Beware the MSBlaster Worm, it will get you

Discussion in 'rec.audio.pro' started by Luke Kaven, Aug 12, 2003.

  1. Chris Smalt

    Chris Smalt Guest

    area242 wrote:

    > I have it and it keeps shutting down my computer before I can f



    Man, ain't that a











    <g>
  2. Mike Rivers

    Mike Rivers Guest

    In article <vk59dn50imdc2a@corp.supernews.com> ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com writes:

    > The real fix is to either keep wupdate.exe running in your system tray,
    > or go to http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com on a regular basis and let it
    > install the patches as they come out.


    There's an article in the Washington Post today (probalby in all the
    newspapers eventually) about Microsoft wanting to make the automatic
    update run by default. They feel that things are getting bad enough
    that users who don't know any better really should get all the patches
    automatically.

    It has its plusses and minuses of course. I have one computer that's
    connected to the Internet essentially all the time and two others that
    are only connected occasionally. Perhaps you don't need the security
    patches if the computer isn't on the net, but they might occaionally
    fix other things that are worth while. And I'd hate to have the
    computer realize that it's on line for the first time in three months
    and then gobble up hundreds of megabytes of updates, keeping it from
    doing what I want to do (and then get off the net).



    --
    I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
  3. Rob Adelman

    Rob Adelman Guest

    Mike Rivers wrote:


    > There's an article in the Washington Post today (probalby in all the
    > newspapers eventually) about Microsoft wanting to make the automatic
    > update run by default. -and-d.com)


    Until the hackers figure out how to use it and start giving you their
    automatic updates.
  4. ryanm

    ryanm Guest

    "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
    news:znr1061339611k@trad...
    >
    > There's an article in the Washington Post today (probalby in all the
    > newspapers eventually) about Microsoft wanting to make the automatic
    > update run by default. They feel that things are getting bad enough
    > that users who don't know any better really should get all the patches
    > automatically.
    >

    I'm sure Sun or Apple or Netscape or the Federal Government or *someone*
    will sue them if they do.

    > It has its plusses and minuses of course. I have one computer that's
    > connected to the Internet essentially all the time and two others that
    > are only connected occasionally. Perhaps you don't need the security
    > patches if the computer isn't on the net, but they might occaionally
    > fix other things that are worth while. And I'd hate to have the
    > computer realize that it's on line for the first time in three months
    > and then gobble up hundreds of megabytes of updates, keeping it from
    > doing what I want to do (and then get off the net).
    >

    Are the computers networked? If so, your best bet is just a simple
    firewall. If not, then I don't know what to tell you except that keeping
    windows updated is equally as important as keeping your virus definitions
    updated.

    ryanm
  5. Mike Rivers

    Mike Rivers Guest

    In article <zwB0b.22$Hp.5036@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com> radelman@mn.rr.com writes:

    > Until the hackers figure out how to use it and start giving you their
    > automatic updates.


    They already have, almost. I get two or three "Dear Microsoft
    Customer" e-mails every week with what I assume is NOT a Microsoft
    update.

    What's curious is that in this newspaper article about automatic
    updates, Microsoft said that they e-mailed registered Windows users
    pointing them to a link to the security patch that would have blocked
    the MSBlaster worm. This is a bit like "The Boy Who Cried 'Wolf'"
    story though. If I indeed received one of those (and maybe I did), I
    wouldn't have opened it anyway.



    --
    I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
  6. "ryanm" <ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com> wrote in message news:vk59dn50imdc2a@corp.supernews.com...

    > The real fix is to either keep wupdate.exe running in your system tray,
    > or go to http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com on a regular basis and let it
    > install the patches as they come out.



    I think this is dangerous and can become an unwelcome event. I like to
    think I am smart enough to decide for myself what is 'critical' and what is
    not. There are a few things that I simply don't need in my configuration,
    and one of them is another background task that initiates it's own ping.
    I take it out of every PC that I run across when asked for help. I simply
    advise the owner to take the time to click on the MSUpdate icon about
    twice a week before closing down... we're talking about a minute or two
    of lost time.

    --
    David Morgan (MAMS)
    http://www.m-a-m-s.com
    http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com
  7. ryanm

    ryanm Guest

    "David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
    news:zxM0b.15173$_P1.1476@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
    >
    > I think this is dangerous and can become an unwelcome event. I like to
    > think I am smart enough to decide for myself what is 'critical' and what

    is
    > not. There are a few things that I simply don't need in my configuration,
    > and one of them is another background task that initiates it's own ping.
    > I take it out of every PC that I run across when asked for help. I simply
    > advise the owner to take the time to click on the MSUpdate icon about
    > twice a week before closing down... we're talking about a minute or two
    > of lost time.
    >

    Well, that's what I said. *Either* use the auto update or go to the
    update site on a regular basis and install the stuff. When you go to
    windowsupdate it actually separates the security patches ("Critical
    Updates") from the program/driver updates and new feature updates
    ("Recommended Updates"). The problem is that most people forget to do it, so
    for most people the convenience of an automatic, scheduled download that
    prompts you to install is more useful. Also, while *you* may be smart enough
    to differentiate between necessary updates and unnecessary ones, I'm not
    generally impressed by the average person's ability to make such
    determinations, especially after having spent several years on a help desk.
    The truth is, MS doesn't just come up with this stuff to irritate the people
    who know what's going on, they've been monitoring support desks for decades
    and come up with this stuff because the average user can't manage to stay up
    to date on their own.

    ryanm
  8. Mike Rivers

    Mike Rivers Guest

    In article <1fzyz42.5cqnrg19bzia4N%neillmassello@earthlink.net> neillmassello@earthlink.net writes:

    > But hasn't part of the problem been all those automatic "features" that
    > Microsoft enables by default in its OS and application software?


    I think that the only real offender is the Outlook Express (?) mail
    program which automatically opens attachements as the default. Seems
    like I read that they had changed that default.


    --
    I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
  9. Mike Rivers

    Mike Rivers Guest

    In article <vk7bek370ic77@corp.supernews.com> ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com writes:

    > "David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
    > news:zxM0b.15173$_P1.1476@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...


    > > I simply
    > > advise the owner to take the time to click on the MSUpdate icon about
    > > twice a week before closing down... we're talking about a minute or two
    > > of lost time.


    Not for us dial-up users. Well, it might take only a minute to click,
    but some of those patches and service packs take an hour and a half to
    download. It's OK if you can actually download the program or patch
    and install it the next morning, but I've run across some where I can
    only find the "live install" version, and some of those require that
    you install something else first.

    > Well, that's what I said. *Either* use the auto update or go to the
    > update site on a regular basis and install the stuff. When you go to
    > windowsupdate it actually separates the security patches ("Critical
    > Updates") from the program/driver updates and new feature updates
    > ("Recommended Updates").


    I still look through the critical updates and only take the ones that
    apply. Many of them are to programs that I don't use, so I don't want
    to take the time to download them.

    I've asked this before and never had a useful answer, so I'll ask
    again. When you install a service pack, it backs up and saves the old
    stuff that it's replacing. After a couple of weeks, I'm sure I can get
    rid of that garbage, but I don't know what it's called or where to
    find it. Every time I update, my drive gets fuller and fuller.

    And what's with the Sobig virus today, and the idiots that are sending
    it (probably unintentionally). I must have received 20 messages
    containing it this morning, and this afternoon, received about have a
    dozen which I think were supposed to contain it, but had no file
    attached. Some people can't even spread viruses right. Sheesh!



    --
    I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
  10. Mike Turk

    Mike Turk Guest

    "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
    news:znr1061410224k@trad...
    >
    >
    > I've asked this before and never had a useful answer, so I'll ask
    > again. When you install a service pack, it backs up and saves the old
    > stuff that it's replacing. After a couple of weeks, I'm sure I can get
    > rid of that garbage, but I don't know what it's called or where to
    > find it. Every time I update, my drive gets fuller and fuller.
    >


    After installing a service pack you could probably figure it out by using
    "Search" and then clicking under
    "search Options" check the "date" box and then under the drop
    down menu highlight "created on" and then specify "in the last 1 day"

    -mke
  11. Ron Capik

    Ron Capik Guest

    Mike Rivers wrote:

    > I've asked this before and never had a useful answer, so I'll ask
    > again. When you install a service pack, it backs up and saves the old
    > stuff that it's replacing. After a couple of weeks, I'm sure I can get
    > rid of that garbage, but I don't know what it's called or where to
    > find it. Every time I update, my drive gets fuller and fuller.


    < ...snip.. >

    And thus(last verse): [to the tune of 16 Tons... ]
    --
    I've got Power Point, Word, and even Excel
    In the office suite package from Microsoft hell.
    It's worse than a tape-worm as I shell out the clams
    coz each up-grade needs more disk space and RAM

    [chorus]
    Re-boot 16 times, what do you get
    Another error message or the blue screen of death
    My registry's corrupted and the re-boot's slow
    I got my bugs from the Microsoft store
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ron Capik [aka: the NJ Editorial Minstrel ]
  12. ryanm

    ryanm Guest

    "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
    news:znr1061409847k@trad...
    >
    > I think that the only real offender is the Outlook Express (?) mail
    > program which automatically opens attachements as the default. Seems
    > like I read that they had changed that default.
    >

    Not Express, the full version of Outlook. When you select a message, the
    "preview" window (which is where most people read their email) would execute
    JavaScript or VBScript that was embedded in the message. The preview window
    is essentially a web browser and does all the stuff that web browsers do,
    only because it's reading local content (the contents of the message) there
    are no security restrictions against executing files, so a script could be
    embedded in a message that copies an attached file to a specific location on
    the computer and then executes it. Allowing scripts to be executed from
    emails isn't inherently a bad thing, but it is easily abused and MS
    should've taken into consideration that it would be abused. Outlook no
    longer does that, and even old versions should've been patched by now.

    ryanm
  13. ryanm

    ryanm Guest

    "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
    news:znr1061410224k@trad...
    >
    > Not for us dial-up users. Well, it might take only a minute to click,
    > but some of those patches and service packs take an hour and a half to
    > download. It's OK if you can actually download the program or patch
    > and install it the next morning, but I've run across some where I can
    > only find the "live install" version, and some of those require that
    > you install something else first.
    >

    You can usually find the downloadable installs if you do a little
    digging, at least for the service packs and larger updates. They are
    generally intended for network administrators who need to install on a lot
    of machines, but I often download them even though I only have 3 or 4
    machines to update.

    I just went to microsoft.com/downloads, scrolled down to the downloads
    search at the bottom, selected XP as the product, typed "SP1" as the search
    term, and the very first item to come up was the download page for the "IT
    Professionals" service pack install. It's 125 megs because you have to
    download *all* the components rather than just the ones that apply to you.
    The thing about the live install is that it checks to see what you have and
    then only installs the stuff you need, often resulting in a faster download
    time. On the other hand, I use GetRight. It's a download manager that allows
    you to resume downloads, so you can download a file a little bit at a time
    and stop and start whenever you need to. I also have DSL, so 125 megs
    doesn't take all that long for me, but for modem users it's an eternity, so
    a download manager is helpful.

    > I've asked this before and never had a useful answer, so I'll ask
    > again. When you install a service pack, it backs up and saves the old
    > stuff that it's replacing. After a couple of weeks, I'm sure I can get
    > rid of that garbage, but I don't know what it's called or where to
    > find it. Every time I update, my drive gets fuller and fuller.
    >

    First let me say that it's really not a good idea to delete them. Your
    system will automatically rollback on certain kinds of errors or crashes,
    and if you've deleted the files then there's nothing to roll back to. You
    can really cause yourself a lot of headaches by deleting the files, and
    generally the only fix is a complete reinstall of windows, but I'll tell you
    where they are anyway since it's your headache. ; )

    In Windows Explorer, go to C:\Windows. Click on Tools->Folder Options in
    the menu at the top. In the General tab, select "Use Windows Classic
    Folders", and on the View tab, select (or put a check in the box next to)
    "Display the contents of system folders" and "Show hidden files and
    folders", and unselect (or remove the check next to) "Hide extensions for
    known file types" and "Hide protected operating system files". I keep these
    options set this way all the time, but if you're used to the hidden
    extensions and stuff it can be confusing. At any rate, with these options
    you should be able to see a series of folders within the C:\Windows folder
    called things like this:

    $NtServicePackUninstall$
    $NtUninstallKB821557$
    $NtUninstallKB823559$
    $NtUninstallKB823980$
    $NtUninstallQ307869$

    ...etc. The folder names should be blue, which means they are compressed
    (assuming you're using NTFS), and the folder icon should be slightly
    transparent, which means they are system folders. On my system, the
    $NtServicePackUninstall$ folder contains 198 megs of files. You can delete
    these folders, but honestly, I would recommend you don't.

    ryanm
  14. > I've asked this before and never had a useful answer, so I'll ask
    > again. When you install a service pack, it backs up and saves
    > the old stuff that it's replacing. After a couple of weeks, I'm sure
    > I can get rid of that garbage, but I don't know what it's called or
    > where to find it. Every time I update, my drive gets fuller and fuller.


    You need to thoroughly search the hard drive, directory by directory. I'm almost
    100% certain that Microsoft clearly labels the directly where it's stored.

    I believe you can also choose not to back it up. This was an option when I
    installed the 2000 Pro Service Pack 4 the other day.
  15. Mike Rivers

    Mike Rivers Guest

    In article <vk8535l5m7m76@corp.supernews.com> ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com writes:

    > You can usually find the downloadable installs if you do a little
    > digging, at least for the service packs and larger updates.


    > I just went to microsoft.com/downloads, scrolled down to the downloads
    > search at the bottom, selected XP as the product, typed "SP1" as the search
    > term, and the very first item to come up was the download page for the "IT
    > Professionals" service pack install. It's 125 megs because you have to
    > download *all* the components rather than just the ones that apply to you.


    Yup, I found that too, but when I saw the size, I took the other
    route. Network administrators don't usually use dialup connections.

    > At any rate, with these options
    > you should be able to see a series of folders within the C:\Windows folder
    > called things like this:
    >
    > $NtServicePackUninstall$
    > $NtUninstallKB821557$
    > $NtUninstallKB823559$
    > $NtUninstallKB823980$
    > $NtUninstallQ307869$
    >
    > ...etc. The folder names should be blue, which means they are compressed
    > (assuming you're using NTFS)


    Oh, so THAT'S what the blue folder names mean. I was wondering if I
    could delete those.

    > On my system, the
    > $NtServicePackUninstall$ folder contains 198 megs of files. You can delete
    > these folders, but honestly, I would recommend you don't.


    OK, so why the recommendation that they not be deleted? Lyle Caldwell
    gave me the same advice (also without a reason). Maybe they shouldn't
    be deleted immediately after installing a service pack, but it seems
    like after a couple of weeks on the new service pack, there wouldn't
    be a good reason to uninstall it and go back to the previous version.
    Besides, if something went wrong a while after installing a service
    pack, it would never occur to me that the service pack could be the
    problem.

    What about the folder ....\service pack files ? It seems like
    everything in there is also in the \i386 folder. Is it safe to delete
    the service pack files folder?

    I've tried a few different programs that find duplicate files, and
    have turned up multiple copies in seemingly unrelated folders (demo
    songs in mp3 format, things I've never consciously downloaded, in the
    i386 and \owner\documents\music [approximately] folders for instance).
    But they also have showed files as duplicates which are close, like
    two different versions of the same Word document, but not exactly the
    same, and don't even have the same file name. I thought it might be
    looking at checksums as well as file names, but if it does, it's being
    lied to. I just don't trust anything automatic, and I don't have the
    patience to look through 26,000 files.

    I guess I'll do what everyone else does, buy a new computer in a year
    or so and start all over again.



    --
    I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
  16. ryanm

    ryanm Guest

    "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
    news:znr1061427682k@trad...
    >
    > Yup, I found that too, but when I saw the size, I took the other
    > route. Network administrators don't usually use dialup connections.
    >

    You should look at getting a download manager. I like this one:
    http://www.getright.com/

    > Oh, so THAT'S what the blue folder names mean. I was wondering if I
    > could delete those.
    >

    Blue folders and files are simply compressed. By the way, you can
    compress any folder or file on an NTFS formatted drive simply by right
    clicking on it, selecting properties, clicking on Advanced, and checking
    "Compress contents to save space". I have an entire drive that I use for
    storage that is compressed, and right now I have about 180 gigs on a 120 gig
    drive with almost 20 gigs to spare. Granted, when you open the files or copy
    them to an uncompressed drive it's a bit slower than when dealing with
    uncompressed files, but for the extra storage space it's worth it. All of
    this assumes that you checked the "allow compression" feature when you
    formatted the drive (or you bought a preformatted NTFS drive with the
    compression turned on).

    A caveat I should mention, wav files do not compress very much, and even
    if they did the potential for data loss is probably enough reason *not* to
    use NTFS compression on your audio tracks. The accuracy of the error
    correction and the lossyness of NTFS compression is debatable, so while it
    works great for data, I probably wouldn't want to compress the drive I mix
    from.

    > OK, so why the recommendation that they not be deleted?
    >

    Because Windows rolls back updates without telling you sometimes. If it
    rolls back and there's no file to roll back to, windows dies a quick and
    painful death. However, the service packs all ask if you want to back up the
    files first, if you simply tell it no then it will remember that it has
    nothing to roll back to, and just give you a "You should reinstall windows"
    error message. The individual patch folders could probably be deleted safely
    after a couple weeks, although there is always the possibility that MS sent
    out a patch that is worse than the original bug they sought to fix.

