Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. General Programming
  3. C / C++ / MFC
  4. A referral was returned from the server.??

A referral was returned from the server.??

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved C / C++ / MFC
helpsysadminquestion
13 Posts 2 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • K Kushagra Tiwari

    <!-- Identify the application security requirements./>    <trustInfo xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v2"/>          <security>             <requestedPrivileges>                <requestedExecutionLevel level="requireAdministrator"              uiAccess="false"/>             requestedPrivileges/>          </security>    </trustInfo>

    L Offline
    L Offline
    Lost User
    wrote on last edited by
    #4

    Hi, Your requestedPrivileges tag is not closed properly. Is this a forum-only typo? Best Wishes, -David Delaune

    K 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • L Lost User

      Hi, Your requestedPrivileges tag is not closed properly. Is this a forum-only typo? Best Wishes, -David Delaune

      K Offline
      K Offline
      Kushagra Tiwari
      wrote on last edited by
      #5

      yes Its was a typo here only and not in the original manifest file

      L 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • K Kushagra Tiwari

        yes Its was a typo here only and not in the original manifest file

        L Offline
        L Offline
        Lost User
        wrote on last edited by
        #6

        Hi, Other than that I don't see anything wrong. Could you check the machine and see if ValidateAdminCodeSignatures[^] is defined as 0x1? Is this a workstation subject to domain policy? Best Wishes, -David Delaune

        K 2 Replies Last reply
        0
        • L Lost User

          Hi, Other than that I don't see anything wrong. Could you check the machine and see if ValidateAdminCodeSignatures[^] is defined as 0x1? Is this a workstation subject to domain policy? Best Wishes, -David Delaune

          K Offline
          K Offline
          Kushagra Tiwari
          wrote on last edited by
          #7

          No the workstation is not subject to domain policy ,.. the only this is that UAC is enabled on the machine ..

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • L Lost User

            Hi, Other than that I don't see anything wrong. Could you check the machine and see if ValidateAdminCodeSignatures[^] is defined as 0x1? Is this a workstation subject to domain policy? Best Wishes, -David Delaune

            K Offline
            K Offline
            Kushagra Tiwari
            wrote on last edited by
            #8

            Randor   wrote: see if ValidateAdminCodeSignatures[^] is defined as 0x1? Hi randor, After cahnging this value to 0 I was able to run the application , but before that I was presented the dialog that UAC does asking user to allow the executable to run with Admin permission . can this dialog be emitted permanently ??? Kushagra

            L 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • K Kushagra Tiwari

              Randor   wrote: see if ValidateAdminCodeSignatures[^] is defined as 0x1? Hi randor, After cahnging this value to 0 I was able to run the application , but before that I was presented the dialog that UAC does asking user to allow the executable to run with Admin permission . can this dialog be emitted permanently ??? Kushagra

              L Offline
              L Offline
              Lost User
              wrote on last edited by
              #9

              Kushagra Tiwari wrote:

              can this dialog be emitted permanently ???

              Well I have no idea what you just asked me. But I think your asking if the registry key can be changed permanently. Yes you can just keep ValidateAdminCodeSignatures[^] defined as zero. This simply tells the operating system that executables do not need to be signed to be elevated. You have another option. You can change the value back to 0x1 and sign your application. Introduction to Code Signing[^] Best Wishes, -David Delaune

              K 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • L Lost User

                Kushagra Tiwari wrote:

                can this dialog be emitted permanently ???

                Well I have no idea what you just asked me. But I think your asking if the registry key can be changed permanently. Yes you can just keep ValidateAdminCodeSignatures[^] defined as zero. This simply tells the operating system that executables do not need to be signed to be elevated. You have another option. You can change the value back to 0x1 and sign your application. Introduction to Code Signing[^] Best Wishes, -David Delaune

                K Offline
                K Offline
                Kushagra Tiwari
                wrote on last edited by
                #10

                Sorry for the typo again :) ..Actually what I had asked you was . Is there a way that for my executable with elevated permissions that windows UAC never asks user about allowing or disallowing my process and it simply allows the exe to be executed.. Kushagra

                L 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • K Kushagra Tiwari

                  Sorry for the typo again :) ..Actually what I had asked you was . Is there a way that for my executable with elevated permissions that windows UAC never asks user about allowing or disallowing my process and it simply allows the exe to be executed.. Kushagra

                  L Offline
                  L Offline
                  Lost User
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #11

                  No that would break the new UAC security model. Your application will be subject to UAC elevation prompts. The user can modify the behavior of the UAC and disable these prompts if desired. Best Wishes, -David Delaune

                  K 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • L Lost User

                    No that would break the new UAC security model. Your application will be subject to UAC elevation prompts. The user can modify the behavior of the UAC and disable these prompts if desired. Best Wishes, -David Delaune

                    K Offline
                    K Offline
                    Kushagra Tiwari
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #12

                    And if my sign and timestamp my executable with a certificate and install the certificate on the VISTA or Windows 2008   client in Trusted publishers , then would this UAC prompt me or will it directly allow me to execute on being invoked ? Kushagra

                    L 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • K Kushagra Tiwari

                      And if my sign and timestamp my executable with a certificate and install the certificate on the VISTA or Windows 2008   client in Trusted publishers , then would this UAC prompt me or will it directly allow me to execute on being invoked ? Kushagra

                      L Offline
                      L Offline
                      Lost User
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #13

                      Hi Kushagra, I think the UAC prompt will appear. Although executables signed by Microsoft on Windows 7 can use an autoElevate flag which *does* bypass this UAC prompt. The internal details about this seem to be undocumented. I do not know if it works with third-party trusted signers. Best Wishes, -David Delaune

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes


                      • Login

                      • Don't have an account? Register

                      • Login or register to search.
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular
                      • World
                      • Users
                      • Groups