Community Feedback System

Very often, it takes hours to solve a problem. Very often, you've looked high and low, and have tried a lot of solutions. When you finally found it, chances are, it was because someone else helped you. Here's your chance to give back. Use our community feedback tool to let others know what worked for you and what didn't.

Please also understand that the community feedback system is not warranted to be correct, it's simply a system that we've built to let people try and help each other. If something in a feedback response doesn't make sense to you, or you're not comfortable making changes that the feedback talks about (like registry edits), please consult a professional.

Thank you for using kbAlertz.com Feedback System.

-- Scott Cate

Anonymous User	Report As Irrelevant
Written: 7/8/2004 5:35 PM
I think it has to do with managed vs. unmanaged code, and if you are messing with with core O/S you should work in the same environment so it doesn't cross that boundary. Go with the unmanaged languages for that level of programming where you are going into an API. The Framework sits on top of the O/S and is meant to USE the lower-level features and abstract the API from developers. Use the right tool for the job and know what your tools do best, right?

Robert Swirsky - http://www.robert.to/	Report As Irrelevant
Written: 1/24/2005 7:53 AM
This is a strange warning! While I'm a very strong C++ programmer whose been using it since the very beginning, I noew use C# whenever and whereever possible--including for Windows Services, etc.

Anonymous User	Report As Irrelevant
Written: 7/20/2005 4:46 AM
Can any body help me out by defining what is the exact need of writing a Custom Sub-Authentication package

Nitin	Report As Irrelevant
Written: 2/9/2006 7:51 AM
very interestig topic but if we get better explation with examples

Dave Bacher - http://dbdotnet.blogspot.com	Report As Irrelevant
Written: 5/11/2006 2:21 PM
The issue is pretty basic. Lets say you have COM object 1, which is bound to the .NET 1.1 framework, and COM object 2, which is bound to the .NET 2.0 framework. Now you're running in explorer.exe. If explorer.exe sees object 1 first, it instances the .NET runtime 1.1. When it loads object 2, it also gets loaded into the .NET runtime 1.1. If object 2 uses any .NET 2.0 features, it crashes and burns. If explorer sees object 2 first, then it loads the .NET runtime version 2.0. When it loads object 1, that also gets loaded in .NET runtime 2.0. If object 1 calls any deprecated call, or any call that has additional security requirements, etc. then it might fail. In any event, if either fails, bad things could potentially happen in Explorer, which could cripple the user's session. This isn't about writing services -- it is fine to write a Windows Service or Linux Daemon using .NET. It's about hooking into services such as WinLogin/GINA. GINA prompts you for your user name and password, and then goes off to verify it somehow. If you had code in this process that couldn't load, then no users could access the computer. This would be a bad thing. If you need GINA to authenticate using .NET, there is a safe solution. The safe solution is to write a C++ front end that opens a named pipe, and then have the C# back end talk to GINA over the named pipe (or any other IPC). This requires some security work to prevent interception attacks, but it prevents the problem and doesn't require much code. Alternatively, running the .NET code as an out of process (instead of an in process) server can fix the issue. Note that there are other issues also with using .NET for system processes, in that these may be loaded early in the systems boot process, when other required services are not yet available. As far as I know, .NET has no intrinsic dependencies unless you use specific frameworks (for example, you can't open an IP connection if the TCP/IP stack isn't loaded yet).