BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 1d, 4h, 57m | CPU: 32% | MEM: 2280MB of 3737MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 PostPost subject: Sysdm.cpl        Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:31 pm 
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:07 pm

Posts
422
What file is responsible for the fact that in the sysdm.cpl file we have written such a number build. I know that the sysdm.cpl file isn't generating it build. So please say which file is responsible for it.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:36 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Maybe it's reading the build number from the kernel...


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:41 pm 
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:07 pm

Posts
422
empireum wrote:
Maybe it's reading the build number from the kernel...
OK, i check this later.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:50 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:03 am

Posts
1115

Location
Germany
if you mean the Year by Version 2002 for example, this is a string in the sysdm.cpl

_________________
"Theory is when you know something, but it doesn't work. Practice is when something works, but you don't know why. Programmers combine theory and practice: Nothing works and they don't know why."


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:02 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
I think he means the actual build number which is shown in the system properties in all versions prior to XP. Like this:
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:03 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
The string in sysdm.cpl for Version 2002 doesn't actually have any text in it though, so I think it must be getting the value from somewhere else. The build number isn't in sysdm.cpl at all - it is in winver.exe but again isn't actually in the program itself. It seems likely what was said about it checking the kernel's version number.

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:05 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Yeah, I think it is because in NT 3.51 and 4.0, you could manipulate the kernel's version using imagecfg and then winver et al would also be fooled.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:54 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:03 am

Posts
1115

Location
Germany
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
The string in sysdm.cpl for Version 2002 doesn't actually have any text in it though, so I think it must be getting the value from somewhere else.


Nope. Open the file and goto String-Table-13 and look at the Value 195 :P

The Numbers 5.00.2195 are easy to detect.

Code:
// Try calling GetVersionEx using the OSVERSIONINFOEX structure.
  // If that fails, try using the OSVERSIONINFO structure.
  ZeroMemory(@osvi,sizeof(TOSVersionInfo));
  osvi.dwOSVersionInfoSize := sizeof(TOSVersionInfo);

  bOsVersionInfoEx := GetVersionEx(osvi);
  if(not bOsVersionInfoEx) then begin
    osvi.dwOSVersionInfoSize := VERSIONINFOSIZE;

    if(not GetVersionEx(osvi)) then begin
      Result := 'Fehler bei der Ermittlung der Windows-Version';
      exit;
    end;
  end;


Now you can get the Values with:

Code:
osvi.dwMajorVersion (Majorversion 6 = WIndows Vista, osvi.dwMinorVersion and Buildnumber by using LOWORD(osvi.dwBuildNumber)


:P

_________________
"Theory is when you know something, but it doesn't work. Practice is when something works, but you don't know why. Programmers combine theory and practice: Nothing works and they don't know why."


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:00 am 
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:07 pm

Posts
422
When I open sysdm.cpl from neptune in XP i see number build from XP


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:15 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Yes, of course, because it's reading from the kernel...


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:49 am 
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:07 pm

Posts
422
empireum wrote:
Yes, of course, because it's reading from the kernel...
Ok, thank you :)


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 1:58 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am

Posts
590

Location
Israel
Luckie wrote:
Code:
// Try calling GetVersionEx using the OSVERSIONINFOEX structure.
  // If that fails, try using the OSVERSIONINFO structure.
  ZeroMemory(@osvi,sizeof(TOSVersionInfo));
  osvi.dwOSVersionInfoSize := sizeof(TOSVersionInfo);

  bOsVersionInfoEx := GetVersionEx(osvi);
  if(not bOsVersionInfoEx) then begin
    osvi.dwOSVersionInfoSize := VERSIONINFOSIZE;

    if(not GetVersionEx(osvi)) then begin
      Result := 'Fehler bei der Ermittlung der Windows-Version';
      exit;
    end;
  end;


What language is that? It looks like a hybrid between Pascal and REXX.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 2:01 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:01 am

Posts
79
Short of disassembling and/or debugging symdm.cpl, there's no way to really know. But empireum seems correct; take a look at the imports for sysdm.cpl:

Image

Now maybe somebody can explain this to me:

Image

In a search, 050301-1519 (unicode) is found in user32.dll.. which hasn't been updated since 2 March 2005, even though kernel32.dll dates to 5 July 2006. I guess winver wants to report on the client side of Windows, but still seems odd. Which build number is the 'correct' one, or can such questions only be answered for a given release, not a system that has had patches applied? :?


