• rien (unregistered) in reply to rien
    rien:
    sorry, i forgot i am greedy by default: i should have added some '?'.

    now, my quote was a bit too much non-greedy. it was supposed to be in reply to:

    bit:
    rien:
    There was a similar bug with i-dont-remember-which-app-or-control-panel which was simply due to the buffer overrun protection of a famous anti-virus software (the one whose name begins with Virus and ends with Scan):
    I thought it was that one whose name begins with and ends with .
  • blodulv (unregistered) in reply to H3SO5

    Windows does this all the way up to XP if you use (not even leak) enough USER objects. Try starting Photoshop 5 or 6 times at once and enable display of the USER column in the task manager. Alias (sorry, Autodesk now) Maya also is a USER object hog.

  • Loren Pechtel (unregistered) in reply to rien
    rien:
    There was a similar bug with i-dont-remember-which-app-or-control-panel which was simply due to the buffer overrun protection of a famous anti-virus software (the one whose name begins with Virus and ends with Scan): simply disabling the buffer overrun protection in the antivirus settings dialog made my window reappear.

    since then, i am left wondering how a buffer overrun protection can wipe off a whole window...

    captcha: how many 'a' does it take to write crazy ?

    Probably the program was guilty of a buffer overrun with the window.

    And it takes 3 a's--that means it's REALLY crazy.

  • Sven (unregistered)

    Looks like a severe case of missing resource strings to me. The installer for McAfee VirusScan Enterprise 8.5i beta did something like this with certain UI languages: instead of the actual resource string it displayed the MSI resource identifiers. Although you could figure out what you were doing, it never gave me enough confidence to actually install the thing. But at least in that case it was a beta, and the released version didn't have that issue.

  • (cs) in reply to rien
    rien:
    since then, i am left wondering how a buffer overrun protection can wipe off a whole window...
    void BufferOverrunToFillInWindow()
{
    char temp[2];
    char Actual[256]={0,};
    sprintf(temp, "  Actual Text");
    SetWindowText(g_hwnd, Actual);
}

    Don't ask why anyone would do that, but that's ONE option for buffer overrun protection wiping out a window.

  • (cs)

    I have this when I try to install stuff from my driver disks. Lots of weird language problems that create windows full of underscores, questionmarks or empty screens.

  • Jen L (unregistered) in reply to rien
    rien:
    There was a similar bug with i-dont-remember-which-app-or-control-panel which was simply due to the buffer overrun protection of a famous anti-virus software (the one whose name begins with Virus and ends with Scan): simply disabling the buffer overrun protection in the antivirus settings dialog made my window reappear.

    Darn it you guys! Here I was having a nice laugh at my employer's expense and you go and RUIN IT ALL by saying it's not their fault.

    captcha: waffles /me puts on her Gir voice. I LOVE waffles!

  • (cs) in reply to ben curthoys

    Honey I don't know what half those words mean. I'm so tipsy right now that the ad for Glassfish is kinda sexy.

    To the first-posters: this isn't Slashdot. You should've left that shit behind when you got a real job. (And if you don't have a real job, why are you reading worsethanfailure? Go get laid or something. Somebody in this world needs to be getting laid, and if it can't be me it may as well be you)

  • Matt (unregistered) in reply to Anita Tinkle
    Anita Tinkle:
    It looks like localization code isn't working (that changes all the text on the labels depending on the culture needed).

    In fact it has been localized for Marcel Marceau's house

  • Anonymous Lurker (unregistered) in reply to Zathrus
    Zathrus:
    I actually have a program like that on my Dell Inspiron E1505. As best I can tell it's part of the crapware that Dell loads, but I cannot figure out what it is, what process it is, or where it's loading from. I've even pulled out Process Explorer on it to no avail. There's absolutely no text anywhere, except for the menubar and one string that says (IIRC) "September 2005" in the About dialog.

    The graphics look like a circular water splash, and it puts an icon in the Taskbar. I figured out how to close it entirely through trial and error, but it pops back up about once a week or so.

    And yes, I've scanned my system repeatedly with various spyware and anti-virus scanners; none pick anything worth mentioning up.

    That would be the Installshield Update Manager (see http://consumer.installshield.com/). I am pretty certain it is preinstalled on most Dells. I think that there is an entry in the Add/Remove Programs applet, but I could be wrong.

    For those not in the know, the icon looks like [image]

  • RandomUser (unregistered) in reply to Carnildo
    Carnildo:
    Under Windows 95/98/ME, that's a common failure mode when the system runs low on GDI resources. Unless this is appearing on WinNT/2k/XP, the only WTF here is that the submitter hasn't used older versions of Windows much.

    Windows NT/2000/XP/Server 2003 still has an upper limit on GDI objects.

  • no name (unregistered) in reply to RandomUser
    RandomUser:
    Carnildo:
    Under Windows 95/98/ME, that's a common failure mode when the system runs low on GDI resources. Unless this is appearing on WinNT/2k/XP, the only WTF here is that the submitter hasn't used older versions of Windows much.

    Windows NT/2000/XP/Server 2003 still has an upper limit on GDI objects.

    Yep, I run into it all the time. Seems to be related to Excel 2002. And to think Win2000 was supposed to be a real OS.

  • no name (unregistered) in reply to no name
    no name:
    RandomUser:
    Carnildo:
    Under Windows 95/98/ME, that's a common failure mode when the system runs low on GDI resources. Unless this is appearing on WinNT/2k/XP, the only WTF here is that the submitter hasn't used older versions of Windows much.

