Re: [wintrust] Return TRUST_E_PROVIDER_UNKNOWN for WinVerifyTrust
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:37:53 +0200 (CEST), you wrote:
Hi,
currently we return ERROR_SUCCESS for WinVerifyTrust. Process Explorer expects some data because of this.
As no trust provider is implemented yet, return TRUST_E_PROVIDER_UNKNOWN instead.
Paul, Girotel was perfectly happy with the ERROR_SUCCESS without anymore "data" (none is actually returned), now it fails. I think that in this case ERROR_SUCCESS should be the default. If you cannot figure out what data your program expects, perhaps you can single out the specific ActionID to return a failure. Rein.
On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 16:23, Rein Klazes wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:37:53 +0200 (CEST), you wrote:
Hi,
currently we return ERROR_SUCCESS for WinVerifyTrust. Process Explorer expects some data because of this.
As no trust provider is implemented yet, return TRUST_E_PROVIDER_UNKNOWN instead.
Paul,
Girotel was perfectly happy with the ERROR_SUCCESS without anymore "data" (none is actually returned), now it fails.
I think that in this case ERROR_SUCCESS should be the default. If you cannot figure out what data your program expects, perhaps you can single out the specific ActionID to return a failure.
Rein.
Ok Rein, will have a look. Paul.
On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 16:23, Rein Klazes wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:37:53 +0200 (CEST), you wrote:
Hi,
currently we return ERROR_SUCCESS for WinVerifyTrust. Process Explorer expects some data because of this.
As no trust provider is implemented yet, return TRUST_E_PROVIDER_UNKNOWN instead.
Paul,
Girotel was perfectly happy with the ERROR_SUCCESS without anymore "data" (none is actually returned), now it fails.
I think that in this case ERROR_SUCCESS should be the default. If you cannot figure out what data your program expects, perhaps you can single out the specific ActionID to return a failure.
Rein.
Hi Rein, could you try the attached patch. It's a hack and we probably need an implementation of softpub.h. I just want to make sure Girotel doesn't use the same ActionID Does anyone have softpub.h lying around to be included ? Cheers, Paul.
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:28:27 +0200, you wrote:
Hi Rein,
could you try the attached patch. It's a hack and we probably need an implementation of softpub.h. I just want to make sure Girotel doesn't use the same ActionID
Yes that works. Here is the Girotel's output: | fixme:wintrust:WinVerifyTrust 0xffffffff {64b9d180-8da2-11cf-8736-00aa00a485eb} 0x7ba7f2f0 (repeated 10 times or so.) Rein.
participants (2)
-
Paul Vriens -
Rein Klazes