"Dominik Strasser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The attached patch hacks^H^H^H^H^Hfixes this problem. Obviously, this > binary doesn't contain a valid PE header. OTOH it seems to be a valid > Windows binary (I haven't checked it myself). Maybe somebody with a more > deep insight into this can come up with a better fix.
> if ((header.mz.e_cparhdr << 4) < sizeof(IMAGE_DOS_HEADER)) > - return BINARY_DOS; > + return BINARY_PE_EXE; Of course the patch is wrong. How it can be that an .exe has no a valid PE header but it seems to be a valid PE executable? You have to investigate what that file is in reality. -- Dmitry.
