|
Good point. I tend not to do that out of habit, but it is acceptable.
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week
Zac
|
|
|
|
|
hi,
i have a process id and a handle to a process. how can i get the
PROCESS_INFORMATION that i would get from CreateProcess(); (after it has been created)?
or, how can i get a handle to the main thread of the process?
thanks in advance
-- modified at 14:21 Monday 28th August, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting.
check out msdn
CreateToolhelp32Snapshot
Thread32First
Kuphryn
|
|
|
|
|
Sam Kline wrote: how can i get the
PROCESS_INFORMATION that i would get from CreateProcess();
Using Process32First() will give you a PROCESSENTRY32 structure. Does it have the information you require?
"Money talks. When my money starts to talk, I get a bill to shut it up." - Frank
"Judge not by the eye but by the heart." - Native American Proverb
|
|
|
|
|
I looked up the function that kuphryn gave on MSDN and those 2 functions do what I neeed.
Thanks for the replies.
|
|
|
|
|
Thread32First() provided you with process-related information?
"Money talks. When my money starts to talk, I get a bill to shut it up." - Frank
"Judge not by the eye but by the heart." - Native American Proverb
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to know whether the same Edit Control can handle two types of notification messages, like my requirement is
i have an edit control in my dialog box which takes the ID of an voucher, now i have to fill this edit control by two ways
1st> is to manually enter the Voucher ID and press ENTER key (in the keyboard) for the Validation to take place, for this i can handle PreTranslateMessage, VK_RETURN .
2nd> is to scan the Voucher with the Barcode Reader, after scanning, my edit control is populated with the Voucher ID and the validation should happen without entering any Key or doing any action, for this case i can handle ON_EN_CHANGE .
my problem is in the 1st case when i enter the 12 digit voucher ID (remember i did not press the ENTER key), the validation is done, since i am also handling the ON_EN_CHANGE message for supporting the 2nd case.
how to handle both these cases for the same EDIT control??
thanx in advance
kumar_windows
|
|
|
|
|
You are putting operations in an edit control that don't belong there. Validation of the VoucherID should be isolated from any edit control. This way you can validate the data when scanned then put it in the edit control.
led mike
|
|
|
|
|
hi mike thnkx, pls tell me whether i can handle 2 different messages for the same edit control
thanx in advance
kumar_windows
|
|
|
|
|
kumar_windows wrote: pls tell me whether i can handle 2 different messages for the same edit control
fine... yes you can 
led mike
|
|
|
|
|
Handling the ON_EN_CHANGE notification is the way I'd handle this. In the handler function, don't enable the OK button if an invalid voucher has been entered/scanned into the edit control.
"Money talks. When my money starts to talk, I get a bill to shut it up." - Frank
"Judge not by the eye but by the heart." - Native American Proverb
|
|
|
|
|
Greetings,
Is it possible to draw on a CRichEditCtrl on my FormView? For example, on a regular view I just get a handle to the device context (i.e. pDC), then do whatever I want with it (i.e. pDC->Rectangle...etc...). How do I draw and place text on a RichEditCtrl at the same time?
Thanks in advance for your help.
BP
|
|
|
|
|
What is it exactly that you are wanting to draw on a rich edit control?
"Money talks. When my money starts to talk, I get a bill to shut it up." - Frank
"Judge not by the eye but by the heart." - Native American Proverb
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to be able to place bitmaps on it and also use GDI capabilities (i.e. drawing shapes, choosing fill colors, placing custom graphics in it, etc...)
|
|
|
|
|
This is just a guess but I'd think you'd have to embed those items in the rich text data.
"Money talks. When my money starts to talk, I get a bill to shut it up." - Frank
"Judge not by the eye but by the heart." - Native American Proverb
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is there any API to block IP’s from connecting to the server?
Problem details
I have developed client/server application. For security it is Username/password protected. To prevent or “minimize” brute force attacks and Denial Of Service it check for failed logins and logs IP from failed attempts for x min, if 3 failed attempts are reached in the x minutes it blocks the IP for y minutes.
It uses a global linked list to log the IPs and this is where the problem is. The global List is like a bottleneck since it is shared among other threads.
First: To minimize code execution is there any way to block the IP in the operating system level to minimize code execution since if the attacking IP is allowed to re-connect to the server again it can easily cause a DOS.
Second: I could only come up with a globally linked list to hold the IP is there any better way to do this.
Thanks for any help
G_S
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G_S wrote: To minimize code execution is there any way to block the IP in the operating system level to minimize code execution since if the attacking IP is allowed to re-connect to the server again it can easily cause a DOS.
The short answer to your question is No. At least, not in the manner you appear to want it. If you want to limit server access, turn on a firewall and security software package (external to your app) that will monitor all ports for such behavior. There is no OS-level APIs to set up this kind of security.
G_S wrote: I could only come up with a globally linked list to hold the IP is there any better way to do this.
Why is the list of "bad" IPs shared with multiple threads?
I would probably use a BST instead of a list, and definately do not make it global. By switching to a BST, you will probably see a significant speed increase. If you absolutely must share it with several threads for whatever reason, you might try using a more complex semaphore to allow as many threads to read it at a given time (so long as no thread is trying to write to it), but only allow 1 writing thread.
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week
Zac
|
|
|
|
|
Zac Howland wrote: There is no OS-level APIs to set up this kind of security
This is what I was looking for to block incoming IPs at the OS level.
Zac Howland wrote: Why is the list of "bad" IPs shared with multiple threads?
The list is shared to minimize connection time the connection is accepted a new thread is fired up and the resulting thread checks the “bad” List and also serves the connection.
The number of threads is limited but you get the idea.
thank you for the advice
G_S
|
|
|
|
|
Without knowing the requirements for the application, here is the mostly likely way I would approach the problem, then.
- Create the BST in the main thread, and pass a pointer to it as part of each thread's data (using appropriate protection -- either critical sections or a reading-sempaphore-type setup).
- After Accept is called (spawning the new connection), the thread first checks the BST to see if the IP for the connection is bad. If it is, it closes the connection immediately; if not, it continues on.
You could also use a hash table instead of a BST and have the IP be the key, and a something useful as the value (e.g. the number of failed connections?). This would decrease your searching time even more.
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week
Zac
|
|
|
|
|
I'm writing a tiny app that subclasses a window in another process. For this I have a DLL that is injected into the other process by the means of a code>GetMessage hook. So far so good.
Since I'm not interested in the hook itself, on the DLL's DllMain->DLL_ATTACH I call LoadLibrary on the same library to increase it's ref count and then I call UnhookWindowsHookEx to release the hook. After this I subclass the window. At this point everything is fine.
The problem comes when the subclassed window is closed. At this point I want to unload the DLL from memory but I'm at this point unable to do so. The process hangs and is automatically terminated.
What I'm doing is as follows (thanks Emilio_grv!):
LRESULT CALLBACK WndProc(HWND hwnd, UINT uMsg, WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam)
{
static unsigned int iRefCount = 1;
++iRefCount;
switch (uMsg)
{
case WM_NCDESTROY:
--iRefCount;
break;
}
--iRefCount;
if (!iRefCount)
{
UnSubclass();
FreeLibrary(m_hInstDLL);
}
return CallWindowProc(lpfnOldProc, hwnd, uMsg, wParam, lParam);
}
Any ideas? 
Thanks !!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Does lpfnOldProc call into a function that is included in the DLL? If so you need to rearrange the function call to the top and store the return value and return that value at the end.
A cynic is a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for a coffin.
-H.L. Mencken
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
