Dedicated hardware profile for audio in XP?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
news:rn4xd.1867$hc7.867@trnddc06

> True enough... though my exposure was in trying to install a couple
> of audio apps on a friend's PC who had an entire Norton suite
> installed and running.

Well-known bad mistake.

The Norton A/V program all by itself can work on an audio PC a fact proven
by this particular PC that I'm typing on. I won't say that there aren't any
artifacts, but they are managable. Get the whole suite going and all I can
say is - say your prayers!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article <MPG.1c2e4cc86665c0749897e3@news.chi.sbcglobal.net> btakei@sbcglobal.net writes:
>
>
>> Ghost is a product in a totally different ballpark. In essence, it is a
>> dos* utility designed to do 1 thing, and it does it very well. Ok, 2
>> things: backup AND restore whole partitions or drives (aka. 'imaging').
>> It can run directly from a bootable floppy.
>
>
> What do you "ghost" to when your system is fairly large? Another hard
> disk installed in the computer?

Another disk in the computer or a network share--assuming you build the boot disk with all the multilayered DOS drivers, himem.sys, etc. It's a great way to refresh your DOS skills ;>

We have hundreds of machines in remote facilities that are deployed with very little human intervention. There's a PXI boot server that has the Ghost image on it and a menu so you can choose which function the machine will assume.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com>
in article <tg6xd.1880$hc7.482@trnddc06> wrote:
> Ghost was the culprit I ran into on a friend's PC, which seemed to take a
> picture of the OS and re-start it with that same configuration regardless of
> what we attempted to disable or remove in the prior boot. Since we simply
> gave up on optimizing for audio, we never got deep enough to start ripping
> through the registry.... and again, this was about three years back.
>
> He had so many anti-virus peripheral applications and OEM 'system tools'
> installed that the two biggest problems were "Go-Back" and "Ghost". **I could
> actually be confusing the two.**

Yup, I think Ghost was 'innocent' <g>. The thing is, if it wasn't
properly used _before_ you showed up (i.e. to create an image of the
system when it was working properly), then it really isn't much use to you
in repairing the system after it's been screwed up. However, it can give
you some insurance, such that, if worse comes to worse, you can still say:
"I'm leaving it just the way I found it!"

> The end result was to simply let the system
> be, due to the problems caused by OEM tools, and make it strictly a 'fun' box
> as far as audio was concerned.
>
> I wanted to wipe out the whole darned thing and start over, but he had purchased
> the box with a great deal of software included that he had lost the install discs for
> and perhaps had a pice or two that he <cough-cough> could not replace at all
> which would have left some of his more valuable files orphaned after restoring
> any back-ups.
>
> Just another reason or two that I recommended a second box to dedicate
> to audio, or a dual boot approach. I hope I didn't mislead with the reference
> to Ghost when the more serious problem may have been "Go Back". I just
> don't use anything but the OS tools and never have problems which I can't
> repair.


A drive imaging app (like Ghost, but there are others) is an important 'OS
tool' that, unfortunately, does not come with the Windows. Oh well. It
can be oh-so-useful (at work or home), no matter what your approach to
boxes/boots/os's:

- it backups up an 'entire' drive (or partition), to an 'image' file(s)
(alternatively, you can 'clone' a drive or partition in one shot)

- the 'image' file can then be used to completely restore the
drive/partition.

Imaging gives you the option to 'Go Back' to a prior state, in a very
reliable and absolute way. Alternative utilities that run within the OS
are seriously disadvantaged, and can be quite untrustworthy when the
target is the system partition (but they are certainly complimentary,
particularly for frequently backing up DATA).

