It would also be nice if it did not require administrative privileges. Another requirement which I didn't really state is that speed is fairly important I was planning on doing this for things like compiling a C++-file, and pulling up a full GUI which generates a 20 MB logfile will have prohibitive overhead. many applications that required administrative rights on Windows XP to work. I'm really only interested in what files are opened, and if they are opened for read/write or just read. Anybody else reading this - if you're looking for more power than even Process Explorer, and you're under something newer than Windows XP, you should look into XPerf. or FileMon (File Monitor), you should replace them with Process Monitor. When running procmon on Windows XP Pro SP3 I get this error: Procmon. If I narrow down my requirements even further, it is probably enough to be able to monitor calls to CreateFile(). I'm aware of Process Monitor, but I would like to receive the data in a form which I can import into another program for further analysis. I want to do this programmatically from another process. When running procmon on Windows XP Pro SP3 I get this error: Procmon.exe - Entry Point Not Found The procedure entry point InitializeSRWLock could not be located in the dynamic link library KERNEå…ƒ2.dll. ![]() In general it would be very helpful to provide an archive section with latest available versions of Sysinternals utilities for various operating systems, including Windows 7, Windows XP, or even back to Windows 98. Now YAPM works on both 32-bit and 64-bit platforms. Some utilities with the new updated interface still work also on Windows 7. I'm primarily interested in running a process and figuring out which files it has read and written. Operating system : Microsoft Windows XP, Windows Vista or Windows Seven. On Linux I can probably get away using strace with suitable parameters, but how can I do this on Windows? ![]() I would like to be able to monitor certain system calls made by a process, primarily file I/O calls.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |