Beware the MSBlaster Worm, it will get you

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

  1. Laurence Payne wrote:

    > 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.


    It does, however, use quite a few CPU cycles to do its "on the fly"
    compression/decompression. So I wouldn't want to use it while tracking,
    for example, since it could cause the system to drop samples.

    In general, I find that I need all the performance I can get from my DAW
    machines. I would always prefer to invest some additional money in a
    larger disk drive rather than attempting to use file system compression
    to squeeze a little extra room out of an existing drive.

    But I agree with you that there's no reason to worry about accuracy or
    "lossyness".
  2. >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).


    Which were those? Particularly the ones that caused start-up crashes?

    Why do people who report these serious issues rarely give details?
  3. >>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).

    >
    > Which were those? Particularly the ones that caused start-up crashes?


    Don't remember know. MS fixed them. Had to make sure they were redownloaded
    though, so I had to turn of the autodownload feature of automatic updates.

    > Why do people who report these serious issues rarely give details?


    Probably because they don't remember the details once the stuff is fixed.
    Had you asked me while the info was still relevant, I'd have remembered at
    least one crash causing update number, and the one causing slow downs were
    mentioned on a number of web sites (including Microsoft's).

    There should still be info on update problems in MS's knwoledge base,
    though they can be hard to find without a number.

    > Why do people who report these serious issues rarely give details?


    When I *reported* the issues I quoted the exact numbers.

    When I just *mention* the fact that some updates have problems on a forum
    where it's actually OT I don't see any reason to try to research the exact
    numbers of previous problematic but now fixed updates.

    Regards
    /Jonas
  4. "ryanm" <ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com> wrote:

    >Data files generally have built in error correction in the file format.
    >That's like saying data files written to cheap cd media at 48x are never
    >usable again, but data files *expect* errors and generally have a process
    >for correcting those errors. Raw audio does not, one corrupted bit and you
    >may get a squawk in your track. The very act of compressing and then
    >uncompressing any file is inviting errors, even if the compression scheme is
    >lossless. A good test is to take a file, any file, and make 2 copies.
    >Compress and uncompress one file several times and do a bit-for-bit
    >comparison. They are likely to not be the same. In data files, this doesn't
    >matter, because a certain amount of loss is acceptable because it was
    >designed that way. Audio and some raw image formats do not have that room
    >for error.


    Your thinking is still very muddled. Unless I've missed something, the
    subject being discussed is compression on a HD and no one was talking about
    CDs (where error correction differs for the 2 types).

    On a HD, there is no physical difference between data files and audio
    files. All compression methods are lossless, and there is no additional
    risk of loss -- maybe less risk actually, since less data is being stored.

    The 'ZIP' method of compression (I forget the generic name) is fine for
    random data files. For audio files, where any byte is somewhat predictable
    based on the previous byte, a more focused method of compression is
    available and 50% compression is typical. For more info, do a search for
    'SHORTEN' or 'MONKEY".

    People should refrain from advising others on subjects they know little
    about.
  5. ryanm

    ryanm Guest

    "Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:iqsbkv0grhbsqsb5ctigetmj12opbi3d5k@4ax.com...
    >
    > 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.
    >

    Data files generally have built in error correction in the file format.
    That's like saying data files written to cheap cd media at 48x are never
    usable again, but data files *expect* errors and generally have a process
    for correcting those errors. Raw audio does not, one corrupted bit and you
    may get a squawk in your track. The very act of compressing and then
    uncompressing any file is inviting errors, even if the compression scheme is
    lossless. A good test is to take a file, any file, and make 2 copies.
    Compress and uncompress one file several times and do a bit-for-bit
    comparison. They are likely to not be the same. In data files, this doesn't
    matter, because a certain amount of loss is acceptable because it was
    designed that way. Audio and some raw image formats do not have that room
    for error.

    ryanm
  6. ryanm

    ryanm Guest

    "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
    news:znr1061516318k@trad...
    >
    > Before I go looking, what does it do? Why does anyone need a download
    > manager? I've never heard of one.
    >

    It's a small app that you can run in your system tray (or not) that will
    detect clicks in the browser that lead directly to files of certain types
    (as opposed to other web pages and stuff, like .zip, .exe, etc), and it
    downloads then instead if just giving you the standard Save dialog. What it
    does is create a temp file on your drive as a placeholder, and stores the
    location of the remote file. That way, if the download is interrupted, it
    can restart where it left off instead of having to download the whole file
    again. It can also download a large file in multiple pieces simultaneously.
    The benefit of that is that a lot of file servers throttle the bandwidth
    that any one connection can have, so if you have a high-speed connection,
    but the site you're downloading from only allows 50k per second to download
    on any one conection, you can have it download in 10 parts at the same time
    so that you actually get 500k per second. You can also set up downloads in a
    queue, so that you stack up a gigs worth of downloads, and it will download
    them as you have bandwidth to do so. You can pause it at any time, so that
    you can check mail or look at web pages with your full bandwidth, and then
    restart it when you're done. It's useful to have, even though I don't use it
    all the time.

    > 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.
    >

    Well, XP only has one service pack. On NT4 there were 6, and it was
    pretty safe to delete the first 4 and leave the last two, because if Windows
    rolled back that far it would break down anyway. But with only 1 service
    pack so far, it's a good idea to leave the backups.

    > 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.
    >

    That's the problem with letting just anyone write software for your OS,
    and is the advantage that Apple had in stability for such a long time.
    Because you had to pay license fees to write software for Mac OS, only
    serious developers wrote software for it, and they all had to comply with
    the specs. But what made Windows so popular is that anyone can write for it,
    which makes it inherently unstable because of just these kinds of problems.
    Those problems are caused by lazy developers, not by MS. MS causes their
    fair share of problems, but their installs are almost always done right.

    > 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.
    >

    Ah. Well, that's a whole different situation, then. And a bigger hard
    drive will probably be ridiculously expensive. CleanSweep used to work
    pretty good, but I haven't used it in a while. I think it was bought by
    Norton, so if you get the Norton Suite it should come with CleanSweep.
    Cleansweep will find files that haven't been used in a long time, files that
    aren't used by any programs anymore, orphaned registry settings, etc, and
    let you remove them. It also has some rollback capability, so if you remove
    something and it breaks your Windows it can put stuff back like it was until
    you make the deletion permenant. It's not a good app for me because I know I
    have files I haven't touched in 5 or 6 years, and I want to keep them but
    not have to scroll through them all to tell CleanSweep that I want them. I
    have old video files on my storage drive in targa sequences, so I have
    literally *thousands* of files that are several years old and that I haven't
    looked at since 1997 or so. But given the size of these files, and the
    possibility that I may want to use them again (they're stock video footage),
    keeping them on a big storage drive makes more sense that archiving them to
    a dozen cds or something.

    > Apparently it made the comptuer think that the CD drives were USB,
    >

    Oops. Now you screwed up. ; )

    > 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.
    >

    Hey, at least you know what the device manager is and how to use it. The
    easier way would've been to simply remove all your CD and SCSI devices in
    the device manager and reboot. What *should* happen (but doesn't always) is
    the reboot without the devices installed causes windows to redetect them and
    install them properly. Usually works, but sometimes you have to go into the
    registry to clean it up manually, though.

    ryanm
  7. Mike Rivers

    Mike Rivers Guest

    In article <lcfckvgbitqk2r8lkjr8qmldfstosbtml4@4ax.com> l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk writes:

    > >There's been two updates recently that made one of my WInXP machines
    > >completely unusable (it crashed on startup).


    > Which were those? Particularly the ones that caused start-up crashes?
    > Why do people who report these serious issues rarely give details?


    Probably because their computers don't run long enough between
    crashes.



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

    Mike Rivers Guest

    In article <vkcstp6r8rds01@corp.supernews.com> ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com writes:

    > > Before I go looking, what does it do? Why does anyone need a download
    > > manager?


    > It's a small app that you can run in your system tray (or not) that will
    > detect clicks in the browser that lead directly to files of certain types
    > (as opposed to other web pages and stuff, like .zip, .exe, etc), and it
    > downloads then instead if just giving you the standard Save dialog. What it
    > does is create a temp file on your drive as a placeholder, and stores the
    > location of the remote file. That way, if the download is interrupted, it
    > can restart where it left off instead of having to download the whole file
    > again.


    I guess this is a solution to a problem that I don't have. I rarely
    have downloadus interruptus. Maybe I just don't do enough downloading
    of files that I want to save. One reason, probalby, is that I don't
    have a high speed connection. I suppose that if I ever take that step,
    a lot of things will change. It sounds pretty clever though.

    > Cleansweep will find files that haven't been used in a long time, files that
    > aren't used by any programs anymore, orphaned registry settings, etc, and
    > let you remove them.


    > It's not a good app for me because I know I
    > have files I haven't touched in 5 or 6 years, and I want to keep them but
    > not have to scroll through them all to tell CleanSweep that I want them.


    Me, too. Sounds like it would be more trouble than it's worth. I go
    through my "documents" folders about every month, copy anything new to
    CD, and delete what I don't think I'll be using any more. If I do have
    occasion to dig up one of those old files that I've deleted from the
    hard drive, hopefully the CD will still play. What I have a problem
    with when using programs like that is when it asks me if I want to
    delete a file that I have no idea what it does (or did) in a folder
    that I never consciously access. I never know what I might break if I
    take its recommendation.

    > Hey, at least you know what the device manager is and how to use it.


    Oh, I've had my Device Mangler experiences in the past. It's actually
    one of the more useful tools that Microsoft provided.

    > The
    > easier way would've been to simply remove all your CD and SCSI devices in
    > the device manager and reboot.


    That was the first thing I tried and it didn't work. I was about to
    reload the CD drivers, but they were on CD of course. And I didn't
    want to go back to changing the CMOS so it would boot from the CD and
    start from there. I didn't want to mess up anything that was still
    working. In this case, installing (and removing) Easy CD Creator
    leaves something behind that keeps the CD drives from being
    recognized. I was surprised that both the read-only and read-write
    drives were affected. I figured that they would be independent, but I
    guess not.




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

    Rob Adelman Guest

    Mike Rivers wrote:
    > 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.


    I never knew about them, but Netscape 7.1 has one built in and I have
    grown to like it. Comes in handy sometimes.

    -RA
  10. > "Laurence Payne" wrote ...
    > > 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.


    "ryanm" wrote ...
    > Data files generally have built in error correction in the file
    > format.


    NO! THEY DO NOT! Error detection/correction is a function of the
    disk drive, NOT the file format, (or the operating system, drivers, or
    any other software).

    > That's like saying data files written to cheap cd media at 48x are never
    > usable again, but data files *expect* errors and generally have a process
    > for correcting those errors.


    No. The disk drive hardware is responsible for detecting/correcting
    errors. The disk drive neither knows nor cares whether a file is data
    or audio. In fact all it knows is that this batch of data goes into sector
    xxx, or fills a request for retrieving the data from sector yyy.

    > Raw audio does not,


    Or, more accurately, minimal error detection/correction.

    > one corrupted bit and you may get a squawk in your track.


    No. Red Book audio format/protocol provides for significant error
    detection and correction (and masking if correction isn't possible).

    > The very act of compressing and then uncompressing any file
    > is inviting errors, even if the compression scheme is lossless.


    It would be prudent to avoid offering up such unsupportable and
    erroneous opinions as anything resembling facts.

    > A good test is to take a file, any file, and make 2 copies.
    > Compress and uncompress one file several times and do
    > a bit-for-bit comparison. They are likely to not be the same.
    > In data files, this doesn't matter, because a certain amount
    > of loss is acceptable because it was designed that way.
    > Audio and some raw image formats do not have that room
    > for error.


    You really don't know what you are talking about. I don't know any
    other way of putting it. No offense, I'm sure you mean well.
    I suggest you actually perform this experiment and report back
    your findings. (If you dare.)
  11. On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:22:02 -0600, "ryanm"
    <ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com> wrote:

    > Data files generally have built in error correction in the file format.
    >That's like saying data files written to cheap cd media at 48x are never
    >usable again, but data files *expect* errors and generally have a process
    >for correcting those errors. Raw audio does not, one corrupted bit and you
    >may get a squawk in your track. The very act of compressing and then
    >uncompressing any file is inviting errors, even if the compression scheme is
    >lossless. A good test is to take a file, any file, and make 2 copies.
    >Compress and uncompress one file several times and do a bit-for-bit
    >comparison. They are likely to not be the same. In data files, this doesn't
    >matter, because a certain amount of loss is acceptable because it was
    >designed that way. Audio and some raw image formats do not have that room
    >for error.


    I'm sorry, but this is such a load of misapprehension and garbage that
    it's not worth correcting point by point.

    ryamm, I'm sure you're expert at something. But computer theory ain't
    it :)
  12. "ryanm" <ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com> deliriously wrote in
    news:vkcr5sf7rmm80f@corp.supernews.com:

    > Data files generally have built in error correction in the file
    > format.


    No. Most data files have no error correction whatsoever in the file format.

    > That's like saying data files written to cheap cd media at 48x are
    > never usable again, but data files *expect* errors and generally have
    > a process for correcting those errors.


    No. Data files does not expect errors. Some file systems and media formats
    (data CD for example) expect errors and has error correction. The reason
    this error correction is important is the simple fact that most
    applications and operating systems expect program and data files to be
    completely free of errors.

    > compressing and then uncompressing any file is inviting errors, even
    > if the compression scheme is lossless.


    No. It isn't. Actually, it's the opposite. As the (losslessly) compressed
    file is smaller the risk of errors also becomes smaller.

    There is a risk with many compression schemes though. If a compressed file
    looses a bit, then the rest of the file (follwing the bad bit) might be
    completely corrupted as well.

    > A good test is to take a file,
    > any file, and make 2 copies. Compress and uncompress one file several
    > times and do a bit-for-bit comparison. They are likely to not be the
    > same.


    No, they are very unlikely not to be the same. If they are not the same,
    one or more of the following has occured:

    * You have used a lossy compression algorithm.

    * You have used bad media with bad error correction. Bad media with bad
    error correction will corrupt the data wether it's compressed or not.

    * The compression implementation has bugs.

    > In data files, this doesn't matter, because a certain amount of
    > loss is acceptable because it was designed that way.


    In most data files, except pure text files, this would matter because no
    loss is acceptable because the file formats were not designed to handle any
    loss of data.

    > Audio and some
    > raw image formats do not have that room for error.


    * Audio files are data files. They contain audio data.

    * Most audio files actually have more room for errors than many other data
    files. A bad bit in an audio file will probably just destroy one
    single sample (unless it happens to be in a header), one bad bit in a lot
    of other data files will fuck up a big part of the file.

    /Jonas
  13. pH

    pH Guest

    On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:22:02 -0600, "ryanm" <ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com>
    wrote:

    >"Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
    >news:iqsbkv0grhbsqsb5ctigetmj12opbi3d5k@4ax.com...
    >>
    >> 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.
    >>

    > Data files generally have built in error correction in the file format.
    >That's like saying data files written to cheap cd media at 48x are never
    >usable again, but data files *expect* errors and generally have a process
    >for correcting those errors. Raw audio does not, one corrupted bit and you
    >may get a squawk in your track. The very act of compressing and then
    >uncompressing any file is inviting errors, even if the compression scheme is
    >lossless. A good test is to take a file, any file, and make 2 copies.
    >Compress and uncompress one file several times and do a bit-for-bit
    >comparison. They are likely to not be the same. In data files, this doesn't
    >matter, because a certain amount of loss is acceptable because it was
    >designed that way. Audio and some raw image formats do not have that room
    >for error.
    >
    >ryanm


    I'm havin' a bit of a Deja Vu, here...

    Jeff

    http://www.jefftturner.com
  14. "Cerion" <eeeeek@notmail.com> wrote in message news:biamt2$r5t$1@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...

    > Do these current worms affect 98se?


    Nope. At least not according to MS. My web-site e-mail address
    was compromised by a virus holder though - I'm getting waaayy
    over 100 copies of the virus per day. I made the mistake of using
    it for e-Bay, so the road to recovery on this one will mean changing
    a lot of addresses and preferences.


    > > > A friend of mine who studies all of the virus and spam newsgroups just
    > > > told me that the blaster worm goes right thought Zone Alarm. Maybe
    > > > this is true in the free version where you can't configure which ports
    > > > are blocks and which ones are not (I have the "what it's doing"
    > > > display turned off and just look at the log now and then out of
    > > > curiousity) but I would think that if you close Port 135, which is
    > > > apparently where it comes in, that would do it.


    Mike,

    The PRO version can be tweaked to look for specific components
    in attachments. It's throwing about 20% of what I get into quarantine
    right now without me making any customized changes. People say
    I'm crazy for running SE on a 2gig XP optimized box, but I'm still
    satisfied with how it works for me and my OS doesn't take up over
    2 gigs, I boot fast and now people don't even write virii for me any more.

    --
    David Morgan (MAMS)
    http://www.m-a-m-s.com
    http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com
  15. Scott Dorsey

    Scott Dorsey Guest

    Cerion <eeeeek@notmail.com> wrote:
    >Do these current worms affect 98se?


    Blaster does not, nor does Welchia. But, most of the mail virii will infect
    all of the 95-and-later Windows systems.

    >I've heard it was just XP and 2k, so I'm curious what others have heard.
    >I guess I'll go check out the MircoSloth site...


    If you have a permanent leased-line connection, you should block all unused
    ports anyway. If you're on a dialup line, this isn't quite as easy to do
    but you can still disable all unused network applications, which is a start.
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  16. Mike Rivers

    Mike Rivers Guest

    In article <bi6f36$5o7e6$1@ID-75267.news.uni-berlin.de> SPAMLESSradelman@mn.rr.com writes:

    > I never knew about them, but Netscape 7.1 has one built in and I have
    > grown to like it. Comes in handy sometimes.


    I have Netscape 7.1 and that Download Manager pops up every time I
    download something. I discovered that I can click on several files and
    come back hours later (I'm a dial-up user) and they'll all be
    downloaded. When I was using Explorer, it would only let me start two
    downloads before it told me (in some obscure way) that I couldn't
    download the third one.

    Another neat thing about the Download Manager is that it keeps track
    of the temporary files that I don't consciously download, like when I
    look at a PDF from a web page link. If I want to look at it later on,
    the Download Manager will remind me of where it's stored on the
    computer.



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

Share This Page