[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.python

Windows - remote system window text

roger.dahlstrom

2/4/2008 5:57:00 PM

OK - I know how to get the text/title of the windows on a local system
by using the window handle. What I want to do is to get the text/
title of the windows on a remote system. Enumerating the window
handles will of course not work remotely, I know that. Does anyone
know anything short of a client/server setup that *will* work?

Everything would be Windows 2003 server, and I can assume that I have
administrative rights to all affected machines.

Any ideas?
36 Answers

Martin Skou

2/4/2008 7:17:00 PM

0

Well, i guess you will need a process on each machine you need to
monitor, and then you do have a client server setup.

This can be easily accomplished with fx Pyro (http://
pyro.sourceforge.net/) for communication, and the Win32 Python library
(https://sourceforge.net/project...) for creating a service.

roger.dahlstrom

2/4/2008 7:25:00 PM

0

On Feb 4, 2:17 pm, "m...@infoserv.dk" <m...@infoserv.dk> wrote:
> Well, i guess you will need a process on each machine you need to
> monitor, and then you do have a client server setup.
>
> This can be easily accomplished with fx Pyro (http://
> pyro.sourceforge.net/) for communication, and the Win32 Python library
> (https://sourceforge.net/project...) for creating a service.

Crap, that's what I didn't want to do. I am slowly coming to the
realization that I'm going to have to, but I really didn't want to do
that. That brings up a whole host of other things that I would then
have to do - remote installation, etc. I guess I could do it, but I'd
really rather not.

Martin Skou

2/4/2008 7:50:00 PM

0

I can understand that. But look at the bright side, you don't have to
rely on windows authentication, you just need an open port. Now i
don't know what you are building, but with a client/server setup you
can also get to other data that you might need, like mouse movement to
detect for activity, username, etc.

roger.dahlstrom

2/4/2008 7:57:00 PM

0

On Feb 4, 2:50 pm, "m...@infoserv.dk" <m...@infoserv.dk> wrote:
> I can understand that. But look at the bright side, you don't have to
> rely on windows authentication, you just need an open port. Now i
> don't know what you are building, but with a client/server setup you
> can also get to other data that you might need, like mouse movement to
> detect for activity, username, etc.

That is true, and I could use some of the additional functionality I
guess...

Gabriel Genellina

2/4/2008 10:18:00 PM

0

En Mon, 04 Feb 2008 17:25:00 -0200, rdahlstrom <roger.dahlstrom@gmail.com>
escribió:
> On Feb 4, 2:17 pm, "m...@infoserv.dk" <m...@infoserv.dk> wrote:

>> Well, i guess you will need a process on each machine you need to
>> monitor, and then you do have a client server setup.
>
> Crap, that's what I didn't want to do. I am slowly coming to the
> realization that I'm going to have to, but I really didn't want to do
> that.

Try WMI. I don't know for sure if you can enumerate windows, maybe yes. At
least you can enumerate remote processes.

--
Gabriel Genellina

Tim Golden

2/5/2008 8:54:00 AM

0

Gabriel Genellina wrote:
> En Mon, 04 Feb 2008 17:25:00 -0200, rdahlstrom <roger.dahlstrom@gmail.com>
> escribió:
>> On Feb 4, 2:17 pm, "m...@infoserv.dk" <m...@infoserv.dk> wrote:
>
>>> Well, i guess you will need a process on each machine you need to
>>> monitor, and then you do have a client server setup.
>> Crap, that's what I didn't want to do. I am slowly coming to the
>> realization that I'm going to have to, but I really didn't want to do
>> that.
>
> Try WMI. I don't know for sure if you can enumerate windows, maybe yes. At
> least you can enumerate remote processes.

Pretty sure not. You can just about get hold of a logon session
on the other machine and I did poke about through some of the
Lsa... and other stuff to see whether that was enough to give
you a remote workstation / windows list. But it doesn't seem
likely. (Happy to be proved wrong :)

TJG

roger.dahlstrom

2/5/2008 11:37:00 AM

0

On Feb 5, 3:54 am, Tim Golden <m...@timgolden.me.uk> wrote:
> Gabriel Genellina wrote:
> > En Mon, 04 Feb 2008 17:25:00 -0200, rdahlstrom <roger.dahlst...@gmail.com>
> > escribió:
> >> On Feb 4, 2:17 pm, "m...@infoserv.dk" <m...@infoserv.dk> wrote:
>
> >>> Well, i guess you will need a process on each machine you need to
> >>> monitor, and then you do have a client server setup.
> >> Crap, that's what I didn't want to do. I am slowly coming to the
> >> realization that I'm going to have to, but I really didn't want to do
> >> that.
>
> > Try WMI. I don't know for sure if you can enumerate windows, maybe yes. At
> > least you can enumerate remote processes.
>
> Pretty sure not. You can just about get hold of a logon session
> on the other machine and I did poke about through some of the
> Lsa... and other stuff to see whether that was enough to give
> you a remote workstation / windows list. But it doesn't seem
> likely. (Happy to be proved wrong :)
>
> TJG

You don't know how happy to be proved wrong I would be... but I don't
think WMI will do what I want. I can get almost everything - command
line parameters, process ID, kill, restart, etc., but not the window
name, which I need.

Free Lunch

1/18/2013 10:56:00 PM

0

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:35:37 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

>In article <2nqif8d82dl8fn4r5216h58eloa1g52cgm@4ax.com>, Alan Ferris
><hairy.ferrit@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:15:53 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
....
>> >Did you read Exodus 17: 8-16?
>> >
>> >The slaughtered children that had not yet reached the age of accountabilty
>> >were good and therefore went to heaven when they were killed.
>> >
>> Make your mind up, you are now claiming children old enough to eat
>biscuits are
>> sinners.
>>
>> This is the problem with lies, you run into your own lies.
>> --
>> Ferrit
>>
>> ()'.'.'()
>> ( (T) )
>> ( ) . ( )
>> (")_(")
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W...
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D...
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6...
>>
>>
>>
>
>I stand by my above statement. Babies and small children will go to heaven
>if they die.
>
Have you found the scriptural support for this doctrine yet?

Alan Ferris

1/18/2013 11:22:00 PM

0

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:32:47 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> > My point was that the small children and babies went to heaven.
>>
>>
>> There is no Bible passage showing "babies
>> going to heaven" just because they were killed
>> by god. In fact are not all babies evil and
>> full of sin?
>>
>>
>> "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from
>> the time my mother conceived me."
>> Psalm 51
>
>I have stated many times that babies and children that have NOT yet
>reached the age of accountability that die--will go to heaven.

So? You could say the world is flat but it will be just as accurate.
--
Ferrit

()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
Atheist #1211
EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div.

SERV:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6...

Devils Advocaat

1/18/2013 11:24:00 PM

0

On 18 Jan, 21:55, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article
> <f36ca205-ef0a-4c1a-9014-009b653da...@x13g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 18 Jan, 06:15, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > In article <hlwdjsd2-CFD670.21423117012...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne
>
> > > Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <Jason-1701132136500...@66-53-211-80.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > > =C2=A0Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> > > > > In article <hlwdjsd2-0735B0.17284117012...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne
> > > > > Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <Jason-1701131615540...@66-53-218-239.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > > > > =C2=A0Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> > > > > > > In article <dd1hf896jqupn8pllbcveh3r5b35j2f...@4ax.com>, Alan Fer=
> > ris
> > > > > > > <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:37:51 -0800, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wr=
> > ote:
>
> > > > > > > > >In article <tbjgf8leveac2fmectf7lpn1aa68vt9...@4ax.com>, Alan =
> > Ferris
> > > > > > > > ><hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:09:45 -0800, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason)=
> >  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >> >In article <p96ef891vselvr6lcj9a7g6c38cpl28...@4ax.com>, Al=
> > an
> > > > > > > > >> >Ferris
> > > > > > > > >> ><hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >> >> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:12:21 -0800, Ja...@nospam.com (Jas=
> > on)
> > > > > > > > >> >> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >In article <s24ef8l3k6kfeg1vbg6jp9ka6apce7j...@4ax.com>,=
> >  Alan
> > > > > Ferris
> > > > > > > > >> >> ><hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 20:41:30 -0800, Ja...@nospam.com (=
> > Jason)
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >In article
>
> > > <c2obf8lrou23l2082ljdmtjp7c4tp6b...@4ax.com>, Alan
>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >Ferris
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> ><hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 12:23:03 -0800, Ja...@nospam.co=
> > m
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> (Jason)
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> >> I'm not referring to heaven, but your idea about=
> >  what
> > > > > > > > >happens there
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> >> and who goes there. Your notion that babies go
> > > there and
> > > > > > > grow to
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> >> adulthood there. Nothing in the Bible supports t=
> > his
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> >> notion.
>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> >Have fetuses and babies committed any sins?
>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> Depends on who you ask.
>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> You have claimed that non Jewish babies were evil.
>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >If you asked me, I would say that babies have not sin=
> > ned.
>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> I did, I asked you "what had the babes in arms and chi=
> > ldren
> > > > > > > done to need
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> slaughtering".
>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> Your answer "they were evil"
>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >Thanks for re-writing the question. You would need to re=
> > ad 1
> > > > > > > > >> >> >Samuel
> > > > > > > > >> >> >chapter 15 for the answer. Wars were very common in thos=
> > e days.
> > > > > > > The total
> > > > > > > > >> >> >annihilation of the enemy was a common occurrence in
> > > those days.
> > > > > > > The end
> > > > > > > > >> >> >result was that nation would never again attack Israel. =
> > That
> > > > > > > happened in
> > > > > > > > >> >> >this case. Saul was ordered by God (via a prophet named =
> > Samuel)
> > > > > > > to attack
> > > > > > > > >> >> >Amalek and to kill every man, woman and child--and even =
> > the
> > > > > > > animals. God
> > > > > > > > >> >> >considered them to be evil and the main reason was becau=
> > se they
> > > > > > > worshipped
> > > > > > > > >> >> >false gods. As you know, one of the commandments clearly=
> >  states
> > > > > > > that the
> > > > > > > > >> >> >worship of false gods was prohibited.
>
> > > > > > > > >> >> Where does the bible tell you to state that all children
> > > will go
> > > > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > >heaven and
> > > > > > > > >> >> then in the next breath say the children are evil when yo=
> > u have
> > > > > > > > >already stated
> > > > > > > > >> >> evil people do not go to heaven,
>
> > > > > > > > >> >Babies and small children that die will go to heaven.
> > > > > > > > >> >That is always the >case.
>
> > > > > > > > >> You have yet to provide evidence for this.
>
> > > > > > > > >> >In regard to what happened in relation to Amalek (see 1 Sam=
> > uel
> > > > > > > > >> >chapter 15) the attack was to kill every person in the
> > > > > > > > >> >city--including
> > > > > > > > >> >children, babies and animals. God considered them to be evi=
> > l.
>
> > > > > > > > >> You have yet to demonstrate that god considered them evil.
> > > But lets
> > > > > > > assume he
> > > > > > > > >> did consider them evil.
>
> > > > > > > > >> >The babies and children went to heaven.
>
> > > > > > > > >> So now all these evil babies and children are in heaven. =C2=
> > =A0Then god
> > > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > >> lying
> > > > > > > > >> when he says that there are no evil people in heaven.
>
> > > > > > > > >> >It is how wars were fought in those days.
>
> > > > > > > > >> Is it? =C2=A0Really, do you know much about the history of t=
> > he time.
> > > > > > > > >> Clearly not if you are willing to make that foolish statemen=
> > t.
>
> > > > > > > > >> >I have explained it dozens of times. Do you have serious me=
