From: Paul Clement on
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 08:57:37 -0500, "David" <dw85745NOT(a)earthlink.net> wrote:

� I'm hoping a DLL wrapper may be my solution?

� Problem:
� If a third party DLL resides on your system, can that DLL be accessed
� remotely by the third party or call home when it wants?

� Answer
� Don't know. If it can do the above, would creating a DLL Wrapper solve the
� problem?

� If the DLL was contained within a directory that had no rights other
� than to be accessed by the DLL Wrapper functions would this top access or
� call home?.


� Anyone have any idea if this will work???


I noticed some mention of DCOM but an easier method would be to configure the ActiveX wrapper to run
under a COM+ application and then designate the application to run under a specific identity (which
has sufficient permissions to the folder where the DLL is located.


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
From: Ralph on
Paul Clement wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 08:57:37 -0500, "David" <dw85745NOT(a)earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> I noticed some mention of DCOM but an easier method would be to
> configure the ActiveX wrapper to run under a COM+ application and
> then designate the application to run under a specific identity
> (which has sufficient permissions to the folder where the DLL is
> located.
>

"A rose by any other name ..."

"DCOM" was rolled into COM+ Services as shipped with Windows 2000 and beyond
(and retroactively applied to Win98 thru SPs). The only difference is the
method of configuration, the underlying technology is identical.

-ralph


From: David on
OK:

First, thank you again on my behalf.
Got everything setup. So hopefully will do as expected.
No way for me to test -- incursion -- have a configured XP Auditing
to see if Folder accessed.

Have a great day
David

"Nobody" <nobody(a)nobody.com> wrote in message
news:e%23IKtxUkKHA.5520(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> "Ralph" <nt_consulting64(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:eOH6uJUkKHA.3792(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> David wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm starting to get outside my confort zone (need to climb the
>>> learning curve on DCOM and OS Security)
>>>
>>> Any good books or suggestions on "easiest" way to learn this?
>
> I can't see David's post quoted above. Must have been lost in cyber space.
> Here is Google copy which doesn't include it:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion/browse_thread/thread/46ebc61070174321/9f935c6a8051524b
>
>


From: Paul Clement on
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:37:49 -0600, "Ralph" <nt_consulting64(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

� Paul Clement wrote:
� > On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 08:57:37 -0500, "David" <dw85745NOT(a)earthlink.net>
� > wrote:
� >
� >
� > I noticed some mention of DCOM but an easier method would be to
� > configure the ActiveX wrapper to run under a COM+ application and
� > then designate the application to run under a specific identity
� > (which has sufficient permissions to the folder where the DLL is
� > located.
� >

� "A rose by any other name ..."

� "DCOM" was rolled into COM+ Services as shipped with Windows 2000 and beyond
� (and retroactively applied to Win98 thru SPs). The only difference is the
� method of configuration, the underlying technology is identical.

� -ralph


DCOM (Network OLE) was the pre-cursor to (MTS) COM+ and provided the network communication
infrastructure for interaction with COM+ services. COM+ is simply an enhanced serviced-based version
born out of the DCOM architecture.


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
From: Ralph on

"Paul Clement" <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage(a)swspectrum.com> wrote in message
news:kfsuk5tap7muqctbkinjr0hdjt4cecnvk1(a)4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:37:49 -0600, "Ralph" <nt_consulting64(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> � Paul Clement wrote:
> � > On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 08:57:37 -0500, "David" <dw85745NOT(a)earthlink.net>
> � > wrote:
> � >
> � >
> � > I noticed some mention of DCOM but an easier method would be to
> � > configure the ActiveX wrapper to run under a COM+ application and
> � > then designate the application to run under a specific identity
> � > (which has sufficient permissions to the folder where the DLL is
> � > located.
> � >
> �
> � "A rose by any other name ..."
> �
> � "DCOM" was rolled into COM+ Services as shipped with Windows 2000 and
beyond
> � (and retroactively applied to Win98 thru SPs). The only difference is
the
> � method of configuration, the underlying technology is identical.
> �
> � -ralph
> �
>
> DCOM (Network OLE) was the pre-cursor to (MTS) COM+ and provided the
network communication
> infrastructure for interaction with COM+ services. COM+ is simply an
enhanced serviced-based version
> born out of the DCOM architecture.
>

What an absolutely bizarre post. The only thing you got right was "DCOM"
came before "COM+". (Then of course, "network communication infrastructure
for interaction" can probably be construed to mean just about anything. <g>)

The fact it is nonsense doesn't really matter as it isn't germane to the
topic at hand, but I'm actually curious why someone would even feel the need
to post such silliness?

-ralph


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: WMI to use or not to use
Next: VB6 on Windows 7 64-Bit