Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 556 through 570 (of 1,509 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Why is WinPkFlt a LWF and not an NDIS Intermediate Driver ? #11234
    Vadim Smirnov
    Keymaster

    No, in fact NDIS 6.x LWF is a direct replacement for NDIS 5.1 IM drivers.

    in reply to: Why is WinPkFlt a LWF and not an NDIS Intermediate Driver ? #11232
    Vadim Smirnov
    Keymaster

    In two words, NDIS IM is a NDIS 5.1 driver (though, it can be used in Vista, but in fact this is a compatibility mode) while LWF is NDIS 6.x and has a native support.

    in reply to: msi installer 3.2.18.1 x64 on WIN 8.1 #11046
    Vadim Smirnov
    Keymaster

    Yes, sure!

    Vadim Smirnov
    Keymaster

    P.S. I was a little bit confused about your claim regarding code signing certificates costs, but yes, if you tried to order directly from the main page then it is a kind of expensive. However, if you try this link then you might be pleasantly surprised. ๐Ÿ™‚

    Vadim Smirnov
    Keymaster

    Well, yes, this is an option. However, it won’t protect if any other applications using standard winpkfilter build are running.

    By the way we can sign your custom build with our code-signing certificate. Some of the customers prefer this option not only because of certificate costs but mostly because a relatively complex driver signing process.

    Vadim Smirnov
    Keymaster

    Hmm, interesting question and I’m afraid I don’t have a quick answer. Inspecting all active processes for the open driver handle does not look a good idea. However, I think such functionality could be added to the driver itself, an example store the driver opened handles counter in the registry.

    Still, I’m not sure that this type of functionality is really needed though, normally you should tie your NAT application with custom driver build. In this situation your NAT application always knows if it uses the driver or not while no other application are aware about the custom driver build therefore can’t use the driver.

    in reply to: InternetGateway on Win10: DNS reply has invalid UDP cksum #11037
    Vadim Smirnov
    Keymaster

    Yes, you are right, it is bug. You should add UDP checksum recalculation in two places:

    //DNS hook
    //If we receive DNS packet on the NAT client adapter then we redirect it 
    //to this system configured DNS server
    if((pDlg->m_DNSIp.S_un.S_addr != INADDR_ANY) && (pDlg->m_DNSIp.S_un.S_addr != INADDR_NONE))
    {
        if ((hAdapters[dwIndex]->m_NATState == CLIENT)&&
        (PacketBuffer.m_dwDeviceFlags == PACKET_FLAG_ON_RECEIVE))
        {
            if (ntohs(pUdpHeader->th_dport) == 53/*DNS port*/)
            {
                // Save the DNS IP used by the NAT client system
                hAdapters[dwIndex]->m_LocalDNS.S_un.S_addr = ntohl(pIpHeader->ip_dst.S_un.S_addr);
                
                pIpHeader->ip_dst.S_un.S_addr = pDlg->m_DNSIp.S_un.S_addr;
            
                if(bForceRouting) 
                {
                    bNeedToBeRouted = pDlg->IsNeedToForceRouting(pEthHeader->h_dest, pIpHeader->ip_dst.S_un.S_addr, pProviderCard->m_Index);
                }
    
                RecalculateUDPChecksum(&PacketBuffer);
                RecalculateIPChecksum (&PacketBuffer);
            }
        }
    
        // DNS reply came, substitute source IP back to the original DNS address
        if ((hAdapters[dwIndex]->m_NATState == CLIENT)&&
            (PacketBuffer.m_dwDeviceFlags == PACKET_FLAG_ON_SEND))
        {
            if (ntohs(pUdpHeader->th_sport) == 53/*DNS port*/)
            {
                pIpHeader->ip_src.S_un.S_addr = htonl(hAdapters[dwIndex]->m_LocalDNS.S_un.S_addr);
                RecalculateUDPChecksum(&PacketBuffer);
                RecalculateIPChecksum (&PacketBuffer);
            }
        }
    }

    Internet Gateway is a very old sample and I have a newer NAT library implementation (not available for public though) where surprisingly this bug was already fixed.

    in reply to: Which process sent the UDP packet? #11033
    Vadim Smirnov
    Keymaster

    Although sendto() can be called on unbound socket according MSDN “If the socket is unbound, unique values are assigned to the local association by the system, and the socket is then marked as bound”. So, I suspect that this is equivalent to calling bind explicitly. However, worth to test to ensure.

    in reply to: Which process sent the UDP packet? #11031
    Vadim Smirnov
    Keymaster

    You can use GetExtendedUdpTable to find the dwLocalAddr:dwLocalPort to dwOwningPid association and then if necessary call GetOwnerModuleFromUdpEntry with TCPIP_OWNER_MODULE_INFO_BASIC to obtain pModuleName and pModulePath.

    in reply to: msi installer 3.2.18.1 x64 on WIN 8.1 #11025
    Vadim Smirnov
    Keymaster

    Installers were fixed for Windows 8.1

    in reply to: msi installer 3.2.18.1 x64 on WIN 8.1 #11022
    Vadim Smirnov
    Keymaster

    Thanks for reporting this. Difficult to say before testing but probably it is somehow related to detected Windows version…

    Update: from what I can see installer installs the wrong driver version on Windows 8.1. Instead installing Windows 8 driver it installs Windows 10 driver. This behavior is caused by that fact that both Windows 8.1 and Windows 10 have VersionNT value set to 603 and this requires a sort of workaround:

    https://support.microsoft.com/en-ie/help/3202260/versionnt-value-for-windows-10-and-windows-server-2016

    in reply to: Clone of ETH_REQUEST #10981
    Vadim Smirnov
    Keymaster

    For C# (and other .NET languages) it is recommended to use .NET C++/CLI class library (source code available on GitHub).

    The TestDotNet project (more advanced version of PassThru) demonstrates the usage of the above-mentioned class library.

    in reply to: WinpkFilter news/updates. #10660
    Vadim Smirnov
    Keymaster

    WinpkFilter 3.2.18.1 update:

    • Fixed Receive Segment Coalescing (RSC) task offload issue for wireless WDI drivers (could cause packet loss and performance degradation for some network interfaces)
    • Driver signature updated (could cause installation problems on Enterprise and Server editions)

    If you are eligible for a free update, please send the following details to [email protected] tะพ receive an update instruction:

    Your order ID.
    An approximate date of purchasing.

    in reply to: VirtNet does not install on Windows 10 version 1809 x64 #10642
    Vadim Smirnov
    Keymaster

    Is it possible to drop limitation #3, so we can use any mac address.

    Yes, sure, it is possible. I also wanted to make few more adjustments to this new driver. Will add it this to the list.

    in reply to: VirtNet does not install on Windows 10 version 1809 x64 #10640
    Vadim Smirnov
    Keymaster

    Always glad to help ๐Ÿ™‚

Viewing 15 posts - 556 through 570 (of 1,509 total)