> > mory
> > > > > > > > >> >problems.
>
> > > > > > > > >> No, I know you make this claim. =C2=A0But your claiming some=
> > thing does
> > > > > > > > >> not
> > > > > > > make it
> > > > > > > > >> fact and your claims contradict the Christian faith.
>
> > > > > > > > >> >America dropped nukes on two cities in Japan. Thousands of =
> > babies
> > > > > > > > >> >and
> > > > > > > > >> >children were killed. They went to heaven.
>
> > > > > > > > >> So these children were not evil then? =C2=A0Or did god let m=
> > ore evil
> > > > > children
> > > > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > > >> even though he clearly states that heaven has no evil people=
> >  there.
>
> > > > > > > > >I just re-read 1 Samuel 15. In 1 Samuel 15: 2, it states that
> > > God sold
> > > > > > > Samuel:
>
> > > > > > > > How much did he get for him?
>
> > > > > > > > >From the Amplified Bible:
>
> > > > > > > > >Thus says the Lord of hosts, I have considered what Amelek did
> > > to <the
> > > > > > > > >children> of Israel, how he (Amelek) set himself against <the
> > > children
> > > > > > > > >of
> > > > > > > > >Israel> when the <children of Israel> came out of Egypt.
>
> > > > > > > > >My comment: If you want to read about that attack on the child=
> > ren of
> > > > > > > > >Israel (the Jews), read Exodus 17: 8-16.
>
> > > > > > > > >We now know the reason that God sent Saul to attack Amelek.. I =
> > was
> > > > > > > > >incorrect when I told you it was because they worshipped false=
> >  gods.
> > > > > > > > >Sorry.
>
> > > > > > > > So were the slaughtered children evil or good?
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Ferrit
>
> > > > > > > > =C2=A0()'.'.'()
> > > > > > > > =C2=A0( (T) )
> > > > > > > > =C2=A0( ) . ( )
> > > > > > > > =C2=A0(")_(")
>
> > > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DW...
>
> > > > > > > >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DD...
>
> > > > > > > >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D6...
>
> > > > > > > Did you read Exodus 17: 8-16?
>
> > > > > > > The slaughtered children that had not yet reached the age of
> > > > > > > accountabilty
> > > > > > > were good and therefore went to heaven when they were killed.
>
> > > > > > Hmmmm.
>
> > > > > > 8=C2=A0The Amalekites came and attacked the Israelites at Rephidim.=
> >  9=C2=A0Moses
> > > > > > said to Joshua, =C2=B3Choose some of our men and go out to fight th=
> > e
> > > > > > Amalekites. Tomorrow I will stand on top of the hill with the staff=
> >  of
> > > > > > God in my hands.=C2=B2
> > > > > > 10=C2=A0So Joshua fought the Amalekites as Moses had ordered, and M=
> > oses,
> > > > > > Aaron and Hur went to the top of the hill. 11=C2=A0As long as Moses=
> >  held up
> > > > > > his hands, the Israelites were winning, but whenever he lowered his
> > > > > > hands, the Amalekites were winning. 12=C2=A0When Moses=C2=B9 hands =
> > grew tired,
> > > > > > they took a stone and put it under him and he sat on it. Aaron and =
> > Hur
> > > > > > held his hands up=E2=80=B9one on one side, one on the other=E2=80=
> > =B9so that his hands
> > > > > > remained steady till sunset. 13=C2=A0So Joshua overcame the Amaleki=
> > te army
> > > > > > with the sword.
> > > > > > 14=C2=A0Then the Lord said to Moses, =C2=B3Write this on a scroll a=
> > s something to
> > > > > > be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it, because I will
> > > > > > completely blot out the name of Amalek from under heaven.=C2=B2
> > > > > > 15=C2=A0Moses built an altar and called it The Lord is my Banner. 1=
> > 6=C2=A0He said,
> > > > > > =C2=B3Because hands were lifted up against[a] the throne of the Lor=
> > d,[b] the
> > > > > > Lord will be at war against the Amalekites from generation to
> > > > > > generation.=C2=B2
>
> > > > > > Where in there does it say anything at all about children? Much les=
> > s
> > > > > > that children went to heaven?
>
> > > > > In the above case, it states in vs. 13 that Joshua was fighting again=
> > st
> > > > > the Amalekite army. It appears to me that the women and children were=
> >  at
> > > > > home and therefore not a part of the Amalekite army. That is probably=
> >  the
> > > > > reason God wanted Saul to finish the job of killing all of them--man,
> > > > > women and children--and the animals. That is total destruction.
>
> > > > In other words, nothing in the scripture you posted said anything
> > > > anywhere close to what you're claiming--that the children went to heave=
> > n.
>
> > > Yesterday, we were discussing this scripture:
>
> > > l Samuel Chapter 15 entire chapter
>
> > > One the verses states: Now go and smite Amalek...and kill every man, woma=
> > n
> > > and child and even the animals.
>
> > > That is what we were referring to.
>
> > > My point was that the small children and babies went to heaven. The
> > > children that were above the age of accoutability (about age 11 to 13
> > > depending on maturity level) went to hell if they were evil.
>
> > And you still haven't shown your claim about children going to heaven
> > and growing to adulthood there is anything more than another of you
> > cock-eyed guesses.
>
> > And you still haven't shown your claim about the age of accountability
> > is thirteen and that age is agreed on by Jews and Christians alike,
>
> > So far that is also one of your cock-eyed guesses as well.
>
> We have discussed the issue several times. The age is usually 13. However,
> I admitted that it can happen at an earlier age for certain children. I
> mentioned that I would have no problem if a pastor baptized a 11 year old
> child as long the pastor made sure that 11 year old knew the difference
> between right and wrong.

We haven't discussed it several times.

You keep claiming that Jews and Christians agree that the age of
accountability is thirteen.

Yet you fail to support your claim.

That's not the nature of discussion.

The Catholic Canon Law shows you to be wrong in your claim.

And I'm sure that any Jewish individual on here will present evidence
that from their point of view you are wrong as well.

Why in the name of little green apples do you keep posting your
guesses as facts?