Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Free Firewall?

Last response: in Windows 95/98/ME
Share
May 17, 2005 1:47:14 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

I use ZA Free. It is unstable and creates conflicts on
the system including connection to RoadRunner, which was
installed today and blocked today. I'm afraid to allow
any outgoing traffic as I don't know which are legit.

Are there any other free firewalls available?

Any feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks a bunch.

KB

More about : free firewall

Anonymous
May 17, 2005 12:35:54 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Choose 1 only. Installing more than 1 firewall software is not recommended.
If you are running Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2), Windows Firewall is
turned on by default.

Kerio
http://www.kerio.com/kpf_home.html

Sygate
http://smb.sygate.com/products/spf_standard.htm

Outpost
http://www.agnitum.com/download/outpost1.html

Zee


"KB" <KB@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:06f201c55a9b$7f226b40$a501280a@phx.gbl...
> I use ZA Free. It is unstable and creates conflicts on
> the system including connection to RoadRunner, which was
> installed today and blocked today. I'm afraid to allow
> any outgoing traffic as I don't know which are legit.
>
> Are there any other free firewalls available?
>
> Any feedback would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks a bunch.
>
> KB
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 3:40:29 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Hello!

"oops!!" <notme@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:%23AvxMMrWFHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
> Choose 1 only. Installing more than 1 firewall software is not
> recommended.
> If you are running Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2), Windows Firewall is
> turned on by default.
>
> Kerio
> http://www.kerio.com/kpf_home.html
>

I recommend old version 2.1.5, but if
you can afford it Look'n'Stop
http://www.looknstop.com/


More info:
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=386422#...

HTH, Roman
Related resources
May 17, 2005 4:11:04 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

"roman modic" <modicr@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:eBxWVqrWFHA.3620@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello!
>
> "oops!!" <notme@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:%23AvxMMrWFHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> >
> > Choose 1 only. Installing more than 1 firewall software is not
> > recommended.
> > If you are running Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2), Windows Firewall is
> > turned on by default.
> >
> > Kerio
> > http://www.kerio.com/kpf_home.html
> >
>
> I recommend old version 2.1.5, but if
> you can afford it Look'n'Stop
> http://www.looknstop.com/
>
>

I agree. I've been trying the current version on Win ME and Win XP. It's
fine on XP but I've gone back to Kerio 2.1.5 on ME.

Kerio still provide 2.1.5:
http://download.kerio.com/dwn/kpf/kerio-pf-2.1.5-en-win...

Shane
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 1:10:24 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Heck - I still run 2.1.5 on XP!!!

I took a quick look at the added complexity of later versions, and decided
that I had better things to do (like lifting my right arm<g>)



--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23EeFnEtWFHA.2572@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> I agree. I've been trying the current version on Win ME and Win XP. It's
> fine on XP but I've gone back to Kerio 2.1.5 on ME.
>
> Kerio still provide 2.1.5:
> http://download.kerio.com/dwn/kpf/kerio-pf-2.1.5-en-win...
>
> Shane
>
>
>
May 18, 2005 1:10:25 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Hey, Noel.

Is 2.1.5 more stable and less conflicting than ZA Free, in
your opinion?

Thanks,

KB
>-----Original Message-----
>Heck - I still run 2.1.5 on XP!!!
>
>I took a quick look at the added complexity of later
versions, and decided
>that I had better things to do (like lifting my right
arm<g>)
>
>
>
>--
>Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)
>
>Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
>http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
>
>http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>
>Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post
messages to NG's
>
>"Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:%23EeFnEtWFHA.2572@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> I agree. I've been trying the current version on Win ME
and Win XP. It's
>> fine on XP but I've gone back to Kerio 2.1.5 on ME.
>>
>> Kerio still provide 2.1.5:
>> http://download.kerio.com/dwn/kpf/kerio-pf-2.1.5-en-
win.exe
>>
>> Shane
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>.
>
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 2:04:02 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

<lol>
And that is definitely more important <vbg>
Joan


Noel Paton wrote:
> Heck - I still run 2.1.5 on XP!!!
>
> I took a quick look at the added complexity of later versions, and
> decided that I had better things to do (like lifting my right arm<g>)
>
May 18, 2005 3:05:58 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

You don't need to be Noel to answer an emphatic yes to that!