    > Maybe they shouldn't
    > be deleted immediately after installing a service pack, but it seems
    > like after a couple of weeks on the new service pack, there wouldn't
    > be a good reason to uninstall it and go back to the previous version.
    > Besides, if something went wrong a while after installing a service
    > pack, it would never occur to me that the service pack could be the
    > problem.
    >

    The problem is usually when you install something else, seemingly
    unrelated, at a much later date. You install something that has an older
    version of DirectX that replaces one of your audio driver files and Windows
    tries to automatically roll back to the version it had before the service
    pack because, even though it's old, it's newer than the one that the app you
    just installed overwrote your current driver with. Oops, you deleted the
    older driver, so now you have no EAX driver to power your surround speakers
    (just an example), or whatever. Your best bet is to never back up the files
    at all, so that Windows doesn't expect to be able to roll back. However, the
    danger there is that if your machine reboots or something terrible happens
    in the middle of the service pack install, you suddenly have half an
    operating system, and you have to reinstall both Windows *and* the service
    pack, along with all your 3rd party software and stuff. Better to just let
    Windows eat up the drive space with backups, in my opinion. Of course I keep
    windows segregated on a 20 gig system drive all by itself, I install all my
    apps on an 80 gig secondary drive, and use a 120 gig drive for storage. That
    way if Windows dies I can simply format the 20 gig drive and reinstall, and
    all my data and app config files are neatly saved on my secondary drive.
    It's also much faster booting and cleaning up, because the system drive is
    so (comparitively) small, and I never have to worry about using up the space
    on my c drive and then getting paging errors in Windows.

    > What about the folder ....\service pack files ? It seems like
    > everything in there is also in the \i386 folder. Is it safe to delete
    > the service pack files folder?
    >

    I want to say the service pack files folder is simply a place where the
    install files were saved during the download and then run from by the
    installer, but I may be wrong about that, so don't take my word for it.
    Delete them at your own risk.

    > I guess I'll do what everyone else does, buy a new computer in a year
    > or so and start all over again.
    >

    I just keep upgrading hard discs with larger sizes. But then I'm a
    packrat and I keep every file that ever crossed my desktop. I have emails
    from 1996 that I haven't looked at since then, but I won't throw them away
    because "you never know"... : )

    ryanm
  17. Mike Rivers

    Mike Rivers Guest

    In article <vkaq92iub95j1f@corp.supernews.com> ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com writes:

    > You should look at getting a download manager. I like this one:
    > http://www.getright.com/


    Before I go looking, what does it do? Why does anyone need a download
    manager? I've never heard of one.

    > > OK, so why the recommendation that they not be deleted?


    > Because Windows rolls back updates without telling you sometimes. If it
    > rolls back and there's no file to roll back to, windows dies a quick and
    > painful death.


    WHAAAAAAATTTTTT? Why would it do that? Oh, geez, I don't think I want
    to know.

    > However, the service packs all ask if you want to back up the
    > files first, if you simply tell it no then it will remember that it has
    > nothing to roll back to, and just give you a "You should reinstall windows"
    > error message.


    I think it's reasonable to back up old files when installing new ones,
    and I appreciate having the choice. I always say "yes." But like
    everything else old on my computer, if I'm not using it or it's been
    superceded by something else, when housecleaning time comes around, it
    goes. It's kind of scary to think that at some point, Windows will, on
    its own, decide that it wants to use some old file that it replaced
    months ago.

    > The problem is usually when you install something else, seemingly
    > unrelated, at a much later date. You install something that has an older
    > version of DirectX that replaces one of your audio driver files and Windows
    > tries to automatically roll back to the version it had before the service
    > pack because, even though it's old, it's newer than the one that the app you
    > just installed overwrote your current driver with.


    I hate when that happens. I remember installing old Windows programs
    (shareware and freeware, mostly) that would just stomp over DLLs and
    overwrite them with whatever happened to be current at the time the
    program was written. Every once in a while I'd smile when I was
    greeted with a message something like "There is a newer version of
    wxyz.dll present. Do you want to overwrite it?" and think that someone
    has finally got the right idea, but then the next program comes along,
    replaces new with old, and I have to go hunting for the new version
    again so that some other program will work. I used to set all the
    files in the \windows\system folder to read-only but today it's so
    hard to keep up.

    > Better to just let
    > Windows eat up the drive space with backups, in my opinion. Of course I keep
    > windows segregated on a 20 gig system drive all by itself


    This (XP) is on a laptop with a 20 GB drive, so either I do some
    housekeeping now and then or eventually it becomes full. I'm at about
    half full now and I don't do much audio work on this computer, so most
    of the obesity comes from Windows itself and applications. Thing is
    that when you dump an application, uninstalling usually doesn't take
    away everything that it put there, because of the risk that something
    else might be using a file that was installed in a common or shared
    directory, and heck, I don't know if it does or doesn't, even if it's
    polite enough to ask if I want to delete it or leave it, so I leave
    it.

    Speaking of seemingly unrelated things, we were talking about CD label
    design programs, and Bob Smith said that his version of Easy CD
    Creator let him install the jewel case designer separately. I had an
    older version of the program (came with an iOmega USB CD-R drive) that
    had the jewel case program, but the newer versions that I have on my
    newer computers don't have it at all. I thought I'd try to install
    just that part from my older version and it wouldn't let me run the
    setup program that was in its folder, so I ran the main setup program,
    hoping that it would either let me do a "custom" install (so I could
    pick just the label design program) or at least back out, but no, it
    went it and installed the whole works.

    Apparently it made the comptuer think that the CD drives were USB,
    which they weren't, so neither the new or nor the original versions of
    Easy CD Creator recognized the drives. So I did what every red blooded
    Windows user would do and un-installed the new version that I had just
    installed. The CD drives still didn't work, in fact Windows didn't
    even recognize them.

    The device manager said "this device isn't working properly" (like I
    didn't know that) and when I tried the hardware install wizard, it
    said it found two CD drives that it could install, which it did, and
    which it said were now available - but of course they still weren't.
    Well, bless Microsoft's pointy little head, I went to their knowledge
    base armed with the "error 31" message and lo and behold, it told me
    that this was a known problem that occurred when uninstalling Easy CD
    Creator. It sent me to editing deeper in the registry than I'd ever
    gone before to remove the upper and lower filters (I don't even want
    to know) and then the CD drives started working again. I figured that
    this was the excuse I needed to dump the other version of Easy CD
    Creator and install Nero on that machine. So now I'm back in the
    learning mode again. And only about an hour wasted. It could have been
    worse.




    --
    I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
  18. On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 19:54:25 -0600, "ryanm"
    <ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com> wrote:

    > A caveat I should mention, wav files do not compress very much, and even
    >if they did the potential for data loss is probably enough reason *not* to
    >use NTFS compression on your audio tracks. The accuracy of the error
    >correction and the lossyness of NTFS compression is debatable, so while it
    >works great for data, I probably wouldn't want to compress the drive I mix
    >from.


    Muddled thinking!

    If program files, where one corrupt bit could be catastrophic, survive
    NTFS compression, wav files have nothing to fear.
    It offers a moderate degree of compression and is lossless. Like
    other methods used for programs and data like zip, rar etc. Not to
    be confused with lossy systems like mp3, JPG which are only useful
    for media files.
  19. > about Microsoft wanting to make the automatic
    > update run by default.


    If they do this I hope they also start testing their updates more
    thoroughly before putting them up.

    There's been two updates recently that made one of my WInXP machines
    completely unusable (it crashed on startup). And earlier this year they put
    up a patch that made a lot of machines really, really slow (not mine
    though).

    Didn't do much damage for me, just had to restore the system to the restore
    point made the night before the update (the restore points in WinXP's gotta
    be one of MS's best ideas ever). But for people who don't know better, the
    restore pints can often be a mystery in themselves...

    /Jonas
  20. mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote in news:znr1061409847k@trad:

    > I think that the only real offender is the Outlook Express (?) mail
    > program which automatically opens attachements as the default.


    That's not the problem at all. Outlook and Outlook Express doesn't
    automatically open the kind of attachment Sobig and similar virii sends.
    Those virii still depends on users beeing stupid enough to open attachments
    (and works with all mail readers that can handle attachments). The fact
    that Sobig.F has been able to spread so fast just shows that a lot of users
    are stupid.

    The virii Outlook and Outlook Express has been vulnerable to are stuff
    embedded in HTML mails. They executed active components embedded in such
    mails when you viewed the mails. You just had to view them for the virus to
    get executed. This has been changed though, both Outlook and Outlook
    Express now views mail as insecure and won't run active components. The way
    MS wrote Outlook and Outlook Express to handle HTML mails was incredibly
    stupid. Of course, this fix didn├Ąt fix it all, there were still bugs...

    /Jonas

Share This Page