91 replies to this topic

[MedEvil]

Well, no license issue if script checks if source is enterprise or ultimate and copies only if that is the case. everyone has access to enterprise on 90 day basis since freely downloadable from ms site as trial.

2 problems here. First since all versions are on the DVD, there is no way, short of asking for your licence key, to know, which version you can legally use.
Second, the free trial is time limited to 90days. A PE build from it, will not only work for 90 days. So i think this is at least an grey area.

Also, this is pe, not windows! not building windows, only pe. (I think perhaps no license issue since bitlocker included in true pe 3.0 and windows recovery--isn't pe license somewhat different from windows license?)

Eventhough we call them PE, our projects create really PElike Environments.
Like in the meaning, that they work like a WinPE, not in the sense, that they are legaly the same as a WinPE.
I would best describe our PE, in the legal sense, as reduced versions of Windows and therefore believe, that the default Eula of the basis OS still applies.

[techvslife]

since all versions are on the DVD, there is no way, short of asking for your licence key, to know, which version you can legally use.

I. The difficulty with your position is this: how do you know I have a license to ANY version of Windows in the first place? the possession of the dvd is not the same as having a legit serial key or license to any version. as far as I can see, it must be either that (A) the user's consent to use the script means he asserts he has a valid license, thus releasing you from liability, or (B) the microsoft pe license allows you to distribute certain files for a pe build only (not a new full windows build). In either case there would be no problem (--in case (a), the user would be certifying he has a valid ultimate or enterprise license, just as he is certifying he has ANY valid license--after all you are NOT defeating the license verification mechanism of Microsoft, nor are you distributing the source files--at least I think not).

Second, the free trial is time limited to 90days. A PE build from it, will not only work for 90 days. So i think this is at least an grey area.

II. ok, this is a good point, but does this apply to building pe? And couldn't the bitlocker files come from the pe distributable? maybe not.
In any case this point wouldn't matter if (Ia) or (Ib) above holds.

I would best describe our PE, in the legal sense, as reduced versions of Windows and therefore believe, that the default Eula of the basis OS still applies.

ok, but there's still case I(a). I don't understand the difference between certifying you have a license to any of the versions on the dvd and certifying you have a license to one of the versions on the dvd. Also how do you know a user only has home and not professional? or starter and not professional? etc. So I see no real distinction given this argument that would prevent use of bitlocker files now in ultimate and enterprise and in all true pe 3 distribs.

Finally, note that bitlocker ALMOST works when FULL option is checked in copy files--so I kind of doubt the legal concern is in play here or if it is that it would hold up. But I'm sure there is some complicated and well-debated policy already in place about this.

[techvslife]

Don't know if this is actually of use in figuring out what to do to get bitlocker running on pese or nativeEx7, but according to this site:
http://www.faultwire....exe*56443.html
the bitlocker management exe (system32\manage-bde.exe) requires these files:

Kernel32.dll
Msvcrt.dll
Ntdll.dll
Oleaut32.dll
Profapi.dll

But it doesn't claim to be an exhaustive list, and each of those files in turn depends on others, e.g.:
http://www.faultwire...rofapi.dll.html

[patsch]

all 5 files are present in your windows\system32 folder of your pe

[MedEvil]

techvslife, don't try to fight the legal mumbo jumbo with logic.
How can M$ give WAIK away for free legaly, yet we're not allowed legaly, to make a single file of it accessable to you?
How can every Win7 DVD include 'try before you buy', yet neighter the DVD nor an image of it, can be obtained legally for anything less, but the full licence price?