Shane


"KB" <KB@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:013701c55b26$50f7d030$a401280a@phx.gbl...
> Hey, Noel.
>
> Is 2.1.5 more stable and less conflicting than ZA Free, in
> your opinion?
>
> Thanks,
>
> KB
> >-----Original Message-----
> >Heck - I still run 2.1.5 on XP!!!
> >
> >I took a quick look at the added complexity of later
> versions, and decided
> >that I had better things to do (like lifting my right
> arm<g>)
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)
> >
> >Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
> >http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
> >
> >http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
> >
> >Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post
> messages to NG's
> >
> >"Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:%23EeFnEtWFHA.2572@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> >> I agree. I've been trying the current version on Win ME
> and Win XP. It's
> >> fine on XP but I've gone back to Kerio 2.1.5 on ME.
> >>
> >> Kerio still provide 2.1.5:
> >> http://download.kerio.com/dwn/kpf/kerio-pf-2.1.5-en-
> win.exe
> >>
> >> Shane
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >.
> >
May 18, 2005 3:05:59 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Point taken, Shane. Noel bailed me out nearly a year ago
so not only do I enjoy his posts but respect his
guidance. It's one of those things.

ZA really fights with a lot of things. I'll give 2.1.5 a
whirl (by itself of course) and see how it works.

Thanks for the feedback, Shane.

KB
>-----Original Message-----
>You don't need to be Noel to answer an emphatic yes to
that!
>
>
>Shane
>
>
>"KB" <KB@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>news:013701c55b26$50f7d030$a401280a@phx.gbl...
>> Hey, Noel.
>>
>> Is 2.1.5 more stable and less conflicting than ZA Free,
in
>> your opinion?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> KB
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >Heck - I still run 2.1.5 on XP!!!
>> >
>> >I took a quick look at the added complexity of later
>> versions, and decided
>> >that I had better things to do (like lifting my right
>> arm<g>)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)
>> >
>> >Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
>> >http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
>> >
>> >http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>> >
>> >Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to
post
>> messages to NG's
>> >
>> >"Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:%23EeFnEtWFHA.2572@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> >> I agree. I've been trying the current version on Win
ME
>> and Win XP. It's
>> >> fine on XP but I've gone back to Kerio 2.1.5 on ME.
>> >>
>> >> Kerio still provide 2.1.5:
>> >> http://download.kerio.com/dwn/kpf/kerio-pf-2.1.5-en-
>> win.exe
>> >>
>> >> Shane
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >.
>> >
>
>
>.
>
May 18, 2005 3:12:14 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

I figured I ought to look at the 4.1.x series. Once it's configured it's
fine (on XP). I guess I'm still using it for two reasons, that there's
seemingly no reason not to, and to keep abreast of the latest build (now
4.1.3). It doesn't interfere with my drinking - though I had managed not to
touch a drop today until you brought the subject up!


Shane


"Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:o U16xxxWFHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Heck - I still run 2.1.5 on XP!!!
>
> I took a quick look at the added complexity of later versions, and decided
> that I had better things to do (like lifting my right arm<g>)
>
>
>
> --
> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)
>
> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
> http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>
> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
>
> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23EeFnEtWFHA.2572@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> > I agree. I've been trying the current version on Win ME and Win XP. It's
> > fine on XP but I've gone back to Kerio 2.1.5 on ME.
> >
> > Kerio still provide 2.1.5:
> > http://download.kerio.com/dwn/kpf/kerio-pf-2.1.5-en-win...
> >
> > Shane
> >
> >
> >
>
>
May 18, 2005 4:15:39 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

"KB" <KB@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0a8b01c55b31$0fb3bd90$a501280a@phx.gbl...
> Point taken, Shane. Noel bailed me out nearly a year ago
> so not only do I enjoy his posts but respect his
> guidance. It's one of those things.