For usage examples, here are some basic conditions under which I may
have an incentive to create an image. If I'm re/building a machine from
scratch, I might make several images along the way, then throw interim
ones away when it is 'there':

- pulled a new computer out of the box.
- re/installed an OS from scratch.
(Got a scripted OS install? An image restore is MUCH faster.)
- thereafter patched the OS.
- after installing some apps.
- after installing EVERYTHING I need, and it just plain works.
- after installing everything ELSE I need, and it just plain works. <g>

- when about to make a major system change.
- about to install an app or driver, particularly if "it ain't broke"
- about to demo some software.
- about to take the laptop on the road.
- if it's been a while since the last image.
- if I'm hungry.

You get the idea. And again, making an image is fast, and
as easy as booting to Ghost and then having a sandwich...

Don't Worry -- Be Imaged.

Hope this helps,
-Brian

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 18/12/2004 04:45:07, wrote:

>I don't believe that just by being connected, stuff can creep in by
>itslef,

<fx: splutter>

It most certainly can, and within minutes, or even seconds, of connectig to
the net.


> but I'm told that it can happen - primarily as a result of
>having software installed that attracts the nasties.

No, more likely by NOT having certain software installed - i.e. anti-virus
and a firewall.


Not very long ago I was re-installing WinXP on the m/c that connects to the
net. It was easier to download a firewall than to attempt to find the
install file on the other computer. Quicker than it took me to get to the
page on the website I needed, THREE malwares had installed themselves on my
m/c and were using all my net bandwidth to do someting or other.


--
m.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>Dual booting sounds like the cure.... but I've been scared to death
>by the invasiveness of some of the Norton stuff.

Norton produce the only software that has managed to completely screw up my
m/c - TWICE.

Dual booting would effectively create two isolated machines as long as
neither used a partition used by the other. Ideal for the paranoid.
Personally, I just turn off wireless networking when I'm using my laptop
for audio work.

As for dual booting and partitioning software, look no further than
<www.terabyteunlimited.com> BootItNG is excellent, if rather (er, very)
teckie, but there are decent tutorials for the common tasks. And,
significantly, the support is near-instantaneous. The price of the product

--
m.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <%Pyxd.1182881$SM5.89619@news.easynews.com> m_tillman@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com writes:

> >I don't believe that just by being connected, stuff can creep in by
> >itslef,
>
> It most certainly can, and within minutes, or even seconds, of connectig to
> the net.

Please explain the process through which this happens. Some active
program on the computer must do it ("Windows" isn't an acceptable
answer), so what's the scoop? Surely this problem can be prevented by
not having some software loaded or active.

> Not very long ago I was re-installing WinXP on the m/c that connects to the
> net. It was easier to download a firewall than to attempt to find the
> install file on the other computer. Quicker than it took me to get to the
> page on the website I needed, THREE malwares had installed themselves on my
> m/c and were using all my net bandwidth to do someting or other.

How did that happen? What web sites did you go to? How do those
programs self-install? What's the mechanism? I'm not trying to be a
challanging smartass here, I'd really like to know about this stuff, but
in a more friendly way than pointing to a web site that will make me
read for an hour. A simple, straighforward explanation with some
examples will help me to understand what I need to learn about (and
what I don't - I'm too old to know everything).

I have a firewall installed - Zone Alarm. When I go to one of those
web sites that test your security, they all say I'm secure. It was
easy, and apparently non-intrusive, so there's no reason not to
install one. But I like to know what my programs are doing, and it's
hard to tell about things like this.

I have occasionally attempted to connect to the Internet using my
laptop computer in a public WiFi access place (my local library, or a
hotel, for example) and have to turn off Zone Alarm in order to
connect. Once connected, I can turn it back on. What's going on there?

And, by the way, what's an "m/c?" You've used that shorthand in two
responses to this thread. You're obviously way ahead of me in this
technology.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Tommi M. wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> Unfortunately, I now have to use the same computer for both internet access
> and audio work.
> So, I guess the logical solution is to create two different hardware
> profiles in windows XP..or is it adequate just to create two different
> "accounts" (audio and internet) for the same hardware profile?
>
> I would like to have the internet access *completely* turned off when I'm
> working, and free as much RAM as possible for audio apps and files when
> using the audio profile/account. I've done some basic tuning menitoned in
> the www.musicxp.net site, but since I'm not very familiar with windows'
> inner workings, I'm a bit unsure about my "regedit/msconfig" actions.
>
> Can you guys give me any pointers on how I should configure the two
> different hardware profiles?
> How do I setup my computer in a way that my internet connections are
> completely disabled, but *only* when I'm using the audio work
> profile/account?
>
> Thanks for all the answers.
>
>
>
>
If you're trying to free up RAM why not just buy more RAM? It's cheap
enough these days. You could then happily keep using your PC for audio
and internet. If viruses are still a concern, then download and install
Windows XP SP2. The internet connection firewall (ICF) that comes with
it does and excellent job of locking down a normally vulnerable windows
PC. I've impressed my network security team with servers that ICF has
locked down. Lastly, as mentioned earlier, you can simply dis-able the
NIC through software when it's not needed. Creating separate profiles is
like driving a Porche down to get some groceries.

CD

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message news:znr1103549129k@trad...

> Please explain the process through which this happens. Some active
> program on the computer must do it ("Windows" isn't an acceptable
> answer), so what's the scoop? Surely this problem can be prevented by
> not having some software loaded or active.

It can absolutely be prevented by using just a small part of one's brain.

In my experience, the most common plague is getting the pop-up box
when visiting any number of 'straight' web sites, which says, "Would You
Like to use xxxxxxx To Make Your Browsing Experience More Efficient?"

Say yes and you're signing a slow-death warrant.

A firewall and Ad-Aware will help keep tabs on what's happening, but by
no means will they be able to stop what has been started.

Something similar just happened at the studio last week. A young student
had forgotten a lyric sheet, so we told him that he could use the PC (on a
dial-up) to find his lyrics. With a clean cache, we were able to trace his every
move... and the only thing he did wrong was say 'yes' to the aforementioned
question when he got to the illicit lyric site. Yes, it was an illegal site, but there
aren't a handfull of kids out there these days that know the difference.

Whatever he said yes to, began a chain reaction that took several hours of
work to recover from. Here's just a few of the things that apparently took place
after he got his missing lyrics and left the PC on line.

The bogus lyrics page replaced the default opening page.
The "browsing enhancement" feature entered itself into ad-remove programs.
This also means that in installed itself into the registry.
Some form(s) of spyware had been authorizing contact to other internet sites.
It laid permissions as a server into Zone Alarm.
An 'auto-dialer' function had been installed and activated to dial the 'host'
IP address of the lyric site.
All of this totally circumvented the on-board Anti-Virus software.

...and there's really no telling what else. After just an hour on line, the
owner returned to the office finding a blue screen of death stating that
the computer was not responding to shutdown command, but the hard
drive was indicating heavy activity.

Once he re-started and disabled the autodialer, and reset his default
opening page, with AdAware he discovered some 30(+) pieces of
spyware, and with an on-line Anti-Virus check, found two Trojan Horses.

The PC had been bouncing to different websites, each of which was
apparently embedding yet something else, and even though there was
little real damage done, it took some three hours (on a dial-up) to do
the research & removal of the invading software... and who knows just
which kid in China or what IP address was having a good look at the
studio's records. A lot of registry tweaking had to be done as well.

It's simple... all you have to do is say 'yes' to some silly question about
"enhancing" your browsing experience and you can be screwed.

Whatever it was, because the 'surfer' said "yes" just *one time*, was
slowly eating away (or stuffing... whichever) at the OS with bogus
semi-virii and spyware from half way around the globe. I'd hate to
have seen what would have happened if we had been on a high-speed
connection.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http/www.m-a-m-s.com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http/www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Martin Tillman" <m_tillman@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message news:NRyxd.7120592$6p.1120617@news.easynews.com...
>
> >Dual booting sounds like the cure.... but I've been scared to death
> >by the invasiveness of some of the Norton stuff.
>
> Norton produce the only software that has managed to completely screw up my
> m/c - TWICE.

When I first switched to PCs some 7 or 8 years ago, it was one
helluva learning experience for me.... practically fried two systems
that I had purchased for internet use, say nothing of the burden it
caused by dramitacally slowing down system operations... everything
from boot-up to saving a file, tripled in time required. I swore back
then I'd never again use anything but my brain and the on-line (which
are more updated) A/V programs for scanning.

DM

> Dual booting would effectively create two isolated machines as long as
> neither used a partition used by the other. Ideal for the paranoid.
> Personally, I just turn off wireless networking when I'm using my laptop
> for audio work.
>
> As for dual booting and partitioning software, look no further than
> <www.terabyteunlimited.com> BootItNG is excellent, if rather (er, very)
> teckie, but there are decent tutorials for the common tasks. And,
> significantly, the support is near-instantaneous. The price of the product
>
> --
> m.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <PdGxd.6649$rL3.1670@trnddc03> mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com writes:

> > Please explain the process through which this happens. Some active
> > program on the computer must do it ("Windows" isn't an acceptable
> > answer), so what's the scoop? Surely this problem can be prevented by
> > not having some software loaded or active.
>
> It can absolutely be prevented by using just a small part of one's brain.
>
> In my experience, the most common plague is getting the pop-up box
> when visiting any number of 'straight' web sites, which says, "Would You
> Like to use xxxxxxx To Make Your Browsing Experience More Efficient?"
>
> Say yes and you're signing a slow-death warrant.

Oh, I ignore those when I see them, and have the pop-up blocker turned
on in Netscape so I rarely see pop-ups anyway. In fact, I get so used
to there not being pop-ups so that when I'm using a web site that
requires them (FedEx is one) I have to turn them on. In fact, I
discovered this when I couldn't get something to work when filling out
a FedEx shipper on line and had to call their tech support, who asked
if I had pop-ups blocked. Netscape has a nice feature that allows me
to "allow pop-ups for this web page only" so once I know they're
needed and not harmful, I can turn them on. Otherwise, I never see
them, so I can't open the harmful ones no matter how tempting.

> Whatever he said yes to, began a chain reaction that took several hours of
> work to recover from. Here's just a few of the things that apparently took
> place
> after he got his missing lyrics and left the PC on line.
>
> The bogus lyrics page replaced the default opening page.
> The "browsing enhancement" feature entered itself into ad-remove programs.
> This also means that in installed itself into the registry.
> Some form(s) of spyware had been authorizing contact to other internet sites.
> It laid permissions as a server into Zone Alarm.
> An 'auto-dialer' function had been installed and activated to dial the 'host'
> IP address of the lyric site.
> All of this totally circumvented the on-board Anti-Virus software.

That's pretty nasty. At least he had to say "yes" to something. Too
bad he hit a bogus web site. I've occasionally mistyped a URL and come
up with a porn page, but fortunately nearly all of those require that
you click on something before anything happens. (so I don't)


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:
> One hidden gotcha is that Norton Anti-Virus is on the hit list for many
> viruses and spyware. That means that *everthing* related to NAV is a major
> target for corruption. The not-so-hidden gotcha is the fact that no
> anti-virus package can protect itself or the machine it is on with total
> perfection.

Here you have a perfect example of an operating system designed
by incompetents. On an operating system with a real mandatory
privilege system, the viruses would be fundamentally unable to
mess with the virus-checker. They would know the files to try
to modify, and they would try, but the kernel would say "nice
try but you don't have access", and that would be the end of
that. Given that this only requires late 1960's technology, it
seems surprising that the most popular operating system can't
seem to figure out how to do it. That is, unless these last
few years the company that makes said operating system has only
been making a show of getting serious about security when in
reality they don't actually care about it at all...

- Logan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Logan Shaw" <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:wqJxd.36548$jf5.4643@fe1.texas.rr.com...

> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > One hidden gotcha is that Norton Anti-Virus is on the hit list for many
> > viruses and spyware. That means that *everthing* related to NAV is a major
> > target for corruption. The not-so-hidden gotcha is the fact that no
> > anti-virus package can protect itself or the machine it is on with total
> > perfection.

> Here you have a perfect example of an operating system designed
> by incompetents. On an operating system with a real mandatory
> privilege system, the viruses would be fundamentally unable to
> mess with the virus-checker. They would know the files to try
> to modify, and they would try, but the kernel would say "nice
> try but you don't have access", and that would be the end of
> that. Given that this only requires late 1960's technology, it
> seems surprising that the most popular operating system can't
> seem to figure out how to do it. That is, unless these last
> few years the company that makes said operating system has only
> been making a show of getting serious about security when in
> reality they don't actually care about it at all...
>
> - Logan

The maker of the implied OS does not warrant the effectiveness of
OEM software, but must give access for it's installation. No?

DM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> "Logan Shaw" <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:wqJxd.36548$jf5.4643@fe1.texas.rr.com...
>>Arny Krueger wrote:

>>>One hidden gotcha is that Norton Anti-Virus is on the hit list for many
>>>viruses and spyware. That means that *everthing* related to NAV is a major
>>>target for corruption.

>>Here you have a perfect example of an operating system designed
>>by incompetents. On an operating system with a real mandatory
>>privilege system, the viruses would be fundamentally unable to
>>mess with the virus-checker. They would know the files to try
>>to modify, and they would try, but the kernel would say "nice
>>try but you don't have access", and that would be the end of
>>that. Given that this only requires late 1960's technology, it
>>seems surprising that the most popular operating system can't
>>seem to figure out how to do it.

> The maker of the implied OS does not warrant the effectiveness of
> OEM software, but must give access for it's installation. No?

That the software needs to have some sort of access to be installed
does not mean that other software needs the same access. I have a
key to lock my front door at home. I needed it to move all my
furniture in. And the same goes for all my neighbors; they needed
to move furniture in at one point as well. But they cannot come
mess with my stuff since they have different keys which do not
open the lock to my apartment. Likewise, my key does not open
their lock.

Now, you may say that with such an arrangement, it wouldn't be
possible to get into every apartment to perform maintenance. But
it's not the case: there is a maintenance man who lives in one
of the apartments on site. He can check out keys from the office
and access any apartment as needed. However, none of the other
residents can go into the maintenance man's apartment, because
they only have the key for their own apartment, and if they asked
the management office for another key, they would be refused,
because the management office knows they do not need that key.

- Logan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Logan Shaw" <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:8ILxd.37206$jf5.23600@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> > "Logan Shaw" <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:wqJxd.36548$jf5.4643@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> >>Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> >>>One hidden gotcha is that Norton Anti-Virus is on the hit list for many
> >>>viruses and spyware. That means that *everthing* related to NAV is a major
> >>>target for corruption.
>
> >>Here you have a perfect example of an operating system designed
> >>by incompetents. On an operating system with a real mandatory
> >>privilege system, the viruses would be fundamentally unable to
> >>mess with the virus-checker. They would know the files to try
> >>to modify, and they would try, but the kernel would say "nice
> >>try but you don't have access", and that would be the end of
> >>that. Given that this only requires late 1960's technology, it
> >>seems surprising that the most popular operating system can't
> >>seem to figure out how to do it.
>
> > The maker of the implied OS does not warrant the effectiveness of
> > OEM software, but must give access for it's installation. No?
>
> That the software needs to have some sort of access to be installed
> does not mean that other software needs the same access. I have a
> key to lock my front door at home. I needed it to move all my
> furniture in. And the same goes for all my neighbors; they needed
> to move furniture in at one point as well. But they cannot come
> mess with my stuff since they have different keys which do not
> open the lock to my apartment. Likewise, my key does not open
> their lock.
>
> Now, you may say that with such an arrangement, it wouldn't be
> possible to get into every apartment to perform maintenance. But
> it's not the case: there is a maintenance man who lives in one
> of the apartments on site. He can check out keys from the office
> and access any apartment as needed. However, none of the other
> residents can go into the maintenance man's apartment, because
> they only have the key for their own apartment, and if they asked
> the management office for another key, they would be refused,
> because the management office knows they do not need that key.
>
> - Logan

I'll mull that one over for a while. <g>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:

>> It most certainly can, and within minutes, or even seconds, of connectig to
>> the net.
>
>Please explain the process through which this happens. Some active
>program on the computer must do it ("Windows" isn't an acceptable
>answer), so what's the scoop?

If you have an unpatched WinXP (without SP2) then a service is active
that listens on some IP ports for file and print sharing. The same
service is used for the clipboard. So for an unpatched XP the clipboard
is to blame for. As every user has write access to the recycler there
is no problem to install some malware there.

>> Not very long ago I was re-installing WinXP on the m/c that connects to the
>> net. It was easier to download a firewall than to attempt to find the
>> install file on the other computer. Quicker than it took me to get to the
>> page on the website I needed, THREE malwares had installed themselves on my
>> m/c and were using all my net bandwidth to do someting or other.
>
>How did that happen? What web sites did you go to? How do those
>programs self-install? What's the mechanism?

There are several of those. The most recent one (there's no patch
available to my knowledge) uses JavaScript to redirect the browser
silently to some malicious website while continuing to display
the contents of the original site. The malicious site will then
install malware, i.e. spyware to get access to accounts, passwords
etc. JavaScript execution is usually turned on by all users as it
is needed for browsing sites with dynamic contents. JS is used by
some mail clients and by a couple of other programs.

Norbert

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <dibgs0t5q7anfrp2i2o1m0n47tr1o4bael@4ax.com> hahn@hrzpub.tu-darmstadt.de writes:

> If you have an unpatched WinXP (without SP2) then a service is active
> that listens on some IP ports for file and print sharing. The same
> service is used for the clipboard. So for an unpatched XP the clipboard
> is to blame for. As every user has write access to the recycler there
> is no problem to install some malware there.

Interesting. So what does the SP2 patch do? Turn off the service that
looks for file and print sharing requests? Or does it separate those
two functions, allowing you to turn off the file sharing service?
Surely it doesn't turn off the clipboard.

Zone Alarm on my system occasionally pops up with a message something
like "SERVICES.EXE wants access to the Internet" and unless I'm in the
process of something that I expect requires Internet access, I tell it
no and go on about my business (presumably unaffected). Might this be
a result of a creepie-crawlie coming in and trying to get my computer
to do something that I didn't plan for it to do?

> There are several of those. The most recent one (there's no patch
> available to my knowledge) uses JavaScript to redirect the browser
> silently to some malicious website while continuing to display
> the contents of the original site. The malicious site will then
> install malware, i.e. spyware to get access to accounts, passwords
> etc. JavaScript execution is usually turned on by all users as it
> is needed for browsing sites with dynamic contents.

Yes. I understand about the powers of Javascript. I initially had it
turned off just because I wanted to avoid the possibility of programs
running that I didn't start (other than the unavoidable Windows ones).
I eventually caved in, however, when a large number of web sites that
I visit regularly depend on JavaScript for even what looks like
straight text display. While those are normally trusted web sites and
I haven't had any problems with them, I guess there's always the
possibility that they could be hacked and some damage done to systems
accessing them before the problem is discovered by the site
administrator.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:

>
>In article <dibgs0t5q7anfrp2i2o1m0n47tr1o4bael@4ax.com> hahn@hrzpub.tu-darmstadt.de writes:
>
>> If you have an unpatched WinXP (without SP2) then a service is active
>> that listens on some IP ports for file and print sharing. The same
>> service is used for the clipboard. So for an unpatched XP the clipboard
>> is to blame for. As every user has write access to the recycler there
>> is no problem to install some malware there.
>
>Interesting. So what does the SP2 patch do?

Dunno. I haven't installed SP2 yet. But, by default, file and print
sharing is disabled in the firewall that SP2 installs.

>Zone Alarm on my system occasionally pops up with a message something
>like "SERVICES.EXE wants access to the Internet" and unless I'm in the
>process of something that I expect requires Internet access, I tell it
>no and go on about my business (presumably unaffected). Might this be
>a result of a creepie-crawlie coming in and trying to get my computer
>to do something that I didn't plan for it to do?

SERVICES.EXE is the loader for a couple of services. Some of them
don't have an individual name, thusly services.exe or svchost.exe
is reported as a name by such toys like Zone Alarm rather than the
requested function. That could be time synch, auto update of a
virus scanner, auto update of some application - not necessarily
malware.

>Yes. I understand about the powers of Javascript.

Last sunday there was a report by some radio station in Europe about
a man-in-the-middle-attack: One of the computers of a service provider
was hacked causing requestes to banking computers getting redirected.
As Javascript is used to select specific computers for banking
transactions the hacked IPS server simply modified some addresses
in the Javascript routine that is used for login to the bank account.
The only way to find out that something might go wrong is to look
into the Javascript for the computers listed, i.e.
overview account server1.bank.com
transactions server3.bank.com
login to account 62.137.89.19

The numeric address should ring the alarm bell.

Norbert

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Norbert Hahn" <me@privacy.net> wrote ...
> (Mike Rivers) wrote:
>>Interesting. So what does the SP2 patch do?
>
> Dunno. I haven't installed SP2 yet. But, by default, file and print
> sharing is disabled in the firewall that SP2 installs.

Not in my experience. I installed SP2 on my internet/email/office
PC (but never on my audio or video edit machines). File and print
sharing on my home network was unaffected and continues to work
as before SP2.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 09:01:29 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
<rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

>"Norbert Hahn" <me@privacy.net> wrote ...
>> (Mike Rivers) wrote:
>>>Interesting. So what does the SP2 patch do?
>>
>> Dunno. I haven't installed SP2 yet. But, by default, file and print
>> sharing is disabled in the firewall that SP2 installs.
>
>Not in my experience. I installed SP2 on my internet/email/office
>PC (but never on my audio or video edit machines). File and print
>sharing on my home network was unaffected and continues to work
>as before SP2.

Service pack 2 does not usually block isp's that rely solely on
Internet explorer to run.For isp's that run as many as 15 processes
like AOL, the windows firewall has corrupted the connectivity
services, and disabled other necessary services such as remote access
connection manager.As well as disabling ethernet adapters.Only way
around is to disable all firewalls, uninstall all the offending
software, and reinstall with the firewalls disabled.These facts
combined with people who install the free AOL mcafee virus scanner or
mcafee firewall when upgrading to the latest version of AOL, have
sometimes resulted in destruction of the winsock.Some pc's will not
boot at all using the combination of sp2, AOL, and mcafee or norton
products simultaneously.

Randall

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Randall Shawver" wrote ...
> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>>"Norbert Hahn" wrote ...
>>> Dunno. I haven't installed SP2 yet. But, by default, file and print
>>> sharing is disabled in the firewall that SP2 installs.
>>
>>Not in my experience. I installed SP2 on my internet/email/office
>>PC (but never on my audio or video edit machines). File and print
>>sharing on my home network was unaffected and continues to work
>>as before SP2.
>
> Service pack 2 does not usually block isp's that rely solely on
> Internet explorer to run.

The question appeared to be on the topic of file and print sharing.
These are local network functions that have nothing to do with your
ISP or the internet. If people are doing file and print sharing over
the public internet, they have more serious issues than SP2.

> For isp's that run as many as 15 processes like AOL, the
> windows firewall has corrupted the connectivity services,
> and disabled other necessary services such as remote access
> connection manager.

Just another good reason to avoid those invasive ISPs.