Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
"Dominik Strasser" Dominik.Strasser@t-online.de wrote:
The attached patch hacks^H^H^H^H^Hfixes this problem. Obviously, this binary doesn't contain a valid PE header. OTOH it seems to be a valid Windows binary (I haven't checked it myself). Maybe somebody with a more deep insight into this can come up with a better fix.
if ((header.mz.e_cparhdr << 4) < sizeof(IMAGE_DOS_HEADER))
return BINARY_DOS;
return BINARY_PE_EXE;
Of course the patch is wrong. How it can be that an .exe has no a valid PE header but it seems to be a valid PE executable? You have to investigate what that file is in reality.
I know that this patch stinks. But the .EXE is valid. It works under Win98. PE Explorer shows the information.
Dominik