Prev: Seven API to force local driver check first
Next: Bug in Registry Editor (Windows Vista),...
From: Corinna Vinschen on 9 Feb 2010 14:42
Don Burn wrote:
> "Corinna Vinschen" <corinna(a)community.nospam> wrote in message
> news:hks7el$cj2$1(a)perth.hirmke.de:
>
>> Don Burn wrote:
>>
>> > Actually starting with Vista you cannot access the raw sectors on the disk
>> > while the disk is mounted for normal file operations. So your claim is
>> > incorrect.
>>
>> I was a bit surprised by this, so I just tested it again under Windows
>> Server 2008 and under Windows 7. It works still fine to access the
>> system disk and all partitions on it, including the system partition,
>> for reading from Cygwin. This is pure user space, with full admin
>> rights. Did you mean access is denied for writing, by any chance?
>> I didn't test that, for obvious reasons...
>
> This surprises me, I know that when Vista came out this could not be
> done, it is possible that Microsoft changed the model.

The following KB implies that it was a write restriction from the start:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/942448

That makes sense. There's no security implication in being able to
read from the raw disk as administrator.


Corinna

--
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Project Co-Leader
Red Hat
From: Hector Santos on 9 Feb 2010 15:54
Boba wrote:

> "Don Burn" <burn(a)stopspam.windrvr.com> wrote in message
> news:%233t%23JoYqKHA.5736(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Actually starting with Vista you cannot access the raw sectors on the disk
>> while the disk is mounted for normal file operations. So your claim is
>> incorrect.
>
> thank you, Don, for the correction (I havn't
> touched Vista yet). Will I be able to read'em
> under admin.rights?
>
>


Well, you were not INCORRECT. VISTA/W7 changed the paradigm of
Windows developmemt. IMO, what Don really meant is your legitimate
design assumption that worked for a few decades, not longer applies
under VISTA. That doesn't mean you were incorrect.


--
HLS
From: Boba on 9 Feb 2010 18:01

Hi Hector;
You wrote in message news:%23QZAiocqKHA.4752(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> ...
> IMO, what Don really meant is your legitimate design assumption that
> worked for a few decades, ...

not sure what you mean by 'a few decades': my
experience with windows security starts with
nt 3.1, which is less than 2 decades old.

> not longer applies under VISTA.

i never tried to break it down, so my - what
you call - design assumptions are still valid.


From: Hector Santos on 9 Feb 2010 20:44
Boba wrote:

> Hi Hector;
> You wrote in message news:%23QZAiocqKHA.4752(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> ...
>> IMO, what Don really meant is your legitimate design assumption that
>> worked for a few decades, ...
>
> not sure what you mean by 'a few decades': my
> experience with windows security starts with
> nt 3.1, which is less than 2 decades old.


Close enough!


--
HLS
From: RossettoeCioccolato on 10 Feb 2010 09:21
Corinna,

Your experience is correct for both Vista and w7. You need exclusive access
(lock/dismount) to access a physical volume or drive. You can't lock or
dismount the system volume. You can read w/o exclusive access. Both read
and write require admin + elevation. Always test things for yourself.

- Rossetoecioccolato.


First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Seven API to force local driver check first
Next: Bug in Registry Editor (Windows Vista),...