XnView incompatible with Data Execution Protection

Bugs found in XnView Classic. Please report only one bug per topic!

Moderators: helmut, XnTriq, xnview

Anonymous337

XnView incompatible with Data Execution Protection

Post by 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.
User avatar
xnview
Author of XnView
Posts: 37750
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 7:31 am
Location: France

Re: XnView incompatible with Data Execution Protection

Post by xnview »

Ok, i contact the author
Pierre.
ckit
XnThusiast
Posts: 2453
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 1:11 am
Location: Australia

Post by 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
Windows 10 Pro x64 21H2 and Vivaldi Browser (standalone)
Anonymous337

Post by 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.
User avatar
Clo
XnThusiast
Posts: 4441
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:57 am
Location: Bordeaux, France

Really boring

Post by Clo »

:arrow: ckit

:) Hello Chris !
Screw contacting the author, we should make the switch to UPX as well! …
• I agree and support for a change !

:mrgreen: KR
Claude
Clo
Old user ON SELECTIVE STRIKE till further notice
ckit
XnThusiast
Posts: 2453
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 1:11 am
Location: Australia

Post by 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.
Windows 10 Pro x64 21H2 and Vivaldi Browser (standalone)
Dstruct
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 9:27 am

Post by 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
XnThusiast
Posts: 2453
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 1:11 am
Location: Australia

Post by ckit »

UPX is THE fix that IrfanView used.
Windows 10 Pro x64 21H2 and Vivaldi Browser (standalone)
User avatar
Clo
XnThusiast
Posts: 4441
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:57 am
Location: Bordeaux, France

Unpacked is nice

Post by Clo »

:arrow: 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…

:mrgreen: KR
Claude
Clo
Old user ON SELECTIVE STRIKE till further notice
Dstruct
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 9:27 am

Post by Dstruct »

ckit wrote:UPX is THE fix that IrfanView used.
THE fix would be to throw away these executable packers completely.
User avatar
xnview
Author of XnView
Posts: 37750
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 7:31 am
Location: France

Post by xnview »

Yes, i can perhaps use UPX, is it better than ASPack?
Pierre.
User avatar
Clo
XnThusiast
Posts: 4441
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:57 am
Location: Bordeaux, France

No "viral"

Post by Clo »

:arrow: 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…).

:mrgreen: KR
Claude
Clo
Last edited by Clo on Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Old user ON SELECTIVE STRIKE till further notice
User avatar
DOS386
Posts: 291
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 2:43 pm

Post by DOS386 »

xnview wrote: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. :shock:
b) 7-ZIP the packages.

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

Wrong. There are always false positives. :bug:
There is indeed no WinZIP under my rock.
User avatar
ckv
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 2:30 pm
Location: Glow

Post by ckv »

Dstruct wrote: 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. :|
XnView Tweak UI - Tool to customize your XnView beyond the regular XnView options.
UI-less Settings - Documentation of all the hidden settings in XnView.
XFAM - Tool to create and customize XnView file associations.
Dstruct
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 9:27 am

Post by Dstruct »

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