...
    (soc.culture.irish)
  • Re: Politicians
    ... >>> This anagram isn't aimed at any particular person, or party, ... >>> reflects my opinion of politicians in general... ... >>> Mick ...
    (soc.culture.irish)