Last edited by rawr on Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 2:08 am 
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:07 pm

Posts
422
And where i find this file :?:


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 2:21 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
betamaster wrote:
And where i find this file :?:

Both kernel32.dll and user32.dll are very probably in the system32 dir. :roll:


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 2:39 am 
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:07 pm

Posts
422
empireum wrote:
betamaster wrote:
And where i find this file :?:

Both kernel32.dll and user32.dll are very probably in the system32 dir. :roll:
Yeah, but in system32 is too many files :(


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 2:53 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
betamaster wrote:
empireum wrote:
betamaster wrote:
And where i find this file :?:

Both kernel32.dll and user32.dll are very probably in the system32 dir. :roll:
Yeah, but in system32 is too many files :(

Are you kidding me or what??? :x I gave you the name of the file and the directory where it is most likely in. What else do you need to find a file???


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 3:03 am 
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:07 pm

Posts
422
empireum wrote:
betamaster wrote:
empireum wrote:
betamaster wrote:
And where i find this file :?:

Both kernel32.dll and user32.dll are very probably in the system32 dir. :roll:
Yeah, but in system32 is too many files :(

Are you kidding me or what??? :x I gave you the name of the file and the directory where it is most likely in. What else do you need to find a file???
Sorry :oops:


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 3:13 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Please think before you type, okay? :wink:


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 3:45 am 
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:07 pm

Posts
422
empireum wrote:
Please think before you type, okay? :wink:
OK. I edit kernel32.dll and user32.dll version and i not have change in sysdm.cpl I try to edit sysdm.cpl


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 4:00 am 
Reply with quote
Staff
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:13 am

Posts
1861

Location
Slovenia, Central Europe.

Favourite OS
Windows 98 SE 4.10.2222B
I think the Windows dialog boxes read the version strings from NTLDR, and related files in the root directory of the boot drive.

I know this, because I have tried to fool Windows 2000 to become version 5.5.3295 instead of 5.0.2195, and no matter, what file I modified, Windows was still reporting version 5.0.2195 - then I found out, that it's one of those root directory files, that Windows gets the version from, so I tried to modify those, but then NTLDR started giving problems. :?

_________________
Join #softhistory @ RoL IRC, a nice community for true enthusiasts!
Anime channel: #doki-doki @ RoL IRC, Mibbit, KiwiIRC.
PCem help channel is #softhistory now!

Check out our SoftHistory Forum for quality discussion about older software.


Top  Profile  WWW  ICQ  YIM
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 4:06 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Which of the root directory files was the one you modified?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 4:34 am 
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:07 pm

Posts
422
OK. I check this ntldr file.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:25 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 09, 2006 6:43 am

Posts
722

Favourite OS
SVR 2012R2/Win10
OBrasilo wrote:
I think the Windows dialog boxes read the version strings from NTLDR, and related files in the root directory of the boot drive.

I know this, because I have tried to fool Windows 2000 to become version 5.5.3295 instead of 5.0.2195, and no matter, what file I modified, Windows was still reporting version 5.0.2195 - then I found out, that it's one of those root directory files, that Windows gets the version from, so I tried to modify those, but then NTLDR started giving problems. :?


NTLDR is version-less. Sure, there's multiple versions of it, and it has been superceeded by vista's Bootmanager, but it does not contain OS version information.

Running Windows 2000 SP4's sysdm.cpl file on XP, shows that the data is indeed found within the system - The function in kernel32.dll only gets the major and minor versions out of another file.

If you run Sysinternals' tool "filemon", or "processmon", you can watch the sysdm file query data through kernel32, and find out exactly where the values are coming from, instead of searching for a needle in a haystack.

edit: it seems to be located within ntdll.dll, which might be a bad idea to hack into a different version, especially if you're dealing with WPA (Windows Activation).


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 6:31 am 
Reply with quote
Staff
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:13 am

Posts
1861

Location
Slovenia, Central Europe.

Favourite OS
Windows 98 SE 4.10.2222B
- empireum: I modified NTOSKRNL, I think.

- jimmsta: It's not in NTDLL.DLL. I did hack that, but Windows was still reporting 5.0.2195. :?

_________________
Join #softhistory @ RoL IRC, a nice community for true enthusiasts!
Anime channel: #doki-doki @ RoL IRC, Mibbit, KiwiIRC.
PCem help channel is #softhistory now!

Check out our SoftHistory Forum for quality discussion about older software.


Top  Profile  WWW  ICQ  YIM
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2018

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS