Hide application's startup

[/dev/null]

Don't let Dev / Null see this post

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Grrrrr. I have already seen it, AND I'm NOT amused.

Seriously, I just don't want to support people writing a virus/trojan. We cannot stop them anyway, especially if they use AutoIT without ever asking for support, but at least we should not help them if we suspect them to do something "nasty".

Cheers

Kurt

[JSThePatriot]

Grrrrr. I have already seen it, AND I'm NOT amused.   

Seriously, I just don't want to support people writing a virus/trojan. We cannot stop them anyway, especially if they use AutoIT without ever asking for support, but at least we should not help them if we suspect them to do something "nasty".

Cheers

Kurt

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am right there with you. As I am sure Ron Rules is. He was just making a joke.

Edit: Gramatical error.

JS

Edited August 30, 2005 by JSThePatriot

[/dev/null]

I am right there with you. As I am sure Ron Rules is. He was just making a joke.

I know.

Actually, I must say, that the requirements of quagmire1973 don't sound too suspicious and I don't want the forum to become less helpfull.

However, I "jumped" on sim/asimzameer and infernothebest, as it was too obvious, that they are doing some bad stuff.

Cheers

Kurt

[JSThePatriot]

I know. 

Actually, I must say, that the requirements of quagmire1973 don't sound too suspicious and I don't want the forum to become less helpfull.

However, I "jumped" on sim/asimzameer and infernothebest, as it was too obvious, that they are doing some bad stuff.

Cheers

Kurt

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree.

JS

[quagmire1973]

If you noticed... Sim / infernosomething / blah or whoever he's calling himself these days... has a post on the board from today ... using exactly what you have asked (changing the executible name to svchost).  Now if you look at his former post... he would of never had thought of that on his own, or even known to look for it.

Post Specific, like these are better kept in private via Personal Messenger even if they are purley for educational uses IMO. 

Now working in the education field... I'm sure you can understand that...

I'd be willing to bet that 98% of the user base would be a bit peeved if they suddenly started getting complaints that their programs were black balled because of something silly that could of been overcome with a bit of common sense/courtesy.

I'm not doubting your intentions... just playing the "Cautious Child".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No problem. I understand completely. There was no offense/issue intended but I can totally see where you guys are coming from. Last thing I want to do is make any of my apps appear this way.

So with that said, for now, I think what I am simply going to do is block TM and Regedit and leave it at that. I do like the idea of the program calling itself if it detects it being killed. One calling another which calls the other one in a loop of sorts. Not sure who mentioned it but regardless, I think that'll work well. I might create a side app which is launched in conjunction with the main app. Side app launches main app. If side app dies, main app launches side app. If main app dies, side app launches main app. Since you can't kill both at the same time, problem would be solved. And since a lot of this will be executed from a login script, they can't get away from it

[Gigglestick]

I might create a side app which is launched in conjunction with the main app. Side app launches main app. If side app dies, main app launches side app. If main app dies, side app launches main app. Since you can't kill both at the same time, problem would be solved.

I was actually thinking you should code your script to handle two of itself. That way, you have two processes that appear identical to the user and if one dies, the other is still performing the job during the period that there's only one of it running. Also, you'd only have to run one executable, and since it's in memory twice and you can't kill both processes, they couldn't delete the file without going into Safe Mode or something.

If you have two separate executables, they could potentially kill one and delete the file before your other process restarts it. Then they could kill the other process.

Also, since the script is running twice, it would essentially double your checks. Be sure to handle errors and exceptions though, since they could both detect a process and the second one to try to kill it wouldn't see it. If you don't trap that, your script will throw an error and quit.

[JSThePatriot]

I was actually thinking you should code your script to handle two of itself.  That way, you have two processes that appear identical to the user and if one dies, the other is still performing the job during the period that there's only one of it running.  Also, you'd only have to run one executable, and since it's in memory twice and you can't kill both processes, they couldn't delete the file without going into Safe Mode or something.

If you have two separate executables, they could potentially kill one and delete the file before your other process restarts it.  Then they could kill the other process.

Also, since the script is running twice, it would essentially double your checks.  Be sure to handle errors and exceptions though, since they could both detect a process and the second one to try to kill it wouldn't see it.  If you don't trap that, your script will throw an error and quit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What I think would be the best option is your real script checks for the side script which sole purpose it to make sure the main script is running. That is the type of back and forth that you need.

Did I make that clear?

JS

[quagmire1973]

What I think would be the best option is your real script checks for the side script which sole purpose it to make sure the main script is running. That is the type of back and forth that you need.

Did I make that clear?

JS

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Totally. In fact, that's what I ended up doing. My side app runs, makes sure that it is not already running (kills itself if it is running) and then just does a ProcessWaitClose for my other app. When it triggers that, my side app launches the main app, and then exits.

The nice thing is, when the main app runs, it checks to see if the side app is running, and of course in this scenario it wouldn't be, so it spawns the side app, which then just sits and waits for the main app to die.

Both apps work very well. Only one minor issue is that if someone happens to figure out that the apps were written in AutoIt, they could write a small script to kill the processes. Gotta find a way around that problem

[SmOke_N]

Both apps work very well. Only one minor issue is that if someone happens to figure out that the apps were written in AutoIt, they could write a small script to kill the processes. Gotta find a way around that problem

Would be hard if you weren't using a GUI to determine that, if you've compiled them and renamed the .exe ( with #NoTrayIcon)...

I think the 2 apps running w/ eachother is a great idea... I do this when I submit password patches... and don't want the patch lying around to be used again... so the 2nd app deletes all instances of the 1st one.

[jftuga]

I am getting a little lost in this thread, but if you still need a program to kill processes, try Process Explorer from www.sysinternals.com. It will allow you to kill processes that the built-in task manager will not allow you to.

Hope this helps,

-John

[Zach]

If you still need help on this, PM me and I should be able to give you a couple of options.