orbit VS Microsoft Research Detours Package

If using the command line, just open gitk. If using GitHub, look under the network tab.

What does a profiler actually do? A program profile gives the developer the ability to be able to measure both space and time complexity of their functions in their program. This is particularly important if your program has a major bottleneck causing slowdowns, which is especially disastrous if it is a system where many requests are made. An example of such a tool is orbit which can visualize the performance points in your program.

Nit: AFAIU there is no literal modification of machine code going on—instead the import address table (IAT, the Windows counterpart of Linux’s GOT) is patched (the Windows tradition calls this “detoured”, from the quite popular Microsoft hack[1] that does it).

[1] https://github.com/microsoft/Detours

You essentially replace a function with your own. The project is at https://github.com/microsoft/Detours.

I’ve created a PowerShell module that wraps this library to make it easier to hook functions on the fly for testing https://github.com/jborean93/PSDetour. For example I used it to capture TLS session data for decryption https://gist.github.com/jborean93/6c1f1b3130f2675f1618da5663... as well as create an strace like functionality for various Win32 APIs (still expanding as I find more use cases) https://github.com/jborean93/PSDetour-Hooks

But the client is much different now, and most of that won't work anymore. The client is heavily obfuscated and you can't use a packet sniffer, the communications are encrypted, you CAN however use things like Microsoft Detours to peek at communications

If you mean is there an API to perform hooking, then I think the answer is no. There are libraries for doing this, including the official MS one: https://github.com/microsoft/Detours

That's how things like steam or Nvidia overlays work, or fraps or OBS hook the output buffer; you can use official packages published by Microsoft for that, such as Detours.

Inject a DLL into the process. The DLL hooks two API functions, RoGetActivationFactory() and RoActivateInstance(), using Detours library. When a WinRT class ID is passed in, compare it with WindowsUdk.UI.Shell.WindowTabManager, and if equal, return an error code.

3. Manual hooking (Not recommended): It's possible to use some hooking library like Microsoft Detours to hook the functions responsible for creating the UI layout. I highly unrecommend this method as it's the most method prone to be broken by any change Microsoft does.

Reference: https://github.com/microsoft/Detours

> With regards to chroot, I stand corrected. I knew it was a tree of symlinks, but I thought it was also more than that because symlinks alone don't seem like a sandbox. Honestly, Cosmopolitan's system appears to be more of a sandbox than that.

To be totally clear: the tree of symlinks thing is a fallback, used only when lacking platform support or when sandboxing is explicitly turned off [0]. On Linux, the normal sandboxing strategy is to use namespaces, like most container runtimes. On Mac it apparently uses sandbox-exec (some opaque Apple tool), as was mentioned above. Chroot, being both non-POSIX, requiring root access on many systems, and not providing the necessary facilities is not really a great fit -- which I assume is why it's not used.

There was experimental Windows sandbox support at one point [1] based on how MS does it for BuildXL (their own build tool for giant monorepos) [2]. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be maintained, and under the hood it's kinda ugly -- it actively rewrites code in-memory to intercept calls to the Win32 APIs [3], which was apparently the cleanest/best way MS could come up with. However, from Bazel's POV it works in a roughly similar way -- you spawn subprocesses under a supervisor, which is in charge of spinning up whatever the target process is with restrictions on time/memory usage/file access.

On the "sandbox in the interpreter" thing: what kind of checks are you envisioning? It seems like putting checks at that level would end up leaving a lot out -- the goal of any build system is to eventually spawn an arbitrary process (Python, gcc, javac, some shell script, etc.) and so even with extensive checks in starlark you'd end up with accidental sandbox breaks all over the place. For pure starlark rules you could e.g. check that there are no inputs from /usr, but even then if gcc does it implicitly, you're SOL. Or am I thinking of the wrong kind of checks?

[0] https://bazel.build/docs/sandboxing#sandboxing-strategies

[1] https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/issues/5136#issuecomment...

[2] https://github.com/microsoft/BuildXL/blob/master/Documentati...

[3] https://github.com/microsoft/Detours/wiki