<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Crash Dump Analysis AntiPatterns (Part 13)</title>
	<link>https://www.dumpanalysis.org/blog/index.php/2009/07/09/crash-dump-analysis-antipatterns-part-13/</link>
	<description>Structural and Behavioral Patterns for Software Diagnostics, Forensics and Prognostics</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2026 19:07:19 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dmitry Vostokov</title>
		<link>https://www.dumpanalysis.org/blog/index.php/2009/07/09/crash-dump-analysis-antipatterns-part-13/#comment-664744</link>
		<dc:creator>Dmitry Vostokov</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2013 20:15:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>https://www.dumpanalysis.org/blog/index.php/2009/07/09/crash-dump-analysis-antipatterns-part-13/#comment-664744</guid>
		<description>Indeed, so I will update this in the second edition of Volume 1 to be published this year with credits. Thank you!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Indeed, so I will update this in the second edition of Volume 1 to be published this year with credits. Thank you!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neelabh Mam</title>
		<link>https://www.dumpanalysis.org/blog/index.php/2009/07/09/crash-dump-analysis-antipatterns-part-13/#comment-664160</link>
		<dc:creator>Neelabh Mam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2013 05:50:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>https://www.dumpanalysis.org/blog/index.php/2009/07/09/crash-dump-analysis-antipatterns-part-13/#comment-664160</guid>
		<description>verifier , as far as I can tell, is effectively a UI wrapper on top of gflags command line. Settings from either of the two eventually go to HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Image File Execution Options\ 

Now as per:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff549566(v=vs.85).aspx backward implies

/backwards 
Places the zone of reserved virtual memory at the beginning of an allocation, rather than at the end. As a result, the debugger traps overruns at the beginning of the buffer, instead of those at the end of the buffer. Valid only with the /full parameter. 

much like when we run, say a for loop backwards...

This must have been an addition to gflags/AV post this blog post was originally published ...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>verifier , as far as I can tell, is effectively a UI wrapper on top of gflags command line. Settings from either of the two eventually go to HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Image File Execution Options\ </p>
<p>Now as per:<br />
<a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff549566" rel="nofollow">http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff549566</a>(v=vs.85).aspx backward implies</p>
<p>/backwards<br />
Places the zone of reserved virtual memory at the beginning of an allocation, rather than at the end. As a result, the debugger traps overruns at the beginning of the buffer, instead of those at the end of the buffer. Valid only with the /full parameter. </p>
<p>much like when we run, say a for loop backwards&#8230;</p>
<p>This must have been an addition to gflags/AV post this blog post was originally published &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dmitry Vostokov</title>
		<link>https://www.dumpanalysis.org/blog/index.php/2009/07/09/crash-dump-analysis-antipatterns-part-13/#comment-663777</link>
		<dc:creator>Dmitry Vostokov</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jan 2013 21:34:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>https://www.dumpanalysis.org/blog/index.php/2009/07/09/crash-dump-analysis-antipatterns-part-13/#comment-663777</guid>
		<description>I have to check there as I rarely used app verifier only gflags.exe.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have to check there as I rarely used app verifier only gflags.exe.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neelabh Mam</title>
		<link>https://www.dumpanalysis.org/blog/index.php/2009/07/09/crash-dump-analysis-antipatterns-part-13/#comment-663610</link>
		<dc:creator>Neelabh Mam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jan 2013 16:55:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>https://www.dumpanalysis.org/blog/index.php/2009/07/09/crash-dump-analysis-antipatterns-part-13/#comment-663610</guid>
		<description>but verifier does expose a "backward" check box under "heap" tree item's properties. Does that not introduce a guard page at the front as well for underwrites ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>but verifier does expose a &#8220;backward&#8221; check box under &#8220;heap&#8221; tree item&#8217;s properties. Does that not introduce a guard page at the front as well for underwrites ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dmitry Vostokov</title>
		<link>https://www.dumpanalysis.org/blog/index.php/2009/07/09/crash-dump-analysis-antipatterns-part-13/#comment-84319</link>
		<dc:creator>Dmitry Vostokov</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:55:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>https://www.dumpanalysis.org/blog/index.php/2009/07/09/crash-dump-analysis-antipatterns-part-13/#comment-84319</guid>
		<description>Another instance that I observed recently is looking at 32-bit stacks of a WOW64 process ignoring 64-bit stacks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another instance that I observed recently is looking at 32-bit stacks of a WOW64 process ignoring 64-bit stacks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
