|
izyani wrote: Do i need to sign it first?
There are several unsupported methods of modifying advapi32.dll floating around the internet, some of which allow self-signed CSP and others allow unsigned CSP. I have no way of knowing what modifications you have made to the system DLL. The error code your recieving 0x80090006 implies that advapi32.dll is checking the signature.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Randor,
FYI, I already changed the advapi32.dll with this value:
* Windows 2008 and Windows Vista SP1 : advapi32 version = 6.0.6001.18000
o At offset 0x2420C : change 75 to 90
o At offset 0x2420D : change 0C to 90
o At offset 0x24214 : change 0F to 90
o At offset 0x24215 : change 84 to E9
Refer to the instruction, i need to replace the file at:
a)C:\windows\system32
b)C:\Windows\winsxs\x86_microsoft-windows-advapi32_31bf3856ad364e35_
6.0.6001.18000_none_e34851aa8681b8b0
c)rename the patched advapi32.dll file to x86_microsoft-windows-advapi32_31bf3856ad364e35_
6.0.6001.18000_none_e34851aa8681b8b0
_advapi32.dll_9512793c and then put it in "C:\Windows\winsxs\Backup", thus overwriting the existing one.
I already restart and my machine after replaced the file. I tried to run the cmd :
c:\windows\system32\regsvr32 mimoscsp.dll and
c:\windows\system32\regsvr32.exe mimoscsp.dll
but i still get the same error - the module "mimoscsp.dll" was loaded but the call to DllRegisterServer failed with error code 0x8009006.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
During the development, I already run the cmd:
c:\windows\system32\cspSign c xxxx.dll
c:\windows\system32\regsvr32 xxxx.dll
success..
when i run the test program, i got this error msg:
Calling CryptAcquireContext - CryptAcquireContext returned error 57
Calling CryptGetUserKey AT_KEYEXCHANGE - ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER.
Calling CryptGetUserKey AT_SIGNATURE - ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER.
Done
|
|
|
|
|
i wish to find a program source code for the following fft ,dft, idft
and linear and circular convulution. please if anyone can help me out.
kamal jit sharma
|
|
|
|
|
Whenever I'm after some code that implements a particular algorithm, I typically find myself performing searches for the code I want. It is my most common experience that just asking a question on a forum takes longer than it takes to find the code. When you also allow time for the response to your forum question, it is orders of magnitude slower to ask on a forum than it is to search for code yourself.
And yes, I have done just this for some of the algorithms you mention.
Good luck. 
Simon
|
|
|
|
|
Do you know about Google? Shhhhhhhhhhh it's a secret. 
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
I have an example of for loop like
for( int I = 0; I < 100; i++)
{
If (condition)
{
Method1. Write ‘break’ here or
Method2. I = 100 (make I equal to 100)
}
}
Which method is efficient to use? Why?
Thanx
|
|
|
|
|
Imho break is more efficient because using break will just jump out of the loop while setting the variable 'I' to a value has to perform memory read/write operations, then it will jump to the condition-evaluation part, where it will check the variable against 100 and will then jump out of the loop. Am not sure how smart the compiler is but it might even optimize the later case to a simple break or "value-set" then break itself.
> The problem with computers is that they do what you tell them to do and not what you want them to do. <
|
|
|
|
|
I would use a control variable.
I strongly advise not to set the loop variable, 'I' in your case, to a bogus value just to exit the loop because you might want to use the variable after the loop.
Something like this:
bool bStop = false;
int nCount;
for( nCount = 0; (nCount < 100) && !bStop; ++nCount )
{
if( condition )
{
bSstop = true;
}
}
if( nCount < 100 )
{
}
"It's supposed to be hard, otherwise anybody could do it!" - selfquote
"High speed never compensates for wrong direction!" - unknown
|
|
|
|
|
Either one is fine. I prefer to go the break; route.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
"Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
|
|
|
|
|
The break keyword was designed just for this.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
i use the break key word in my virii like so...
if(DeployCondition)
break ThatGuysPC->HDD;
|
|
|
|
|
killabyte wrote: virii
Should be viruses (even if my ancestors didn't foresee such a proliferation of).
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
I do agree with cPallini.
Use break for your condition.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm glad about your enthusiasm.
BTW it is CPallini, since C stands either for Carlo or the C programming language , both requiring the capital letter.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
Resetting your loop counter variable is the worst thing to do. In this simple example, it might seem all OK to you, but what if there are other routines that will depend on the counter variable after the loop is complete? What if you needed to know how many times the loop executed?
vipin_nvk wrote: Which method is efficient to use? Why?
Just exiting out of the loop with a break would be the ideal way, IMHO. You may use a control variable, as another user pointed out as well.
It is a crappy thing, but it's life -^ Carlo Pallini
|
|
|
|
|
Is there any way to perform "TOUCH" (like TOUCH in UNIX) in windows, with out installing any tools?
From the site : "http://support.microsoft.com/kb/69581, I came to know that we can use COPY command to perform TOUCH like operation. and tried the below command. but I got the error "The system cannot find the file specified."
system ( "/COPY C:/Documents and Settings/ms56106/.tdm/CookieSession_Details.txt /B +");
So please help to fix this. Below are the different options I tried, but no clue.
1) I Have executed the below command from command prompt it works fine.
C:\Documents and Settings\ms56106\.tdm> COPY /B "C:/Documents and Settings/ms56106/.tdm/CookieSession_Details.txt" +
1 file(s) copied.
And if try the same from different folder it fails,
C:\Documents and Settings\ms56106> COPY /B "C:/Documents and Settings/ms56106/.tdm/CookieSession_Details.txt" +
The system cannot find the file specified.
0 file(s) copied.
What should I do to run for a different folder?
2) I want the same command to be used in C++ source, for this I tried the same with system(), but it is not working. Please correct me.
tem = C:/Documents and Settings/ms56106/.tdm/CookieSession_Details.txt
system ( "/COPY tem /B +");
Thanks,
Nandu
|
|
|
|
|
I'm suddenly having Déjà vu[^], I believe that I've read this post before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
i am a new C++ programmer and would like to implement an array based list for 100 integers and would also want to sort them by any integer of my choice.
snyboy with an with an idea on how to go about this? 
phokojoe
|
|
|
|
|
for the array what about :
int myArray[100];
or (way better, easier for sorting)
std::vector<int> myVector;<br />
myVector.reserve(100);</int> // optional
|
|
|
|
|
Maximilien wrote: int myArray[100];
or (way better, easier for sorting)
std::vector myVector;
myVector.reserve(100); // optional
Why do you think sorting a std::vector is easier?
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
CPallini wrote: Why do you think sorting a std::vector is easier?
because someone though of writing the std::sort() algorithm maybe...?! 
|
|
|
|
|
someone else possibly though of writing qsort
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but std::sort() algorithm is faster than qsort!
A C++ programming language novice, but striving to learn
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
