class insufficient_permissions : public process_launch_failure
{
    public:
        enum entity { file, directory, other };
        enum { read = 1, write = 2, execute = 4 };

        insufficient_permissions(entity e, unsigned requires, const std::string &path, const std::string &action);

        ~insufficient_permissions() throw();

        entity subject() const;

        unsigned requires() const; // bitfield of read|write|execute

        const char *action() const; // the action for which the permissions were insufficient

        // ...
};

Quote:Original post by gan
Could be LogonUser() (you might need to use: LOGON32_LOGON_NEW_CREDENTIALS) that you need? Or this VB6 sample?

Quote:Original post by dmail

Quote:Original post by the_edd


In other words, which of these boxes needs to be ticked for the application, it's containing folder, any parent folders of the containing folder, the working directory and any parent folders of the working directory such that the given user can run the application?

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms684880.aspx

Quote:

Quote:The handle returned by the CreateProcess function has PROCESS_ALL_ACCESS access to the process object.

So I would assume you would need all access permissions to create?

Quote:Original post by the_edd
1. The executable file itself

Quote:
2. The directory that contains the executable
3. An ancestor of the directory that contains the executable
4. The working directory (passed to CreateProcess)
5. An ancestor of the working directory

Quote:Original post by adeyblue

Quote:Original post by the_edd
1. The executable file itself

Just FILE_EXECUTE. It might be worth noting that GENERIC_EXECUTE doesn't include this permission, that is, unless the doc page has an oversight.

Quote:

Quote:
2. The directory that contains the executable
3. An ancestor of the directory that contains the executable
4. The working directory (passed to CreateProcess)
5. An ancestor of the working directory

You don't need anything special here. Technically you'd need FILE_TRAVERSE access to each directory, but the default security policy disables enforcement of this so it's generally a non-issue.

// runhello.cpp#include <iostream>#include <cstring>#include <windows.h>int main(){    STARTUPINFO si;    std::memset(&si, 0, sizeof si);    si.cb = sizeof si;    PROCESS_INFORMATION pi;    std::memset(π, 0, sizeof pi);    char cmdline[] = "\"C:\\Documents and Settings\\Admin\\My Documents\\hello.exe\"";    const char *cwd = "C:\\Documents and Settings\\Admin\\My Documents";    if (CreateProcessA(0, cmdline, 0, 0, false, 0, 0, cwd, &si, π) == 0)        std::cout << "error: " << GetLastError() << '\n';    else    {        WaitForSingleObject(pi.hProcess, INFINITE);        CloseHandle(pi.hThread);        CloseHandle(pi.hProcess);    }    return 0;}

Quote:
(I would have done so already if it wasn't such a PITA to log in as an administrator on XP home).

Quote:Original post by adeyblue
I think I've got the requirements now, this picture shows what permissions are requested on XP. On all the parent directories back to the root, the FS requests permission 0x100001 (SYNCHRONIZE | FILE_READ_DATA) but on the working directory itself 0x100020 is required (SYNCHRONIZE | FILE_TRAVERSE). No doubt if the user or the one of the users' groups isn't allowed to bypass traversal checking, the parent directories will be queried for 0x100021. Don't worry about SYNCHRONIZE, its added automatically.

Quote:

Quote:
(I would have done so already if it wasn't such a PITA to log in as an administrator on XP home).

Fast User Switching can help with this, you log on each account once and switch between them via the log off button. It's on the Control Panel->User Accounts->Change the way users log on or off link.

Quote:
Also, there is a command line viewer for file permissions (cacls.exe in system32) but it doesn't show the specific permissions, so I wrote one that does. It covers all other securable objects as well so it might be useful if you're going to be doing a lot of this sort of thing.

Quote:Original post by adeyblue
I think I've got the requirements now, this picture shows what permissions are requested on XP. On all the parent directories back to the root, the FS requests permission 0x100001 (SYNCHRONIZE | FILE_READ_DATA) but on the working directory itself 0x100020 is required (SYNCHRONIZE | FILE_TRAVERSE). No doubt if the user or the one of the users' groups isn't allowed to bypass traversal checking, the parent directories will be queried for 0x100021. Don't worry about SYNCHRONIZE, its added automatically.

// Pseudo codeif (user has SeChangeNotifyPrivilege) // this is bypass traversal checking, I think?{    check_perms(FILE_EXECUTE | SYNCHRONIZE, executable);    check_perms(FILE_READ_DATA, parent_of(cwd));}else{    d = directory_containing(executable);    check_perms(FILE_READ_DATA | FILE_TRAVERSE | SYNCHRONIZE, d and parents_of(d));    check_perms(FILE_READ_DATA | FILE_TRAVERSE | SYNCHRONIZE, cwd and parents_of(cwd));    check_perms(FILE_EXECUTE | SYNCHRONIZE, executable);    check_perms(FILE_READ_DATA, parent_of(cwd));}