Printable View
hello guys, i need to figure out how to send keystrokes to an application that does not have focus and is not selected. i have read about sendmessage, but am not sure how to use it or anything, not even sure if its what i need.
i dont need to send anything but normal character keystrokes
im using VS 2008
thanks hope you can help.
What type of application are you trying to send keys to?
any application like notepad or anything that accepts text, i just want to not make the window active or give it focus at all atm im using appactivate() but its not what i want. b/c appactivate() gives the application focus and i dont want that
You wouldn't send keystrokes to an inactive window because, by definition, keystrokes go to the active application. If you want to send text to a specific window then yes, you use SendMessage (or PostMessage if you want async) to send the WM_SETTEXT message. You first need to get the handle of the window, which you can do using the FindWindow and FindWindowEx functions. There are lots of examples around of this combination.
Basically, you call FindWindow to get the handle of the top-level window containing the control you're interested in. You then call FindWindowEx one or more times to navigate the parent's child window tree until you get to the control you're interested in. You then use that window's handle to send or post a message.
i can get the handle of the window by
but neither postmessage or sendmessage are in the intellescence so how do i use them?Code:dim proc as process = process.getcurrentprocess
dim prochandle as string
for each proc in process.getprocessbyname("notepad")
prochandle = proc.handle
next
is there something im forgetting to import or what?
just curious, but why send keystrokes to an application that must remain "hidden"?
That's the process handle, not the window handle. Did you search for examples on the web?Quote:
Originally Posted by msquared
He never said hidden, he just didn't want that app to get focus.Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofidleness
I think there are plenty of legit uses for that, if that is what you are getting at. Though, you may be getting at something else, like "is it really necessary?"
well as jmc states, when have you ever typed something and needed it to go to a different window other than the active window? it doesn't make sense (for legit reasons. for other reasons it makes perfect sense)
i'm trying to think of a legit scenario where I want to type something and have it go to a "hidden" window (if it isn't visible, it's hidden).
btw, giving an app focus DOES make it viisble in almost 99% of cases. so what the OP IS trying to do is NOT give the app focus and still be able to type to it.
A legit use:
It would be useful for macroing things in the background. I have an app that goes through a list of emails in Outlook Express and extracts data from it. Originally I was sending Ctrl+C and accessing the clipboard and then sending CTRL + > to move to the next message. The problem was this tied up my computer and I had to wait for it to finish.
I wanted to rewrite the program so that it could do this in the background and not have to wait for it. I did endup rewriting the program, I couldn't get MSOE to respond to the CTRL + > without focus, I used Spy++ and found the correct window but it wouldn't work I tried sending it to every child window I could find, it still wouldn't work - unless MSOE had focus. This may be due to a problem with sending system keys like ctrl, alt and shift, or it may be something I overlooked or it may be that it checked focus.
I also tried getting the handle of the webbrowser control and extracting data instead of using CTRL +C, I got this part working and instead of processing 2 or 3 emails per second I could then process 10, so it no longer became an issue of it taking too much time.
Another legit use would be for making game trainers, I know plenty of people who would have loved to be able to have a trainer playing a game whilst they were working on a word document or doing something else.
msquared, depending on what you are trying to do exactly, it may not be possible, you can try some code similar to this (note there is no error checking or checking for a valid hWnd):
vb Code:
those are two horrible examples of legit uses.
one only involves typing because it's poorly implemented (there's .NET classes available for working directly with Outlook)
and the other is a sugar-coated name for an aimbot, which is against the forum's usage.
so try again. when would you be typing and not want it go to an active window?
Incorrect on both accounts (partially on the first).Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofidleness
.NET does provide an interface for Outlook, it does not provide an interface for Outlook Express. Short of injecting code or reading the .dbx files I can't think of any other way to do it.
Aimbot != game trainer. Aim bots are much more sophisticated and calculate players positions, trainers may do something as simple as constantly hitting the attack key in a game, whilst both are technically cheating they are not the same.
Also, I am unaware of anywhere that says aimbots or any other game related cheating is not to be discussed. These are coding forums, nothing illegal is being discussed, I do not see any issue.
there's an outlook vba object model
an aimbot IS a game trainer (albeit sophisticated as you suggested), the motive is the same.
search the forum for "keylogger" and count the [RESOLVED] threads.
Are you kidding? That's not a legit reason. That's the exact opposite!Quote:
Another legit use would be for making game trainers, I know plenty of people who would have loved to be able to have a trainer playing a game whilst they were working on a word document or doing something else.
Well, it's legit compared to - well, I can't think of any malicious use for this code, perhaps I'm not imaginative/smart enough - What is wrong with someone cheating in a single player game? If you cheat in a multiplayer game you get banned and most multiplayer games aren't even fooled by this, many use direct input, not standard window messages.Quote:
Originally Posted by weirddemon
I really don't see the problem, this is not a key logger, and helping him out can't harm anything, because let's face it, if he had the knowledge to do anything malicious with this code then he'd have been able to write it himself.
I really think you guys are making a mountain out of mole hill, then again as I said before, perhaps I just don't have the intellect or knowledge to do anything malicious with this.
Again, that is Outlook, not Outlook Express, which has no documented interfaces. Some companies have found ways around it, but I'm not planning on paying US$900 for something I have only 1 tiny use for and soon hope to be rid of.Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofidleness
you could use MAPI.
and it's odd that the OP hasn't posted since post #6. and how do you know this isn't a key logger? he hasn't answered one way or another.
lmao!! "if he had the knowledge to do anything malicious with this code then he'd have been able to write it himself." THAT is the definition of a script kiddie
i'm pretty sure if i gave him working code for a keylogger (which I do in my sig actually), he'd figure out how to use it maliciously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofidleness
I spent a long time searching high and low for a solution, MAPI is not it because:And that is the story everywhere I have ever read, I always do my research, sometimes I don't find something that someone else does, but I always try.Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.news2news.com/vfp/?example=270
This sends keys, not detects them, so this can't log the keys. but, if he was using this in a keylogger, would it make much difference? It would be easier to save it to a file or to use another function to submit it in say a webform with an HTTPRequest/HTTPPost or using a webbrowser control.
I still can not see any malicious use for sending a key to a window without the window having focus. Maybe I'm missing something glaringly obvious. I am not a professional programmer and have only undertaken courses in MatLab and basic Java, so who knows perhaps it really can be used maliciously?
what do you mena it doesn't detect them? how do you expect them to get placed in the "out-of-focus" application if his application isn't able to detect them???
He types 'test' in his application and he wants it to show up in some non-visible application as 'test'. Once it's in that hidden application, you can do whatever you want with it (ie: Log it, Email it, Parse it). THAT is the definition of key logging.
let me throw this scenario at you:
I have created and installed MaliciousApp V1.0 running in the background (hidden, and out of focus)
Some unsuspecting user comes along and logs into their banking institution's website to check balances.
When they type their bank website's username and password, it will send those keys to my MaliciousApp. So now I have the unsuspecting user's banking login and guess what? they never knew it happened because I never gave MaliciousApp focus, never made it visible, never told the user what was happening, nada.
how's that?
let's wait for the OP to follow up
i haven't posted b/c iv been busy lately lol, further more this isnt a cheat of any kind, i have already successfully been able to do this with the window active using AppActivate() and was merely curious as to if it could be done with the program in the background
@maka007
thats actually what i have been missing, thank you :PCode:#
Private Declare Function FindWindow Lib "user32" Alias "FindWindowA" (ByVal lpClassName As String, ByVal lpWindowName As String) As IntPtr
#
Private Declare Function PostMessage Lib "user32" Alias "PostMessageA" (ByVal hWnd As IntPtr, ByVal wMsg As Integer, ByVal wParam As Integer, ByVal lParam As String) As IntPtr
#
Private Declare Function FindWindowEx Lib "user32" Alias "FindWindowExA" (ByVal hWnd1 As IntPtr, ByVal hWnd2 As IntPtr, ByVal lpsz1 As String, ByVal lpsz2 As String) As Integer
@jmcilhinney - i didnt realize they were 2 different things
for the rest of you, thank you for your help (minus the flame war i have started on the topic of legitimacy) this whole thing is just can it be one and can i do it lmao
in the words of stewie griffin "And now you know" :P
(i suppose you would have to watch as much family guy as i do to get that reference)
What I am saying is this code does NOT listen for keys, it does not set a keyboard hook. It uses FindWindow to find a window handle, FindWindowEx to find a child window and then it uses PostMessage to send a keypress to that window. This is the opposite of a keylogging, it is inserting keys in to the message queue, not inspecting them.Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofidleness
If THAT is the definition of keylogging then many apps discussed on this site should be classified as keylogging, because they take user input, check it is valid (in most cases), manipulate it (or not) and store it in a file or send the data to the web. That fits your definition of keylogging.Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofidleness
In that scenario, the user is well aware that they are entering 'test' into an application, in a keylogger you are not aware (or at least are not supposed to be aware) that it is happening.
Now, I have my definition, which is very different from yours. I googled "define keylogging" and unsurprisingly the definitions I found were very similar to mine.
Quote:
# Keystroke logging (often called keylogging) is the practice of tracking (or logging) the keys struck on a keyboard, typically in a covert manner so that the person using the keyboard is unaware that their actions are being monitored. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keylogging
# Keylogger is a device or program that captures activities from an input device. Malicious people can make use of keyloggers to capture personal information being input into a computer system.
http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/itsc/security...sry/index.html
# keylogger - A malicious program that records keystrokes. Often, a keylogger also keeps track of visited web sites, and time-stamps when you visit, as well as what keys you type. ...
www.albany.edu/its/glossary.htm
# keylogger - A computer program that captures the keystrokes of a computer user and stores them. Modern keyloggers can store additional information, such as images of the user's screen. Most malicious keyloggers send this data to a third party remotely (such as via email).
http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/SAR...t/Glossary.htm
# keylogger - software used to capture the user's keystrokes. Keyloggers provide a means to obtain passwords or encryption keys and other information such as bank codes or computer passwords. Also known as keystroke logging.
www.blueprintdata.com/glossary.html
# keylogger - is a program that tracks all keystrokes made on a computer. It can be used for parental security or hacker malice.
http://www.meetingtomorrow.com/cms-c...puter-glossary
# keylogger - Keyloggers are small programs invisibly installed on a computer that record all keyboard input. An attacker can use this to (eg) record passwords.
www.emsisoft.com/en/kb/articles/tec080424/
# keylogger - A malicious program that tracks the keys you press and sends them back to criminals, allowing them to commit fraud.
www.hexsys.co.uk/site-info/it-jargon-buster.html
Ok, sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofidleness
However, how many keyloggers do you know of that have to have focus to operate? A keylogger that requires focus to operate is not a very good keylogger, is it? (see my definition above)
How is the website sending them to your MaliciousApp? The webbrowser isn't going to PostMessage(s) to your hidden text box on your hidden window, is it?
Your program would have installed a keyboard hook and be listening to every keystroke entering user mode. It would not require a hidden form or window or text box.
Please refer to my attached image. The top half of the image show what msquared is wanting to do, the bottom half shows your MaliciousApp and while, technically the "output" (see diagram could be to another off screen malicious app, what would be the point?
Your argument makes no sense at all; by your reasoning we should be suspicious of every post asking about file IO, reading and writing the registry, ICP, winsock, webbrowser control, MAPI, encryption, for loops, while loops, string manipulation, loading DLLs and almost any programming concept. They can all be used in a malicious app.
I have copies of code used in botnet zombies, I have looked over it. Some of them have code to read registry keysto extract CD keys and licenses and send them back via winsock, some read and write to the hosts file, some load FireFox DLLs and obtain the master password (if there is one set) and all the saved passwords. All of them make use of for and while loops.
Lastly, in case you or anyone else thinks I support illegal or malicious activities then you are sorely mistaken, there is a phrase "know thine enemy";there are plenty of other forum members who look at malicious code and disassemblies and play with (read 'study') malware.
No problem :)Quote:
Originally Posted by msquared
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'd just like to add, there are many different handles through out the system, these are just 2 of them and they can be confusing.Quote:
Originally Posted by msquared
There are handles for drawing (hDC's), handles for manipulating processes, threads, mutexes, files and many others that you may come across some day. It can be very confusing at first and it took me a while to understand what is going on. It was simple questions like the one you asked "is it possible?", "can it be done?" and "how does that work?" that helped/helps me learn how applications and the system work.
Sorry about that :(Quote:
Originally Posted by msquared
so you just read the parts that you want then? because CLEARLY I said
Originally Posted by stateofidleness
He types 'test' in his application and he wants it to show up in some non-visible application as 'test'. Once it's in that hidden application, you can do whatever you want with it (ie: Log it, Email it, Parse it). THAT is the definition of key logging.
how's that?
If THAT is the definition of keylogging then many apps discussed on this site should be classified as keylogging, because they take user input, check it is valid (in most cases), manipulate it (or not) and store it in a file or send the data to the web. That fits your definition of keylogging.
In that scenario, the user is well aware that they are entering 'test' into an application, in a keylogger you are not aware (or at least are not supposed to be aware) that it is happening.
and then you go on to say "the user is well aware"... how are they well-aware that a NON-VISIBLE, HIDDEN application is accepting their keystrokes? then you say many apps discussed on the site are keyloggers because they take input yada yada and log it. THEY DON'T DO IT WITHOUT THE USER'S KNOWLEDGE (albeit the logging part in some cases), but the user KNOWS that what they're typing is going to THAT application and THAT application alone.
then you tell me that in a "keylogger, you are not aware that it is happening"... see my original definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofidleness
I did not only read the parts I wanted to read, I believe I addressed that. I'll try again, a different way.
How is it any different from typing something in to say an AV/firewall control centre (such as the path of a folder to exclude) and the AV control centre sending the text to the driver and the driver storing it away? Sure it may not be using PostMessage, but it is essentially doing the same thing.
The user is aware that they have entered data in to an application, however like in your scenario, the user is still unaware of what the software is doing with those keystrokes and are still unaware that an invisible process is accepting their keystrokes (there's nothing I can think of -hardware a side - that is more invisible to the user then a driver or the kernel - heck most users think that explorer and windows (the kernel) are one and the same).
Further more, a keylogger targets a specific application or the entire system. I could set a keyboard hook for say FireFox, Internet Explorer and Chrome and log only keystrokes for those applications. I could set a keyboard hook for the entire system and log the keys, but again, this is NOT the scenario you proposed, what you proposed was:
The user is typing data into the application, not into FireFox, not into MS Word, not into anything else. The user does not have to know how the application works, they just have to know that it does what it says it does and doesn't do anything malicious in the background.Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofidleness
I really, really don't see your problem, let's try a similar scenario:
He types 'test' in his application and he wants it to show up in some "hidden"/"non-visible" (note: he never said hidden nor did he say non-visible) application. The program "captures and logs" the keystrokes that the user knowingly enters, it saves them to a file and then callsThe user is unaware that a hidden application has their keystrokes "Oh the horror! Keylogger!"Code:shell ("notepad.exe mean_nasty_keylog.txt", AppWinStyle.Hide)
How about this:
A user types keystrokes into an IDE, the IDE saves them to a file, the user presses compile and the strokes are sent to a hidden application (the compiler).
The user, not understanding how the IDE and compiler works, is unaware that a hidden application has their keystrokes "Oh the horror! Keylogger!"
I stand by my original definition and what I said before, with your attitude anything could be considered a keylogger.
You are misquoting me, I said "the user is well aware that they are entering 'test' into an application" I did not say or imply that the user was "well-aware that a NON-VISIBLE, HIDDEN application is accepting their keystrokes?", is it up to the user to be aware of exactly how every application on their system functions or why it does whatever it does to complete its task? I will therefore refer you to my AV control centre example.Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofidleness
Do you know exactly how your Word documents gets from your screen to your paper when you hit print? I can almost garuantee that you don't. You may know how it gets from word to the driver, but do you know what every instruction in the driver is and what it does? Do you know which parts of the kernel and which other drivers it talks to to get your document to the printer?
quite a lengthy response to explain to me how keyloggers work... i'm well aware of how they work... I've coded several of them.
to get back to the origianl topic, a keylogger (BY YOUR DEFINITIONS)
# Keystroke logging (often called keylogging) is the practice of tracking (or logging) the keys struck on a keyboard, typically in a covert manner so that the person using the keyboard is unaware that their actions are being monitored. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keylogging
# Keylogger is a device or program that captures activities from an input device. Malicious people can make use of keyloggers to capture personal information being input into a computer system.
http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/itsc/security...sry/index.html
don't mention anything about being specifically malicious. but they CAN be used maliciously, which is EXACTLY the reason people on this forum tend to "pry" when a topic such as this gets asked. It's not to imply that the OP is a hacker, it's simply to ensure that we aren't providing a would-be malicious user an easier ends to a mean.
and i was hoping a mod would comment on the User Agreement part, as it's not something that is to be discussed here.
i'm done with this thread.
I wasn't attempting to explain how they work, I was attempting to differentiate them from everything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofidleness
I am aware that you have coded at least one, I saw the post on your blog before you ever mentioned it.
Normally, I would completely understand that, but in this specific case I can see no malicious application for this code and as such, do not think it makes sense to question it on the basis of maliciousity, there's far more that on this forum and others that is worse then this.Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofidleness
I also am done with this thread. I hope we never have another discussion like this and that we can get along in any future postings.Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofidleness