Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
"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.

I know that this patch stinks. But the .EXE is valid. It works under Win98. PE Explorer shows the information.


Dominik





Reply via email to