Vista displays UAC dialog EVERY time I start my application?

[Joergen Bech]

I have an app that needs to run with elevated privileges on
Windows Vista (Registry operations - don't ask).

I have added a manifest file that looks like this:
---snip---
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<assembly xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v1"
manifestVersion="1.0">
<assemblyIdentity version="1.0.0.0" processorArchitecture="X86"
name="myapp" type="win32"/>
<trustInfo xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v3">
<security>
<requestedPrivileges>
<requestedExecutionLevel level="requireAdministrator"/>
</requestedPrivileges>
</security>
</trustInfo>
</assembly>
---snip---

(where 'myapp' has been replaced with the proper name, of course)

and I have configured this post-build event:
---snip---
"$(DevEnvDir)..\..\SDK\v2.0\bin\mt.exe" -manifest
"$(ProjectDir)$(TargetName).exe.manifest"
–outputresource:"$(TargetDir)$(TargetFileName)";#1
---snip---

I am using mt.exe version 5.2.3790.2075.

On Windows Vista (running as a WMware virtual machine),
it pops up the User Account Control dialog EVERY time I run the app
- not just the first time.

As far as I remember, this was not the case a short while ago (weeks
or months?) I am sure that when I originally added the manifest,
Vista would only bring up the dialog once for each new build.

I have not changed the manifest file, the build process, the program
version, or anything else I can think of at the development end that
could cause this change/difference.

Has anything changed on the Vista side, e.g. as the result of a
Windows Update, or where should I look for clues to the change
in this behavior?

Or does my memory fail me and it never worked in the first place?

TIA,

Joergen Bech

 

[Cor Ligthert[MVP]]

Joergen,

In my idea you have the same idea as I had some days ago, but I don't think
that this newsgroup is the right place for this question. More your local
Microsoft office.

-

Cor

 

[kimiraikkonen]

I have an app that needs to run with elevated privileges on
Windows Vista (Registry operations - don't ask).

I have added a manifest file that looks like this:
---snip---
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<assembly xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v1"
manifestVersion="1.0">
   <assemblyIdentity version="1.0.0.0" processorArchitecture="X86"
name="myapp" type="win32"/>
      <trustInfo xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v3">
      <security>
         <requestedPrivileges>
            <requestedExecutionLevel level="requireAdministrator"/>
         </requestedPrivileges>
      </security>
   </trustInfo>
</assembly>
---snip---

(where 'myapp' has been replaced with the proper name, of course)

and I have configured this post-build event:
---snip---
"$(DevEnvDir)..\..\SDK\v2.0\bin\mt.exe" -manifest
"$(ProjectDir)$(TargetName).exe.manifest"
–outputresource:"$(TargetDir)$(TargetFileName)";#1
---snip---

I am using mt.exe version 5.2.3790.2075.

On Windows Vista (running as a WMware virtual machine),
it pops up the User Account Control dialog EVERY time I run the app
- not just the first time.

As far as I remember, this was not the case a short while ago (weeks
or months?) I am sure that when I originally added the manifest,
Vista would only bring up the dialog once for each new build.

I have not changed the manifest file, the build process, the program
version, or anything else I can think of at the development end that
could cause this change/difference.

Has anything changed on the Vista side, e.g. as the result of a
Windows Update, or where should I look for clues to the change
in this behavior?

Or does my memory fail me and it never worked in the first place?

TIA,

Joergen Bech

Vista's UAC annoys even an end user on usage of every software. I
recommend you to disable it.
Here is how to:
http://www.petri.co.il/disable_uac_in_windows_vista.htm

Thanks,

Onur Güzel

 

[Lloyd Sheen]

I have an app that needs to run with elevated privileges on
Windows Vista (Registry operations - don't ask).

I have added a manifest file that looks like this:
---snip---
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<assembly xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v1"
manifestVersion="1.0">
<assemblyIdentity version="1.0.0.0" processorArchitecture="X86"
name="myapp" type="win32"/>
<trustInfo xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v3">
<security>
<requestedPrivileges>
<requestedExecutionLevel level="requireAdministrator"/>
</requestedPrivileges>
</security>
</trustInfo>
</assembly>
---snip---

(where 'myapp' has been replaced with the proper name, of course)

and I have configured this post-build event:
---snip---
"$(DevEnvDir)..\..\SDK\v2.0\bin\mt.exe" -manifest
"$(ProjectDir)$(TargetName).exe.manifest"
–outputresource:"$(TargetDir)$(TargetFileName)";#1
---snip---

I am using mt.exe version 5.2.3790.2075.

On Windows Vista (running as a WMware virtual machine),
it pops up the User Account Control dialog EVERY time I run the app
- not just the first time.