[techvslife]

But what about the main point: I'm not sure you have the legal mumbo jumbo right--whether the license is logical or not, or reasonable or not. How is it, again, that the project authors assume the user has a valid license to ANY Windows (professional or any other)?
Whatever that reason is (and it can't be the mere possession of the dvd!), it would probably allow the use of ultimate or enterprise files also and hence bitlocker files.
(1) if it's because the user asserts by using the project that he has a valid license, then that user would be asserting he has an ultimate/enterprise license if used a script to add bitlocker files.
(2) is it because of the OS the script is running on? I thought you could build a win7 peSe on vista, so I didn't think that was right. But if so, one could simply check if the script is running on win7 enterprise/ultimate.
(3) is it because of some other provision of the license? but what provision would allow only licensed users of professional to build a pe disk with professional files and not licensed users of ultimate or enterprise to build a pe with ultimate/enterprise files? I'm not aware of what provision of the license is in play there.

techvslife, don't try to fight the legal mumbo jumbo with logic.
How can M$ give WAIK away for free legaly, yet we're not allowed legaly, to make a single file of it accessable to you?
How can every Win7 DVD include 'try before you buy', yet neighter the DVD nor an image of it, can be obtained legally for anything less, but the full licence price?

[techvslife]

all 5 files are present in your windows\system32 folder of your pe

Thanks, so it must be some other files or some files they depend on. I wonder how I could figure out the full list of dependencies, but it's probably huge. What one needs I guess is a list of files that specifically used for bitlocker functionality.

[patsch]

How is it, again, that the project authors assume the user has a valid license to ANY Windows (professional or any other)?

Imho that is not the point ... the author publishes a project that will work with all versions of windows (a base system). And that project uses only legal stuff (concerning the license).
The author is not responsible for what a user is doing and what license a user has.
Imho the author only has to guarantee that the project should work with the basic version.

That means the other way round that a function like bitlocker that is not part of the basic win7 is an additional functon like an app and the project author is not responsible for that but a script author (app author) ... also like the non-free apps like acronis etc

[techvslife]

ok, if I understand you, there would be no problem with a bitlocker script. Also, there would be no problem with bitlocker as part of the base project itself as long as it doesn't interfere with building from "basic windows" (you mean "professional"?), i.e. would work fine as part of the project as long as it checked to see if the source was enterprise or ultimate, if not, don't try to copy the files. (You can't mean "all windows" because I think none of these will build from starter.)

And that project uses only legal stuff (concerning the license).

Here again I don't follow you. Whatever principle leads you to think it is using "only legal stuff" from professional or "basic" windows, would mean it would also be using "only legal stuff" from enterprise or ultimate. I haven't heard any legal basis for distinguishing what a project using winbuilder does in the case of one version of windows on the dvd from the other.

[patsch]

ok, if I understand you, there would be no problem with a bitlocker script.

absolutely yes.
the script author then should point out that a valid source is needed for that script

Also, there would be no problem with bitlocker as part of the base project itself as long as it doesn't interfere with building from "basic windows" (you mean "professional"?)

no, not part of a base project ... and the basic windows version should be the home basic variant

, i.e. would work fine as part of the project as long as it checked to see if the source was enterprise or ultimate, if not, don't try to copy the files.

I don't know if this is possible to distinguish and I think that this is the reason that a part of bitlocker is already copied in the projects

[techvslife]

no, not part of a base project ... and the basic windows version should be the home basic variant

ok I didn't know there was a "home basic" rule for all win7 projects, but i don't see why this would violate the home basic rule--projects would still build fine with "home basic" as a source, but would also build fine with "ultimate" or "enterprise" as a source. Only in the latter case some extra files would be copied over.

"would work fine as part of the project as long as it checked to see if the source was enterprise or ultimate, if not, don't try to copy the files."
I don't know if this is possible to distinguish and I think that this is the reason that a part of bitlocker is already copied in the projects

Yes, it's possible to distinguish among the versions:
http://msdn.microsof...429(VS.85).aspx

Don't know about what the winbuilder script command would be or if there is one. (Of course, you also just test for the existence of the needed files in the source.)