    Windows NT/2000/XP/Server 2003 still has an upper limit on GDI objects.

    Yep, I run into it all the time. Seems to be related to Excel 2002. And to think Win2000 was supposed to be a real OS.

    Whoops, forgot. My work computer is actually running XP now. Still, Win2000 was about were many started considering Windows a real OS (although most of the underpinnings were already in place in NT).

  • Zathrus (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous Lurker
    Anonymous Lurker:
    That would be the Installshield Update Manager

    That's the icon alright, thanks. Unfortunately I did uninstall that program shortly after getting the laptop. Guess it didn't quite complete the job.

  • Sheeshi (unregistered)

    Looks like it's missing an XML file or two?

  • Anonymous Coward (unregistered)

    Step 1: Underwear Step 2: Step 3: Profit!

  • (cs)

    Sheesh, I'm amazed that you guys never heard of the principle of information hiding. The Real WTF is of course, because it's to , making it boot.

  • (cs)

    I know! It's a game of Click Drag Type!

  • Abdullah Admim (unregistered)

    You fools!

    That is obviously the accessibility tab containing the configuration settings to enable this product to be used by blind people.

  • MadJo (unregistered) in reply to Jones McFaggot
    Jones McFaggot:
    OMFG HAX!!!

    captcha: pirates

    I'm an ass, pirate hahahahahahah!!!!1111oneoneone

    There fixed that for ya. ;)

    captcha: howdy... yeah howdy all y'all.

  • (cs)

    Heh, this reminds me of something similar that happened to me when I was trying out NeroLinux (yeah, I know that Nero sucks, I was just testing it out :P)

    [image]

  • Dar (unregistered)

    PHOTOSHOPPED! FAKE!!!

  • Shaymus (unregistered)

    Are u running McAfee VirusScan 8? The buffer overflow feature steals text from .NET applications sometimes.

  • Mein Hund trägt keine Socken (unregistered)

    Now that's what I call a clean GUI design. Plus it serves as a great way to ensure "failsafe" settings: Give the users the impression of being able to actually change something, but make them fear doing something wrong. I imagine my father being presented a dialog like this. "Now, what do I do here? Ah, anyway, these Labtec guys will know what they're doing. OK"

  • Icelight (unregistered) in reply to nobody
    nobody:
    Carnildo:
    Under Windows 95/98/ME, that's a common failure mode when the system runs low on GDI resources. Unless this is appearing on WinNT/2k/XP, the only WTF here is that the submitter hasn't used older versions of Windows much.

    Luckily, my Linux box has plenty of Nod resources....

    (hides my head in shame)

    groans

    Captc- gets shot

  • Meh, who cares? (unregistered) in reply to H3SO5
    H3SO5:
    First (I hope).
    I hope you die, you
  • (cs) in reply to Erzengel
    Erzengel:
    rien:
    since then, i am left wondering how a buffer overrun protection can wipe off a whole window...
    void BufferOverrunToFillInWindow()
{
    char temp[2];
    char Actual[256]={0,};
    sprintf(temp, "  Actual Text");
    SetWindowText(g_hwnd, Actual);
}

    Don't ask why anyone would do that, but that's ONE option for buffer overrun protection wiping out a window.

    That, of course, assumes the compiler will place the items in that order in memory (whether on the stack in this case, or if you tried to use malloc/new to do it on the heap). IIRC it's not required to put them in any defined order (it'll put them in whatever order's more efficient I'd imagine), and the coder doesn't have to know (indeed, the coder shouldn't need to know, since you shouldn't be running over the bounds of your buffers in the first place). I do believe the result of temp[2] in this case is stated as 'undefined' - the usual result is you scribble on something important, either crashing (if you're lucky) or causing an exploitable code injection hole. This exact same code might put 'Actual Text' in Actual on one system, and write it over the return address and other parts of the stack on another. In fact, I'd guess the latter is more likely, as following the order assumption, temp is first on the stack, and stacks grow downward, thus &temp > &Actual (&temp < &Actual is needed for this to work as intended), thus &temp[2] != &Actual[0]. Writing double 0x6341 (assuming x86, thus little endian) over your return address is likely to send code execution into lala land.

    Of course, as you said, no sane person would ever do it. I'm just pointing out why not because I felt like it :) .

  • (cs) in reply to Dar
    Dar:
    PHOTOSHOPPED! FAKE!!!
    I'm quite sure that the original picture is NOT fake, nor is the one I posted in my comment ;)
  • Chad (unregistered) in reply to AtomicLlama
    AtomicLlama:
  • squarelover (unregistered) in reply to Simozene
    Simozene:
    They must've disconnected the flux capacitor.

    No, they forgot to hook up the doll.

  • simpleton (unregistered)

    but does it go up to 11?!

  • Snow_Cat (unregistered)

    Buy a better product, or assemble it yourself.

    I have never had a single Labtec product that was 'complete' out of the 'box' (or plastic bag). I usually ended up cracking the stupid mouse or keyboard open, soldering the loose components to the PCB, splicing on a new connector, then exchaning the 'repaired' unit with a 'defective' one from someone's desk to repeat the process... because apparently ball mice were too unreliable to keep...

  • No. (unregistered) in reply to rien
    rien:
    how many 'a' does it take to write crazy ?

Leave a comment on “What Do I Do Here?”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article