Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


Windows 98 Per-user Application/File Rights Pack (Conceptual)

Recommended Posts

Interesting idea, but I'd prefer to make something that works in real time.

Also, how does system scheduler protect itself? Could you CTRL-ALT-DEL out of it? And could someone taper with it through task scheduler?

I wasn't referring to using a scheduler for the task. Just thought that the window watcher feature and its method of recognizing windows/applications might give you some ideas. Definitely not the scheduling part of it, though that might be a useful parental control addition. As far as defeating it, it's quite easy to defeat the free version if the user figures it out that it's the scheduler that's doing it. I believe the pro version uses a password. I installed it on a friends PC not that long ago. It was comical watching her daughter trying to find the parental control software. A scheduler never occurred to her.

What? Since when? I thought the general consencus was that it would be trying to make Win98 into something it's not.

The "general consensus" is that 98 is obsolete and should be replaced. I don't accept that and I doubt most of the regulars here do either. Win98 isn't a lot of things. Isn't that what the unofficial service packs, kernel EX and a few other projects are about, making it better than it was, making it able to do things it couldn't before, etc? Why not add better control over the user profiles as well? It can be done. SSM proves that quite conclusively. If a full blown HIPS can be made that works on 98, something less complicated and more user friendly for controlling user access is just as achievable and would be much more valuable to most users. Isn't that reason enough to try? Instead of looking at what 98 is or isn't, why don't we look towards what it could be?


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant the general concensus in this forum. Win98 is not a multi-user system, and doesn't have a file system with permissions. And that's part of why we like it.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm .....

I have watched this thread right from the start. I reserved my comments until now as I would like to see what concept ideas will be presented ...

IMHO, using ProtectIt! as a model is unsuitable as it targets a different audience back then. That targeted audience now is a very much different bunch all together...

This was an area that I spent many many moons reading up, researching and finding/testing possible solution (back then in 2004). I have concluded that this can only be done effectively by making significantly huge changes to the windows system kernel. It's something that will have a system wide affect. That's something way beyond my scope back then and I do not wish to have months of headaches figuring that one out ...

There are many (commercial) utilities that offers filesystem (folder+file) access restriction such as Protect Folder, Folderlock etc etc etc ..... but none offers multi-user level system access and/or permissions ... AFAIK, there's currently no bulletproof way to do that on win9x systems by adding some add-ons ...

There's too many issues to handle if one wants to implement a fully secure multi-user system access permissions & policy on windows 9x. You'd have to be proficient enough and understand enough of what's going on in the kernel to make these changes ...

With this in mind, I propose that the concept to be diverted to a different path that will give an intermediate level permission access. This is the path I would choose if I'm making such an add-on. (However, I'm no longer on that path ...)

To understand better, please have a look at (and perhaps try out) trust-no-exe (freeware) by beyondlogic.org ..... it is an intermediate level permission access to any folder/file for NT/2K/XP systems ..... I personally use it to block malware (which I feel is nearly 100% effective) and have implemented it on many many systems to limit access to FAT32 partitions where permissions is non-existent ...

I believe an intermediate level access model (based on trust-no-exe) is a more achievable target.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...