[techvslife]

From a thread in the vistape section, it seems at least in vista these files were also required for bitlocker:

%Windir%/fveapi.dll
%Windir%/fveRecover.dll
%Windir%/Inf/tpm.inf
%Windir%/Inf/tpm.PNF
%Windir%/System32/fveapi.dll
%Windir%/System32/fveapi.dll.mui
%Windir%/System32/fveRecover.dll
%Windir%/System32/fverecover.dll.mui
%Windir%/System32/fvevol.sys

from this post:
http://www.boot-land...?...ost&p=49625

But of the above, I found none (except tpm.PNF) missing from winpese. (The *.mui files were in \Windows\system32\en-us\ and fvevol.sys was in \system32\drivers\.)

From my own check comparing my win7 system against the peSe iso with full copy option, I find these files missing on the peSe iso: (from system32)
fvenotify.exe
fveprompt.exe
but those are the only fve*.* files missing. by a curious coincidence, they are also the only fve files marked with a tiny icon of a lock and keys on them.

I also found these bde files on my win7 system but missing from the peSe iso with full copy option:
BdeHdCfg.exe
BdeHdCfgLib.dll
BdeSvc.dll
BdeUiSrv.exe

So there's quite a few bitlocker related files missing with full copy on.

UPDATE: I added the six bde/fve files I mentioned (in bold) and booted--but it made no difference. The bde interface is there in control panel under security, but you can't actually unlock any drive. Nor can you unlock or even run a status check (-status) with system32\manage-bde.exe, although the file runs with no parameters.

[techvslife]

Ok, I downloaded a program called "dependency walker" for x64 and it looks well done.

It shows that system32\manage-bde.exe requires these files:
UPDATE: I had a long list, but it turns out the files were all there, except for these two files:
IESHIMS.DLL
GDIPLUS.DLL

However, those files were also missing from my win7 ultimate system, so dependency walker was probably suffering from its last update being for vista.
UPDATE TO UPDATE: ieshims.dll and gdiplus.dll were in my win7 system AND were also already in the pese iso, so I'm concentrating on other causes, such as registry / dll registration.

[MedEvil]

Let's try to cut off the problem below the knees like that.

Every script writer writes a script, because he or she needs the functionality.

Project maintainers then collect a bunch of those scripts and release them as a project. Usually polished up a bit and checked that they all play nice together.

They are meant to give an idea and a starting point for any newbies. The end goal is, for everyone to put together a very own project.

Because of the above:
If no script exist for a certain funktionality, it can not be included into any project.
And if no script writer needs said funktionality, no script writer will ever waste time on creating such a script.

Legaly we, the script writers and project maintainers, are on the save side as long as we don't provide you any files or links on how to obtain something, you should not have.
If the source you use is legal or not or if you use the created PE for something illegal, is all just between you and the police

So bitlocker support does quit simply not exist, because nobody, but you, ever needed it.

[patsch]

then you have a lot of files to search for in your PE and list only the ones that are missing
after that it is a simple step to write a script that simply copies the needed files to your target directory

[techvslife]

Legaly we, the script writers and project maintainers, are on the save side as long as we don't provide you any files or links on how to obtain something, you should not have.
If the source you use is legal or not or if you use the created PE for something illegal, is all just between you and the police. So bitlocker support does quit simply not exist, because nobody, but you, ever needed it.

Sure, that's what I thought; you are saved by not providing the files and having the end user assert his license in running the script. What I'm saying is that, exactly because of this, you have not made any legal distinction that I can see between having a project that calls on files in win7 home or professional versus those in win7 ultimate or enterprise. So there's no reason against having a project that includes a script that copies files needed for bitlocker support, except for the "win home basic only in base projects" rule you cite. And there I think it's sufficient to simply not copy or register bitlocker files if they're not in the source (or if the source is not ultimate/enterprise), so it would be compatible with home basic as source.

Also I have no objection to a script app for bitlocker rather than inclusion in the base project. --but I note it's a fundamental part of windows enterprise systems--bitlocker is widespread (in business use) and you can't read encrypted drives without it. either way you look at it, it is a core component of any windows recovery or pe disk.

also, one correction: there have been requests from others for bitlocker. If i'm not mistaken, it did finally work in vistape builds here. so then lack of support in winpe3 would be a kind of regression from vistape.

[techvslife]

then you have a lot of files to search for in your PE and list only the ones that are missing
after that it is a simple step to write a script that simply copies the needed files to your target directory

I finally did that (as noted in later update in the same post), but the mystery isn't solved. probably because dependency walker hasn't been updated for win7. but is it possible that the necessary dlls, though present, are not getting registered?

[patsch]

IESHIMS.DLL : part of Internet Explorer 8, look into that directory
GDIPLUS.DLL : I have several files ... e.g. in
C:\Windows\winsxs\amd64_microsoft.windows.gdiplus_6595b64144ccf1df_1.0.7600.16385_none_3bfdd7
03d890231d\GdiPlus.dll
C:\Windows\winsxs\amd64_microsoft.windows.gdiplus_6595b64144ccf1df_1.1.7600.16385_none_2b4f45
e87195fcc4\GdiPlus.dll
C:\Windows\winsxs\x86_microsoft.windows.gdiplus_6595b64144ccf1df_1.0.7600.16385_none_83ab0dda
ed0c4c23\GdiPlus.dll
C:\Windows\winsxs\x86_microsoft.windows.gdiplus_6595b64144ccf1df_1.1.7600.16385_none_72fc7cbf
861225ca\GdiPlus.dll

[techvslife]

thanks, I didn't notice that.

I suspect ieshims.dll is probably not actually needed (was delay load marked but not loaded--I think it's just a compatibility patch or something.)
But I'll try searching for both and adding them in. I didn't find them in the pese iso and they were on my win7 system.

UPDATE: I did find ieshims.dll in the pese iso, in the 64-bit ie programs folder (but it doesn't have a 32-bit ie folder): G:\sources\boot.wim\1\Program Files\Internet Explorer\
UPDATE: I also did find gdiplus.dll in the pese iso. The file is cleverly hidden (the windows.* entries in winsxs all come after the nearly identical windows-* entries).
So upshot is that it may be a matter of registry entry / dll registration.

p.s. Are files in winsxs actually loaded if they don't exist elsewhere? see below. At any rate, I'll search for gdiplus.dll everywhere and put it in.

IESHIMS.DLL : part of Internet Explorer 8, look into that directory
GDIPLUS.DLL : I have several files ... e.g. in
C:\Windows\winsxs\amd64_microsoft.windows.gdiplus_6595b64144ccf1df_1.0.7600.16385_none_3bfdd7
03d890231d\GdiPlus.dll
C:\Windows\winsxs\amd64_microsoft.windows.gdiplus_6595b64144ccf1df_1.1.7600.16385_none_2b4f45
e87195fcc4\GdiPlus.dll
C:\Windows\winsxs\x86_microsoft.windows.gdiplus_6595b64144ccf1df_1.0.7600.16385_none_83ab0dda
ed0c4c23\GdiPlus.dll
C:\Windows\winsxs\x86_microsoft.windows.gdiplus_6595b64144ccf1df_1.1.7600.16385_none_72fc7cbf
861225ca\GdiPlus.dll

[MedEvil]

So there's no reason against having a project that includes a script that copies files needed for bitlocker support

Nope!

--but I note it's a fundamental part of windows enterprise systems

And that's the problem. It is a thousand times easier to get a stand alone program working in a PE, than something that is integrated in Windows, cause there is no easy way to figure out, what settings and files belong to that feature and what not.

also, one correction: there have been requests from others for bitlocker.

People, who want a feature, but for one reason or another do not create a script, do not count. Only people, who want a feature bad enough, to stand failure and failure again, for days and weeks, until it finally works, count.

I often hear, i can't create a script, i don't know how to write code.
Which is a rediculous statement. Learning, how to write WB code is the easiest part of the whole undertaking.
In fact, writing the code is so simple, that one has, a not too hard time, talking a script developer into doing that, given that one can provide all the needed data.

