[project] WinRoot

Posted 24 November 2007 - 06:26 PM

WinRoot is a very small project meant to produce a 5Mb bootable operative system based on Windows XP.

It will boot this modified Windows OS into the Native Command Line Interface using a modified SMSS.EXE based on the TinyKrnl project research.


This project is completely based on the excellent work by "Windows OCManage" from the BETA Archive forums - you can find the latest improvements to this development on the respective discussion page here: http://betaarchive.c...opic.php?t=2772



http://winbuilder.ne...load.php?view.6


This project is created under 11 seconds..

• Back to top

Posted 24 November 2007 - 07:05 PM

• Back to top

Posted 24 November 2007 - 08:51 PM

Yes, but you can't do that here. It's ilegal to edit binaries.

• Back to top

Posted 25 November 2007 - 05:23 PM

• Back to top

Posted 25 November 2007 - 05:47 PM

Only the listed commands are available.

But the good news is that you can modify the program to add more features.

I would really like to see something somehing like the cmd.exe from ReactOS bundled inside or an apache server with PHP/MySQL support.

Likely it would be fairly easy to use cygwin ported console apps - who knows?

• Back to top

Posted 25 November 2007 - 05:52 PM

Yes, but you can't do that here. It's ilegal to edit binaries.

You sure wew are talking about editing binaries in this project?

I thought that it was a "new" program compiled as "Native".

jaclaz

• Back to top

Posted 25 November 2007 - 05:56 PM

Only SMSS.EXE is compiled fresh from TinyKrnl - all other files come from MS Windows XP - reason why it is built using the CD as source.

But if I recall correctly - tinykrnl had already replaced all needed components with open source versions - maybe it is possible to replace all files involved in this project with the alternative versions.

If this is case - we'd be able to use the host windows to grab needed files to build a boot disk and use tinykrnl to replace some of the files only found on install CD's.

• Back to top

Posted 25 November 2007 - 06:08 PM

• Back to top

Posted 25 November 2007 - 06:26 PM

Welcome to our community AeroXP!!

• Back to top

Posted 25 November 2007 - 06:27 PM

You sure wew are talking about editing binaries in this project?

I thought that it was a "new" program compiled as "Native".

jaclaz

I was replying to Hives post.

I like the bootscreen screenshot posted on original thread

To get those, the kernel file has to be edited.

• Back to top

Posted 25 November 2007 - 07:33 PM

@medevil
Hmmm, as I see it, that it is not illegal, should we not use Resource Hacker to change some resources, then, or hexedit SETUPLDR.BIN/NTLDR to load from a different directory?

I see this as falling into "fair use" provisions.

Were I (and Sherpya, and a number of members of this board) :
http://www.boot-land...p?showtopic=360
"criminals" until the reactos bootvid.dll was released?

jaclaz

• Back to top

Posted 25 November 2007 - 08:08 PM

• Back to top

Posted 25 November 2007 - 09:04 PM

@medevil
Hmmm, as I see it, that it is not illegal, should we not use Resource Hacker to change some resources, then, or hexedit SETUPLDR.BIN/NTLDR to load from a different directory?

I see this as falling into "fair use" provisions.

Let me get this clear, including a piece of software completely with all files into a script, without first asking the author, is moraly wrong, but butchering up his binaries with resources hacker and hexeditor is fair use?
Boy would i love to see a 3d model of your moral view!

• Back to top

Posted 25 November 2007 - 10:12 PM

Is this a trick question?

Because I think it would generate a loop-continuum-forum-discussion..

a. It's a common practise on some popular places like msfn/unnattended XP world/neowin
b. It's not right for sure yet it seems an unspoken rule of being ok as long it's not available to public
c. We can sit and read tons of posts supporting either a or b moral preferences without results.

Can we get actually dig into open source solutions?

Even thought AeroXP mentions that his experience has BSOD - the tinykrnl people still report some degree of sucess in completely replacing the initial process with their files, I've found a small graph with work progress for phase 1 that shows which files can be replaced - beware it might be outdated and don't reflect the current status.

http://tinykrnl.org/status.htm

It's really too bad that everyone there seemed to stop working on this all at once and froze any further developments.

