>On 21/09/12 20:51, Albert-Jan Roskam wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> My company just started application whitelisting. Now a new version of
>>a (benign!!) dll does not work as it (or rather, its file hash, if I
>>understood it correctly) is not whitelisted.
>
>Then get it whitelisted. If your company does
On 21/09/12 20:51, Albert-Jan Roskam wrote:
Hi,
My company just started application whitelisting. Now a new version of
a (benign!!) dll does not work as it (or rather, its file hash, if I
understood it correctly) is not whitelisted.
Then get it whitelisted. If your company doesn't have the abi
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Peter Otten <__pete...@web.de> wrote:
>
> Here's a back-of-the-envelope calculation:
>
> '4151e067c17a753fc5c4ec1c507d28c9' is a hexadecimal number with 32 digits,
> otherwise known as
>
> 340282366920938463463374607431768211456L
>
> If you are trying to hit that nu
Albert-Jan Roskam wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My company just started application whitelisting. Now a new version of a
> (benign!!) dll does not work as it (or rather, its file hash, if I
> understood it correctly) is not whitelisted. Is there any way I can use
> the same dll of a newer version? I know this
On 09/21/2012 06:51 AM, Albert-Jan Roskam wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My company just started application whitelisting. Now a new version of a
> (benign!!) dll does not work as it (or rather, its file hash, if I understood
> it correctly) is not whitelisted. Is there any way I can use the same dll of
> a n
Hi,
My company just started application whitelisting. Now a new version of a
(benign!!) dll does not work as it (or rather, its file hash, if I understood
it correctly) is not whitelisted. Is there any way I can use the same dll of a
newer version? I know this sounds like a hacking request, but
