Shortcut 2.00 (Content plug-in)

[Lefteous]

2XPEHOPE3KA

What was the reason?

The problem is to convert a displayed hotkey t its internal numeric represantation. Maybe I found a way to this conversion but if someone knows a pair of functions which does the job...

[XPEHOPE3KA]

The problem is to convert a displayed hotkey t its internal numeric represantation.

But the feature worked somehow in shelllinks properties. At least at my place. =)

[Lefteous]

2XPEHOPE3KA
Yes "somehow" is correct but many hotkeys couldn't be displayed.

[m^2]

I also think I's better to have this, even if it's not always working (especially if it shows warning when it can't decode a hotkey).

[Lefteous]

OK I'll try to find an acceptable solution.

[versalzen]

neat plugin, thanks :-)

please consider, that some user (including me) have shortcuts/lnk-files with Paths/Symbol Paths like: (here on winXP)

%ProgramFiles%\foo\bar.exe


thus, your plugin says, that the Icon Path Exists does not exist.
which is not true.
same with Working Directory Exists

[Lefteous]

2versalzen
I couldn't reproduce this so far. Which version of the plug-in do you use?

[petermad]

Well, the plugin doesn't work for virtual folders like \\Desktop\ or \\Documents\ at all, but it works fine in real folders like "C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Dokuments\" or "C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Desktop\" also for links containing paths like %ProgramFiles% or %SystemDrive%

so maybe versalzen has testet lnk files in a virtual folder?

[versalzen]

2versalzen
I couldn't reproduce this so far. Which version of the plug-in do you use?

acording to the readme.htm, dated 28.11.2006 22:18, its > Shortcut 2.00 BETA 2. the same version, i downloaded today from the first post in this thread. sorry, did not mention that ;-)

Well, the plugin doesn't work for virtual folders like \\Desktop\ or \\Documents\ at all, but it works fine in real folders like "C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Dokuments\" or "C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Desktop\" also for links containing paths like %ProgramFiles% or %SystemDrive%

so maybe versalzen has testet lnk files in a virtual folder?

hmmm.
virtual folders. dunno what they really are :-)

i tested on an NTFS filesystem in the folder:
"c:\Dokumente und Einstellungen\a-user\Anwendungsdaten\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Quick Launch"

i'm not quite sure, but maybe i should mention that i deactivated
"datum des letzten zugriffs auf ein datei speichern" and "kurze (DOS-) dateiname abspeichern" im "NTFS dateisystem".
via tuneup utility (sorry, german version only. don't know the engl. equivalents)

wincmd.ini:

Code: Select all

Widths8=190,30,30,123,-16,243,120,-22,80,30,-16,-20,363,54,234
Headers8=Fenster\nBeschreibung\n*>>>\nPfad\nParameter\n*>>>\nArbeitsverzeichnis\nSymbol\n*>>>\nNr\nSymbolpfad\nAusführen als\nKommandozeile
Contents8=[=shortcut.Show Command]\n[=shortcut.Description]\n[=shortcut.Path Exists]\n[=shortcut.Path]\n[=shortcut.Parameters]\n[=shortcut.Working Directory Exists]\n[=shortcut.Working Directory]\n[=shortcut.Has Icon Location]\n[=shortcut.Icon Path Exists]\n[=shortcut.Icon Index]\n[=shortcut.Icon Path]\n[=shortcut.Run as]\n[=shortcut.Command Line]
Options8=-1|1

[Lefteous]

2versalzen
I can reproduce this with the official version. It seems I have already fixed that in my development version.

[versalzen]

2versalzen
I can reproduce this with the official version. It seems I have already fixed that in my development version.

nice one .-) ok, i guess the rss-feed of totalcmd.net will inform me/us, when there is a new version available? thanks anyway.

[Lefteous]

2versalzen

i guess the rss-feed of totalcmd.net will inform me/us, when there is a new version available?

New versions are announced first here in the forum and later on totalcmd.net.

[m^2]

Bug report:
I and fenix_productions identified a bug that affects most tools that analyze .lnk files including Shrotcut.wdx.
With a shortcut generated by Skype (attached below) such tools show incorrect information - most importantly that the target is

Code: Select all

C:\WINDOWS\Installer\{5C82DAE5-6EB0-4374-9254-BE3319BA4E82}\Skype.ico

It's not hard to notice that it's bad because double clicking it opens Skype. Correct link information (generated by TinyHexer) is:

Code: Select all

File: '\\VBOXSVR\Shared\2008-07-02\Untitled1' 
Position: 0x00000000 
-- Header -- 
Signature: 0x0000004C ('L') 
GUID: {00021401-0000-0000-C000-000000000046} 
Flags: 0x000050DD 
LNK contains shell item id list (0x01) 
LNK contains description (0x04) 
LNK contains a relative path string (0x08) 
LNK contains a working path (0x10) 
LNK contains a custom icon (0x40) 
LNK contains unicode filenames (0x80) 
File Attr.: 0x00000000 
Created: 0x0000000000000000 ( 12:00:00 AM) 
Modified: 0x0000000000000000 ( 12:00:00 AM) 
Last Access: 0x0000000000000000 ( 12:00:00 AM) 
File size: 0 
Icon index: 0 
ShowWnd: SW_SHOWNORMAL (0x01) 
Hotkey: 0x00000000 
Reserved: 0000000000000000 
-- Shell Item ID List -- 
Length: 0x0127 
Description: Uruchom Skype 
Relative path: ..\..\..\..\Program Files\Skype\Phone\Skype.exe 
Working directory: C:\Program Files\Skype\ 
Icon filename: C:\WINDOWS\Installer\{5C82DAE5-6EB0-4374-9254-BE3319BA4E82}\Skype.ico 
Other data: 1580 bytes 

If you have some troubles with finding correct .lnk filetype reference, Tiny Hexer saves it's structure viewer definitions as scripts that seem easy to analyse.
The problematic shortcut:

Code: Select all

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Skype.7z"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Skype.7z"
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[Lefteous]

What do you expect to see in the "Path" field? Just nothing as in the Windows property dialog?

[m^2]

Windows property dialog doesn't show anything about the Installer directory on my PC.
If there is a path field (I'm not sure about "Element docelowy", which is rather "target"), it's empty.
I'd expect the plugin to show what does the .lnk point to. And regarding the fields it supports now, I would expect "path" or "command line" to show it.
Icon path in the "path" field is definitely misleading.
And considering that "path" means something else (what?), it incorrect.
Answering your question: Yes, I think that your plugin should provide correct information regardless what Windows shows.
ADDED:
BTW it's a very major Windows' security vulnerability.
I have an idea how to write crapware running practically w/out any rights (even on a guest account), almost as powerful as current ones that use kernel drivers.
Does anybody know a good place to report it?