[MedEvil]

but the mystery isn't solved. probably because dependency walker hasn't been updated for win7.

In Windows integrated features, usually need the files as well as the right registry settings to work. One without the other won't work.

[techvslife]

It is a thousand times easier to get a stand alone program working in a PE, than something that is integrated in Windows, cause there is no easy way to figure out, what settings and files belong to that feature and what not.

that makes a lot of sense, though that's different from your original point, about legal objections in calling on files in enterprise or ultimate (which was the only part I was disagreeing with).

People, who want a feature, but for one reason or another do not create a script, do not count.

a bitlocker script was created and afaik bitlocker was working in vistape. if so win7pe is a regression on this point, losing a windows feature.

of course given your pt #1, it would take more of an expert to write a bitlocker script (#2)--it's heavily integrated into the windows core (probably for good reason: it affects very low level disk and file access and security).

in Windows integrated features, usually need the files as well as the right registry settings to work. One without the other won't work

So need to register dlls and have the right reg entries etc. That's something I don't know how to do but maybe the vistape people would know.

[techvslife]

Astonishingly bitlocker was apparently working on an earlier pe3.0 project -- "the pe21.003b Project" (?) -- so the loss of bitlocker looks like a regression even within pe3.0 development:
http://www.boot-land...?...ost&p=61283

update: that may have been a true win 7 pe 3.0 disk that was modified--it's unclear to me. I suppose winbuilder and the various app scripts wouldn't work to build using an actual (true) pe 3.0 dvd as base or to modify one to include a few apps.

[Lancelot]

so win7pe is a regression

isn't that a bit much ofensive.

Since VistaPE have a longer history with having support from many users, eventually today have some ready options where good people spend a lot time to find a share. After a comparable same time pass, things will be eventually available. Take a look at VistaPE-Capi

If you have time, and want to contribute, search ways to find things and than find ways to share . Basicaly a .reg file and required file list is enough to share findings. Further you can share on any format you like.

Keep in mind, making a PE to a "ready to common end user with lots of options" is a long time task due to goals.
As an example, Leopard is a Beta project since July 25 2009 , Besides I really get excited whenever I test it.
It does not have to be that way too,
giving example there is "XP_cli" here post 48 , already reached its goals.

Since you are more interested to pe3, here is another one which reached its goal (small PE3) too (mostly I guess) MicroPE_x64

Another approach is making an average build of PE3, having a ~300MB size (I guess) that provide an environment for things by using some tests and sharing final .reg and file list to community.
http://www.msfn.org/...pid-918091.html

Or here is another way from wimb .
http://www.911cd.net...o...21883&st=35

Besides all, there is portable win7 way too.....

Multi7PESE have its own goals and evolving with its project admin hard work like all others. And like all others there are people who watchs the progress, people that test and contributes.

I honestly never worked on pe2/3 core stuff and can not contribute this way. I am not a pe2/3 fan. But I test like PaPeuser (and others), try to contribute with the things I know. And sometimes I only read the news to keep up to date.


Spend some time on net, test stuff you get interested, have some fun.

[techvslife]

so win7pe is a regression

;) isn't that a bit much ofensive.

just meant technically, not morally! I did say "regression on this point"--only on this point.

Since VistaPE have a longer history with having support from many users, eventually today have some ready options where good people spend a lot time to find a share. ...Spend some time on net, test stuff you get interested, have some fun

Many people have worked hard on it and I'm grateful--I myself however am somehow unable to call it play.

Thank you for the suggestions and the project suggestions, which I'll look over tonight. not to beat a dead horse but the main thing to me would be which project is most likely to be able to support windows decryption (bitlocker) the soonest or easiest. without that, i don't really have a recovery or pe disk I can rely on. I don't really want to generate something from true p3 myself because I wouldn't be able to add apps using the existing scripts--but I suppose if I can manage to figure out from true pe3.0 or from win7 what it does in providing bitlocker support I can report back.