Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Non-existent bypass key #1990

Closed
4 of 10 tasks
awuctl opened this issue Jul 20, 2022 · 2 comments
Closed
4 of 10 tasks

Non-existent bypass key #1990

awuctl opened this issue Jul 20, 2022 · 2 comments
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@awuctl
Copy link

awuctl commented Jul 20, 2022

Checklist

  • I looked at https://github.com/pbatard/rufus/wiki/FAQ to see if my question has already been answered.
  • I performed a search in the issue tracker for similar issues using keywords relevant to my problem, such as the error message I got from the log.
  • I clicked the 'Log' button or pressed Ctrl-L in Rufus, and copy/pasted the log into the line that says <FULL LOG> below.
  • The log I am copying is the FULL log, starting with the line Rufus version: x.y.z - I have NOT removed any part of it.

Additionally (if applicable):

  • I ran a bad blocks check, by clicking Show advanced format options then Check device for bad blocks, and confirmed that my USB is not defective.
  • I also tried one or more of the following:
    • Using a different USB drive.
    • Plugging the USB into a different port.
    • Running Rufus on a different computer.
  • If using an image, I clicked on the (✓) button to compute the MD5, SHA1 and SHA256 checksums, which are therefore present in the log I copied. I confirmed, by performing an internet search, that these values match the ones from the official image.

Issue description

My "issue" is with https://github.com/pbatard/rufus/blob/master/src/rufus.c#L141.
Judging by #1791 and #1809, the author seems to care about not including things that are placebo and don't actually exist so I would like to report that BypassStorageCheck is not used by any official installer file and does not do anything, ever.

The function that utilizes the LabConfig keys is Callback_ValidateHardwareRequirements from sources/winsetup.dll.
This function calls four (relevant) others, in order:

  1. Callback_VerifyRAMRequirements: Checks the amount of RAM and ignores it if BypassRAMCheck is present in LabConfig.
  2. Callback_VerifyProcessorSupported: Checks the CPU core count and frequency, cannot be bypassed.
  3. Callback_VerifySecureBoot: Queries the kernel for SystemSecureBootInformation, ignores the result as long as BypassSecureBootCheck is present in LabConfig.
  4. Callback_VerifyTPMSupported: Queries TPM information with tbs.dll and verifies the TPM version, ignores the result if BypassTPMCheck is present in LabConfig.

These are the only functions where Bypass[...] LabConfig keys are used, nothing else cares. (Proof at the bottom)

There is also Callback_ValidateInstallDrive, responsible for checking the disk size - registered as a module for use by the "disk/partition chooser" part. The only reason it lets you go with less than 52 GiB is because the generic failure error for "disk too small" has, in this case, the severity bit set to SUCCESS instead of FAILURE (0x0030001f instead of 0x8030001f, probably intended) - not because of some magical registry key that's never been used.

(22000.esd and 25163.esd are both Pro en-US metadata ESDs from UUP dump)
image

Log

Not Applicable

@pbatard
Copy link
Owner

pbatard commented Jul 20, 2022

LOL, the irony is that I reluctantly included BypassStorageCheck because people were pestering me about not seeing an option for it along the SB/TPM bypasses...

Of course, I never bothered to test it, but I thought since I was giving in and adding the RAM bypass, I might as well group it with the disk check to get rid of some of the "Why don't you also include BypassXXXCheck?" requests I was getting.

Thanks a lot for confirming that this bypass is bogus. I'll make sure to remove it in the next version.

@github-actions
Copy link

This thread has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue if you think you have a related problem or query.

@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 21, 2022
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants