You can get to the management console plug in by typing the msc file on the command line. If you are running an older version of windows then...wtf? Oh hey - does the home edition of XP have that? Who's running home?
Printable View
You can get to the management console plug in by typing the msc file on the command line. If you are running an older version of windows then...wtf? Oh hey - does the home edition of XP have that? Who's running home?
XP home doesn't have it, unless you add it, along with the necessary device drivers.
Hey Hey
I tried being nice, now I'm just convinced you are a F@#$ing moron.... I'm not afraid to flame idiots, ask anyone on this site.
If you can't find it then there's something severly wrong with your computer. I can pull it up on any computer here, I'd suggest you actually go look. It's not hard.. Start --> Run.... Type in gpedit.msc. If you still can't find it, then I suggest you give up using a computer. If you are running XP Home or an older version of Windows, no wonder you have no configuration and since you mentioned ICF, I'm guessing it is XP Home.. perhaps you should look into a real operating system before you start complaining about no functionality.Quote:
Originally posted here by HDD
I'm still looking for that, I've tried using the Start --> Run. I've searched my whole hard drive so I guess its just my computer thats screwed up.
As I've pointed out, it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of McAfee sucking ass. If an updated AV misses over 3700 virii, then there's a problem. That is bad software, not a dislike of software. The computer with 1125 virii and McAfee not finding them, that's another example of bad software, not a dislike of software. If anyone calls that a matter of opinion, they need to pull out a dictionary and look up the definition of opinion.Quote:
I'm sorry but this is very much simply a matter of opinion and nothing else. I have found McAfee's Virus Scan very good (and yes I am aware of the fact that many disagree). On the other hand I have found Norton to be rather annoying. Once again this is a matter of opinion and nothing else, so don't take any offence.
My point there was that your comment had no bearing.Quote:
If you make two partitions and one of them fails then you'll still have the other one. It doesn't matter what OS you are using. So whats you point?
You "majorly disagree", how old are you... 12? The user still has choice, and the average customer doesn't want choice... they want what's easy. Don't go blaming microsoft for customer stupidity. It's lack of buyer awareness and lack of knowledge, Microsoft is just conducting good business. I enjoy getting IE and Media Player w/ my default Windows install. It means I can do a barebones install and have everything accessible. Would you like to go back to the days where you installed an OS and didn't have a browser? You had to rely on the outdated piece of crap that your ISP gave you when you signed up. You should read up on business, because if I could run a business the way Microsoft could, I'd do it in a second and many other people here would do the same.Quote:
I'm sorry, no offence, but I majorly disagree with that. Yes, I don't belive for a split second that users use Windows because they were given the choice. Because Microsoft has monopoly over the computer market they give no choice to the customer. The average customer is unaware of the fact that there even are other OS's in existance. Microsoft are playing a very dirty game, and I belive that this is simply another scheme to try and gain trust from the average user.
They have done this before, they did it with Internet Explorer in order to take Netscape out of business. They've done it with Windows Media Player in order to cut down on competition. This is nothing else but a big con.
That was a joke, I also blame the user, and that's the entire point of what I'm saying. There's no really no way you can blame Microsoft. They've done some stupid things like releasing patches late and other things like that, but they do a good job and they try hard. Sure they could do more, but they don't need to be bashed for it... You strike me as being nothing more than a lil kid who wants to be a l33t skiddie and bash Microsoft. I mean hell you can't even find Group Policy on your computer and it's one of the key pieces of Windows. I suggest you start learning and exploring instead of bashing.Quote:
hmm, well I wouldn't blame Microsoft for this one. I blame the user. I have nothing against people who are willing to learn. But you wouldn't have a car for long if you couldn't drive it so why do people who couldn't care less about computers (and yes there are people out there who say "well I'm not to bothered if I get hacked, there is nothing important on my computer anyways") still refuse to learn and refuse to get rid of it if they don't care?
Peace,
HT
As far as MS products that are 'built-in' (IE: browser, IM client, email, firewall), I don't mind that as much as I mind the fact that it's not easy to disable/turn off. It's getting better and if this new AV/Firewall/etc is truly an on-off-by-your-choice thing, then I'm all for that.
However, what else could it be like? It WILL be installed because you're downloading SP2 and by said download, you're agreeing to the terms and conditions they set forth (which may or may not be the case because you're trying to get patches for products they should support), and in turn, products X, Y, and Z are now installed, set as services, and automatically taking over in addendum to whatever else you have running.
I personally run F-Prot and Opera. I just hope that MS truly puts an on-off switch that does exactly what it says. I do not want the AV/FW product that they'll install whether I like it or not to be like the xerox folder (oh, you can't disable, turn off, or otherwise prevent this from running, sorry!).
It's all about choice. I shouldn't have this product installed if I don't want to, and it shouldn't be in the service pack at all. Let it be like WMP, a choice to download if I wanted it.
Just a key thought I'd like to bring to the table. All this talk about the average user not having firewall, antivirus, and securing the machine, and no one has thought that if they do not download critical patches and such, they won't be getting SP2 either. Until this thing is rolled out with the new machines sent out from dell (e.g), I dont think the "average" user will be having SP2 in the first place. So therefore its up to the more tech savvy user's to decide if they want to use the built in or not.
I've been an enterprise license customer from NAI (McAfee) for almost the entire 90s and on. I am not sure what the circumstances around the failure of it to find 300 some virus' but I've never had major infections. Just speaking from my own experience with the product. I've used both and I bet they are essentially very similar in design. After all what is so hard about scanning predefined signatures as they are found out and added to the signature file? I could see differences in speed and perhaps differences in security but the scanning engine is probably is very similar. In fact in lab tests over the years both products have gone back and forth in ranking depending on the release timing.
I couldn't tell you why it happened, only that it did happen. When you see something like that you tend to distrust the software. It's not a matter of forming an opinion about the software, it's a matter of seeing the results first hand and seeing bad results at that. It's like Norton Internet Security. The manager of the res. was being port-scanned we asked for his Logs and the Intrusion Detection Log that we got is completely useless, based on these logs I would never recommend this software to anyone. It's all a matter of going with what you see.
Just curious, I have had great success with it and try and keep up with any issues. Oviously if there is some circumstance related to it's failing my trust, I would want to know about it.
Hey Hey,
Not much more I could tell ya. I'd say in total there were prolly 10-15 virii that it had missed, it was just they had spread and propagated horribly over the harddrive. Leading to over 3700 individual infections. I like AVG and I like it's real-time monitor. I've also never had a problem with it picking up virii. We recommend it over eTrust to most of our customers. Those bad experiences sour me on McAfee and I've yet to run into anyone around here that actually likes it or has anything good to say about it.
Peace,
HT
Quote:
As I've pointed out, it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of McAfee sucking ass. If an updated AV misses over 3700 virii, then there's a problem. That is bad software, not a dislike of software. The computer with 1125 virii and McAfee not finding them, that's another example of bad software, not a dislike of software. If anyone calls that a matter of opinion, they need to pull out a dictionary and look up the definition of opinion.
Just last week NAI released a dat file for the netsky virus. The dat file only identified the virus but was not able to delete or clean the virus. You would think that if an antivirus software could detect a virus it could delete it, but nope. It couldn't. So we ended up having to block and delete all .zip files until the next day when NAI released an updated dat file that was able to detect and delete/clean the netsky virus.
We are switching all of our antivirus to trend. This is a company with other 70k employees. Pretty major contract for NAI, and they boffed it.
I didn't mean to take the thread so far off-topic. But...
Erm.... hmph. If you say so.Quote:
You must not know that much about Windows..
Alrighty then. Why don't you set \Program Files \windows and \windows\system32 read-only for all but the administrator and let us know how many applications still work, hmmm? :rolleyes:Quote:
If you can't set different NTFS permissions based on folders and volumes, then you really don't know anything about windows.
The tree is a jumbled mess that requires write access all over the system areas for non-privileged users. It's because Windows 2000 inherited a directory structure that was developed in the DOS/Win3.1 days before multiuser environments were ever put in place. They made a design choice to keep the old structure for backward compatibility, and that's fine. But a hatchet job on filesystem permissions is the price you pay for it.
Look... I'm not disavowing the virtues of AV scanners or firewalls. Anybody here who knows me knows that I believe strongly in those things. My only point is that for Microsoft to include them in a service pack that is supposed to boost security is like putting a Band-Aid on a gunshot wound. It's a nice thought, but it's not going to fix the basic problem. And it's just going to hurt companies that put out fine products that I'm pretty sure are more fully featured than anything Microsoft can come up with.
Anyway, enough said..... back to retirement.
Hey Hey,
That's like saying set /bin or /usr/bin to root only and saying let's see if files will still work properly, or how about only giving root access to /lib. You can set individual file permissions using NTFS, go in and set the permissions on the individual files.... it's not that difficult of a task, maybe long and tedious, but not difficult.
Peace,
HT
About the "included" firewall.as you can read in ms white paper, they recognized the instability and the inconvience that icf caused and with sp2 they are trying to make things better.what's wrong with that?if you don't like it, just disable (off) it and use norton, kerio, outpost , bla bla bla.symantec and other companies are specialized in making this kind of software.so there would be no comparison between ws and their firewall......but i still find the idea of bundling a firewall within win very good......
lets take slackware linux for example.isnt netscape included in the standard installation of this distro?so why not windows have bundled software?oh oh i forgot linux is linux but windows sux.wake up you l33t gyus....
about fedora project.i think that they may trying to have some real earnings from this distro.its still free but for how long?EA games has recently announced that they will soon provide their games for linux too.and we are talking about real support.......hm support to a free OS?i don't think so.the present for linux is little support = no incombatibilities.i wonder how the future will be.wait and see.
about phispreek or whatever.where exactly did u see in my previous thread that i was talking about you?another "behind my monitor clever guy" huh?
i'm not gonna fight you back, dude.you really dont worth it.i expected much more politeness from a senior member.but i really dont give a ****.
c ya
Windows SP2 will not be including a built in AV solution.
"Anti-virus vendors needn't worry at this stage. Despite dipping its toes into anti-virus tech last year Microsoft is not providing native virus scanning capabilities via SP2."
Source: http://www.enterpriseitplanet.com/se...le.php/3317711
I guess the time to release a fix could be a major factor. I have found that same problem many times over the years, even with other products. I guess in reality it would take a few hours to figure out how it works, figure out how to clean it without breaking windows and then testing it for another few hours. Many of the fix actions require repairing key windows components and editing the registry. I always look around everytime a contract comes up, but my solution is so customized and layered that it would take some major shift to get me to spent weeks redesigning the whole thing. ;) You may find with other products you will run into a delay while waiting for a fix.Quote:
Just last week NAI released a dat file for the netsky virus. The dat file only identified the virus but was not able to delete or clean the virus. You would think that if an antivirus software could detect a virus it could delete it, but nope. It couldn't. So we ended up having to block and delete all .zip files until the next day when NAI released an updated dat file that was able to detect and delete/clean the netsky virus.
So because most people could care less about learning how to properly lock down an NT file system means that it is less secure than a *nix file system? You are trying to say that because the file system may not be as "clean" it is less secure. What you are complaining about is a matter of personnal preference, not security ability.Quote:
Alrighty then. Why don't you set \Program Files \windows and \windows\system32 read-only for all but the administrator and let us know how many applications still work, hmmm?
We were not trying to fix infected systems. We were trying to delete infected attachments from email messages. Groupshield was able to detect that an attachment was infected, but it would not DELETE it. No fixing, no patching, no infection, no DELETING. Even the NAI technician that we always deal with was confused as to why it was released because it didn't function as advertised and was obviously not tested. I totally understand that it takes more time to fix an infected system than to identify an infected file.Quote:
I guess the time to release a fix could be a major factor. I have found that same problem many times over the years, even with other products. I guess in reality it would take a few hours to figure out how it works, figure out how to clean it without breaking windows and then testing it for another few hours. Many of the fix actions require repairing key windows components and editing the registry. I always look around everytime a contract comes up, but my solution is so customized and layered that it would take some major shift to get me to spent weeks redesigning the whole thing. You may find with other products you will run into a delay while waiting for a fix.
I had pneumonia the other day when i posted what i posted.
It really wasnt directed toward you phish you were just the last post I scanned, your right i didnt even read it.
the swiss cheese thing was the thing that got on my nerves then i just scanned the rest and started babbling.
o well sorry about jumpin your bones for no good reason
Then what's the issue? It detected it and then deleted it a short time later?Quote:
I totally understand that it takes more time to fix an infected system than to identify an infected file.
Are you running Netshield on the same server?