Re: ADS Usage

Well, I'm glad I did actually manage to benefit you in some small way in this thread, with the 'command prompt here' link.

I would love to claim that I knew you were in need of it in the internet cafe, when I sent it, but it wouldn't strictly be true, and my conscience would (might??) haunt me if I did. My hacking / prophetic skills, unfortunately, aren't quite up to that level right now.

Perhaps you're right. It still isn't that difficult to drop into assembler from c++.
I suppose I was just wondering at the motivation, if any, behind the processor pack withdrawal.
Not a major concern, anyhow. I don't lose much sleep over it.

Anyways, looks like I'm adding a few tangential 'alternate data streams' to your original thread, so I'd best move on, while the going is good.


All the best.


Jon


"Philip" <Philip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:DD7EE3BC-1E2F-47FE-84FA-2D13E83745FE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jon you must be psychic too

For reasons i'll not go into I'm "working" from an internet cafe today. At
home/work my context menu has "Open a Command Processor from here" in it, I
don't recall how I got it there in the first place. The article to which you
referred me was unbelievably appropriate, I wanted to open up a command
processor about 10 minutes ago - had to resort to run command and navigating
at prompt level to where I wanted to be.

Are you telling me that you can't drop into assembler from C++, I needed to
do that quite often when I programmed in C.

I don't know that I agree with your conspiracy theory, I think its because
so few write in assembler - and they're all writing device drivers I guess or
working for the military/security conglomerates.

Rgds PhilD

"Jon" wrote:


"Philip" <Philip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:8265820E-D39D-4F78-9C4D-E67B04E11B79@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> "Jon" wrote:
>
>> Newbie wrote:
>>
>> > Philip wrote:
>> > | Why is so little use made of Alternate Data Streams for things >> > like
>> > | EXIF, IPTC and other metadata, and why don't things like desktop
>> > search
>> > | tools use ADS's to leave calling cards in an object to record
>> > indexing
>> > | status - instead of recording it in a database.
>> > |
>> > | If s/w developers used ADS's then there would be more tools
>> > pertaining
>> > | to such, and other s/w such as backup/restore programs would be
>> > forced
>> > | to take them into consideration.
>> > |
>> > | Just having an end of day bitch after struggling for much of it >> > with
>> > | Hardlinks, wormholes (sorry junction or is it reparse points) and
>> > ADS's.
>> > |
>> > | I'm coming to the conclusion that NTFS might be the most under
>> > utilised
>> > | resource available on XP (or is it NT 5.1) - took much time is >> > being
>> > | spent on look and feel and not enough on function - ie, form over
>> > | substance.
>> >
>> > Thank you, Philip, for your forensic analysis.
>> >
>> > ----
>> > Newbie
>>
>> Most modern computing resources offer far more potential >> functionality,
>> than
>> is ever fully utilised.
>>
>> Jon
>>
>
> Yeah but my gripe is that whilst XP may run in an NTFS environment,
> putting
> fsutil and notepad aside, it don't offer much in the way of support > for
> NTFS
>
> Like where's the property *** for AltDataStreams, and what about > another
> one for Object Ids, and another for one Hardlinks (listing the paths of
> other
> instances) and another for the two ends of Junction Points.
>
> I've found the one for AltDataStreams, it comes from JS Ware - Thanks > Joe
> if
> you're listening.
>
> And I suspect it's because of the paucity of support for NTFS > functinality
> within XP that so few of the s/w tools vendors offer much in the way of
> support, like where's the backup utilty that will backup and restore
> AltDataStreams - given that most backup utilties encapsulate the > multiple
> user-objects into compressed mega-objects there is no reason not to
> include
> NTFS specific information into the package - it's a bit like an > ordering a
> pizza siciliana and getting a pizza neapolitana - excuse me where's the
> olives, pepperoni, capsicum and onions.
>
> And some software I'm starting to discover trips over itself if > "advanced"
> features of NTFS are utilised - e.g what used to be my favourite text
> editor
> don't like files that have ObjectIds - what'da ... I've reverted to
> Notepad!
>
> It might have been better NTFS was not backward compatibility for the > FAT
> file system in NTFS and support for FAT32 in XP - then the world might
> have
> gone forward, instead of living in the past.
>
>
>
>

Perhaps it falls into that category of knowledge that 'we would rather you
didn't know too much about it'.

Keeping certain areas of knowledge for yourself helps you to sell / promote
your latest products that make use of such knowledge, with that added air of
mystique about them.

Why would anyone regard the virtual folders feature of the forthcoming Vista
as anything special, and be keen to rush out and buy it, if writing explorer
shell extensions in Windows XP had been common knowledge and there was a
nice little interface for it?

Why would anyone regard the new Vista themes as anything special, if
uxtheme.dll in XP had been had been set up to make using 3rd party visual
themes in XP as easy as pie?

Why was the processor pack removed from Visual C++, if not to discourage the
writing of programs in assembly for the 'litte guys' and make it the reserve
of the big boys and girls?

Why does the "open command window here" 'powertoy' (*cough* *cough*) not
allow command line access to certain folders, when adding 2 registry keys
could easily achieve that functionality, if not to discourage people from
viewing the true contents of certain folders?

[cf http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/13571/13571.html ]

Ok, I've had my little rant of the day, too :-)


Jon



.

Loading