As far as I remember, this was not the case a short while ago (weeks
or months?) I am sure that when I originally added the manifest,
Vista would only bring up the dialog once for each new build.

I have not changed the manifest file, the build process, the program
version, or anything else I can think of at the development end that
could cause this change/difference.

Has anything changed on the Vista side, e.g. as the result of a
Windows Update, or where should I look for clues to the change
in this behavior?

Or does my memory fail me and it never worked in the first place?

TIA,

Joergen Bech

Vista's UAC annoys even an end user on usage of every software. I
recommend you to disable it.
Here is how to:
http://www.petri.co.il/disable_uac_in_windows_vista.htm

Thanks,

Onur Güzel

Really have to disagree with what you are showing here. While I have
disabled it the most irritating thing about any software is that it will
reconfigure your system to something you do not want. If the user has a
problem then they will setup their workstation to their particular settings.
Changing that is just rude. If they complain you can point out how to
change it but doing it otherwise is not wise.

Just my thought
LS

 

[Joergen Bech]

Thank you for taking the time to reply, but I do not see how your
reply is of any help at all.

1) What idea did you have a few days ago? Was it posted here?

2) We are talking about a VB.Net 2005 application and manifest files.
What would be a better group than the general VB.Net one?

3) What do you mean by "my local Microsoft office"?

I presume English is not your first language. Did something get lost
in translation?

Sorry,

Joergen Bech

 

[Joergen Bech]

---snip---

Vista's UAC annoys even an end user on usage of every software. I
recommend you to disable it.
Here is how to:
http://www.petri.co.il/disable_uac_in_windows_vista.htm

Thanks,

Onur Güzel

Really have to disagree with what you are showing here. While I have
disabled it the most irritating thing about any software is that it will
reconfigure your system to something you do not want. If the user has a
problem then they will setup their workstation to their particular settings.
Changing that is just rude. If they complain you can point out how to
change it but doing it otherwise is not wise.

Just my thought
LS

I agree. I have no say in how my end users should configure their
systems and I certainly do not want to suggest or recommend that
they change their system settings to something that makes it less
secure.

As the app is only going to be used in enterprise scenarios, the
machines are likely to be managed by a local system administrator,
so in all probability, this is not even an option.

Regards,

Joergen Bech

 

[Joergen Bech]

Thanks to those who replied, but I solved it another, more proper,
way:

I changed the requestedExecutionLevel to "asInvoker" and rewrote
the portions of the program that required the elevated permissions
(writing global settings to the Application Data folder instead of
writing to the Registry's HKLM node, and writing other files to the
same folder instead of the application's program folder).

I had reasons for doing things the old way, but in the end, following
best practices proved to be the path of least resistance.

Regards,

Joergen Bech

 

[Cor Ligthert[MVP]]

Joergen,

Office is in Danish "Kontor", not a Microsoft product,

Denmark

The Denmark office supports: Faroe Islands, Greenland, Iceland



For the rest, it has no sense to reply to you, as you know everything better
than anybody else.

Cor

 

[Joergen Bech]

Yes, I know the difference between "office" and "Office", but
could not tell what, if anything, it had to do with my problem.

No, I do not know everything. I post here because helpful
people like yourself often have provided nuggets of gold to
get me past an obstacle.

I was genuinely puzzled by your reply and thought it might
refer to an inside joke I was not privy to. English is not *my*
first language either and, from time to time, I have found that
a few more exchanges are necessary for clarification, esp.
when a message has to be translated twice when passed
from sender to receiver. No disrespect intended.

At any rate, the problem was solved at the root, but I would
still be happy to see someone jump in and complete the thread
by answering the original question so others googling for a
solution to the same problem do not find this thread to be
another dead end.

Regards,

Joergen Bech

Joergen,

Office is in Danish "Kontor", not a Microsoft product,

Denmark

The Denmark office supports: Faroe Islands, Greenland, Iceland



For the rest, it has no sense to reply to you, as you know everything better
than anybody else.

Cor

---snip---

 

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

OK

Yes, I know the difference between "office" and "Office", but
could not tell what, if anything, it had to do with my problem.

No, I do not know everything. I post here because helpful
people like yourself often have provided nuggets of gold to
get me past an obstacle.

I was genuinely puzzled by your reply and thought it might
refer to an inside joke I was not privy to. English is not *my*
first language either and, from time to time, I have found that
a few more exchanges are necessary for clarification, esp.
when a message has to be translated twice when passed
from sender to receiver. No disrespect intended.

At any rate, the problem was solved at the root, but I would
still be happy to see someone jump in and complete the thread
by answering the original question so others googling for a
solution to the same problem do not find this thread to be
another dead end.

Regards,

Joergen Bech





---snip---