----------

We also have SimulatedReality here on boot-land mentioning he wanted to pick up this project and complete the missing pieces. Olof and Sherpya also seem to have a fairly extended know-how about these works.

Can't we ask them to fill in the gaps until we get an open source version that can be tweaked and (finally) made available to everyone?

• Back to top

Posted 26 November 2007 - 02:48 AM

• Back to top

Posted 26 November 2007 - 03:08 AM

As I already mentioned (more then one time) the best solution for such tweaks is to add boot-time driver that would use root-kit technics to patch and do whatever else is needed. I believe, it's a very simple task to anybody who has experience with driver development and appropriate development environment. That would be 100% legal BTW, it explains why MS pushed driver signing so hard

Alexei

• Back to top

Posted 26 November 2007 - 03:20 AM

• Back to top

Posted 26 November 2007 - 08:45 AM

Let me get this clear, including a piece of software completely with all files into a script, without first asking the author, is moraly wrong, but butchering up his binaries with resources hacker and hexeditor is fair use?
Boy would i love to see a 3d model of your moral view!

Here you are , remember I am forfaiting my privacy to fulfill your kind request:
http://www.tinkering...brain-test2.jpg



Seriously, I may be completely wrong, of course, but changing an image or text embedded in a file, is not altering the "code", simply changing some "data" in it, nothing really different from editing the Registry or a .ini file.

jaclaz

• Back to top

Posted 26 November 2007 - 09:08 AM

MedEvil

[quote]I like the bootscreen screenshot posted on original thread[/quote]

To get those, the kernel file has to be edited.

• Back to top

Posted 26 November 2007 - 10:12 AM

Seriously, I may be completely wrong, of course, ...

Yes you are Seriously, the module is a copyrighted material (both code and data)
However, MS generally allows to include 3rd party drivers as a functional part of a Win OS.
There is no strict rules in EULA, which define what 3rd party driver can do to user's system, and even if MS tried to set such rules they would not be practically enforceable
In fact, that means users can get full control over the system (including replacement of images and whatever else).
On the other hand, such user's activity may be partially limited by other laws, such as http://en.wikipedia....m_Copyright_Act in The US and corresponding laws in other countries joined WIPO treaties.

MS tries to restrict 3rd party drivers not just because of logos, but mostly because MS wants to restrict users as much as possible


Alexei

• Back to top

Posted 26 November 2007 - 10:40 AM

@Alexei
As already said here:
http://www.boot-land...?...ic=469&st=5

Particularly, editing a resource inside a file, for example the bootscreen, can be reconducted to clause 1. of Section 117 of the Copyright Act:
http://www.chillinge.../faq.cgi#QID196
in the U.S., and Europe has similar provisions:
http://en.wikipedia....mputer_programs
(Articles 5 and 6):
http://europa.eu.int...?...chett&lg=en

And it is just my opinion, do not trust it!



jaclaz

• Back to top

Posted 26 November 2007 - 12:08 PM

Here you are , remember I am forfaiting my privacy to fulfill your kind request:
http://www.tinkering...brain-test2.jpg

Particularly, editing a resource inside a file, for example the bootscreen, can be reconducted to clause 1. of Section 117 of the Copyright Act:
http://www.chillinge.../faq.cgi#QID196
in the U.S., and Europe has similar provisions:
http://en.wikipedia....mputer_programs
(Articles 5 and 6):
http://europa.eu.int...?...chett&lg=en

I would think that you would have a rather hard stand in a court of law proofing that you needed to edit the boot logo to fix an error or make the kernel work with some other software!

@billonious
No idea where your problem is. At least the XP kernel has no checksum verification.

• Back to top

Posted 27 November 2007 - 02:32 AM

UPDATE: I compiled the tinykrnl files. They are attached to this post. Please put these files in the winroot's system32 directory.


I have also attached the debugging symbols.  TinyKrnl.zip   25.96KB   745 downloads  symbols.zip   251.39KB   724 downloads

• Back to top

Posted 27 November 2007 - 05:15 AM

Thank you!

This is a very interesting project - I wonder if we can in fact replace the initial boot as tinykrnl proposed themselves to achieve?

• Back to top

Posted 03 December 2007 - 10:31 AM

• Back to top