XnView incompatible with Data Execution Protection

[Anonymous337]

Hello Everyone,

Using
XnView 1.94.2
Windows XP SP3 ENG
with boot.ini string /NoExecute=AlwaysOn

makes XnView crash instantaneously crash when running the xnview.exe or double clicking a picture file.

I found some information here:

http://blog.fabriceroux.com/index.php/2 ... oor?blog=1

The problem appears to be using ASPack to compact XnView. The solution appears to be to use UPX or PECompact instead. Please fix this issue so that XnView is usable on these systems. Thank you.

[xnview]

Ok, i contact the author

[ckit]

Screw contacting the author, we should make the switch to UPX as well!

BTW, I don't have any DEP crashes at all!
Here's my boot.ini...

Code: Select all

[boot loader]
timeout=30
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Professional" /noexecute=optin /fastdetect /usepmtimer

[Anonymous337]

With your boot.ini ckit, you will not have crashes. It only crashes when having the switch /NoExecute=AlwaysOn because this forces XnView to run in DEP mode. However, since XnView is incompatible with DEP, it will crash.

Using the /noexecute=optin mode will not make it crash because XnView will not automatically run in DEP mode.

Using the /noexecute=optout mode will not make it crash either, because XnView will also not run in DEP mode.

If you wish, you might look at it using ProcessExplorer:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysi ... 96653.aspx

After you run ProcessExplorer, make it show the DEP column and you will see which programs run with DEP enabled and which do not.

[Clo]

ckit

Hello Chris !

Screw contacting the author, we should make the switch to UPX as well! …

• I agree and support for a change !

KR
Claude
Clo

[ckit]

Would be nice to see XnView 1.95 Final as UPX and DEP compatible, if enough apps do this I can switch DEP back on.

[Dstruct]

I agree on the DEP thing. IrfanView had the same problem sometime ago (should be fixed now).


But why do we need it UPX packed? Isn't this pretty much useless these days (fast internet connections and large harddisks)?

[ckit]

UPX is THE fix that IrfanView used.

[Clo]

Dstruct

Hello !

…But why do we need it UPX packed? Isn't this pretty much useless these days (fast internet connections and large harddisks)?

• Right, and i.e. the author of Total Commander provides a non-UPX-packed EXE
(as a separate download for those who need it…).
- Currently, Xnview.exe should be ~ 4 Mio as unpacked instead of ~ 1.5 Mio, like you say not a big deal nowadays…

KR
Claude
Clo

[Dstruct]

UPX is THE fix that IrfanView used.

THE fix would be to throw away these executable packers completely.

[xnview]

Yes, i can perhaps use UPX, is it better than ASPack?

[Clo]

Pierre

Hello !

• About the ratio of sizes, it's similar. For instance, TC unpacked = 2.7 MiB, UPX-packed = ~1 MiB.

- The main benefit is that UPXed EXEs are never "seen" as viral, AFAIK…

- However, like Dstruct and I said above, a non-packed EXE is not a problem now, and leads to a faster programme
(especially when a virus-scanner is running in the background, and can't be disabled by the user, i.e. in Companies…).

KR
Claude
Clo

[DOS386]

Yes, i can perhaps use UPX, is it better than ASPack?

1. UPX has unpacking as "official" feature. ASPACK needs an "external hack" to unpack. UPX 3.xx uses LZMA algo (very good on large files).

2. UPX/ASPACK won't reduce download size or time. Save either in UPX/ASPACK or ZIP/7-ZIP. You can't reduce twice.

3. Conclusions:
a) don't use any EXEpacker.
b) 7-ZIP the packages.

> The main benefit is that UPXed EXEs are never "saw" as viral

Wrong. There are always false positives.

[ckv]

THE fix would be to throw away these executable packers completely.

Agreed, but if executable packers are to be used UPX is the right way to go.

[Dstruct]

Looks like the executable of XnView 1.95 isn't packed anymore, right?