No point intended bar to reinforce the affirmative I'm sure you'll get from
Noel.

>
> ZA really fights with a lot of things. I'll give 2.1.5 a
> whirl (by itself of course) and see how it works.

I think all us Kerio users here probably began with Zone Alarm and finally
migrated following it's seemingly endless incompatibilities with Win ME.
However, Kerio 2.1.5 does require a shade more nous than ZA for closing
certain ports via custom rules.

For instance, to block port 135:

R-click tray icon, choose Administration/Advanced/New

Set or type the following in the appropriate fields:

Description: eg, Block 135
Protocol: TCP and UDP
Direction: Incoming

(Local Endpoint)
Port Type: Single Port
Application: Any
Port Number: 135

(Remote Endpoint)
Address Type: Any address
Port Type: Any Port

Rule Valid: Always
Action: Deny

Do the same for TCP ports 1024 through 1030, choosing *List of ports* rather
than *Any port* in the Port Type field and typing the numbers seperated by
commas, eg 1024,1025,1026 etc.

Also block attempts by System or ICMP, Incoming or Outgoing.

Otherwise the rules it installs with along with those you make in the same
way as with Zone Alarm, eg allow or deny Windows Media Player, Outlook
Express etc etc as they try to access the 'net should be adequate.

>
> Thanks for the feedback, Shane.

NP.

Shane
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 4:04:24 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Hello,

"Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uYaTD2yWFHA.160@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>I figured I ought to look at the 4.1.x series. Once it's configured it's
> fine (on XP). I guess I'm still using it for two reasons, that there's
> seemingly no reason not to, and to keep abreast of the latest build (now
> 4.1.3). It doesn't interfere with my drinking - though I had managed not
> to
> touch a drop today until you brought the subject up!

BTW, there is 4.2 in beta, which will not support ME/9x anymore.
http://www.kerio.com/beta_section.html#kpf
http://www.kerio.com/beta_kpf_history.html

Cheers, Roman
May 18, 2005 4:04:25 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

"roman modic" <modicr@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:uFKaZc4WFHA.1044@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
>
> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uYaTD2yWFHA.160@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >I figured I ought to look at the 4.1.x series. Once it's configured it's
> > fine (on XP). I guess I'm still using it for two reasons, that there's
> > seemingly no reason not to, and to keep abreast of the latest build (now
> > 4.1.3). It doesn't interfere with my drinking - though I had managed not
> > to
> > touch a drop today until you brought the subject up!
>
> BTW, there is 4.2 in beta, which will not support ME/9x anymore.
> http://www.kerio.com/beta_section.html#kpf
> http://www.kerio.com/beta_kpf_history.html
>

Okay. Thanks. Doesn't surprise me that 9x support will be absent, but I
don't suppose it matters while they still provide the 2.1.5 download.

Shane
May 23, 2005 10:53:00 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

> As I told Heather already, I got this dialog box using Ctrl+Alt+Del.
> There were unfamiliar names listed and one of them as follows:
> "Smc [Not responding]".
> Have no idea what to make of it, Shane.
> What's your take on that?

OK, Harry. What I'm interested in, as Figgs rightly says, is whether, in
running Sygate Personal Firewall, you see Winmgmt in the list when you hit
Ctrl-Alt-Del (ie, bring up the Task Manager). While I haven't read all the
messages in this thread and was just skimming, so far it looks like you
don't have winmgmt running. This, to me, is interesting and as informative
as if it *had* been running. But I'll finish the thread before drawing any
conclusions.

As for Smc [not responding], that's a Sygate component - the firewall engine
iirc. I always had that message in Task Manager when I was running SPF, and,
while it didn't appear to be a genuine problem, ie it didn't appear to have
frozen or crashed, it *was* a lesser reason for why I gave up on Sygate (the
main reasons are that I couldn't get a successful installation in XP -
though now I gather there's a fix for that - and it did crash in ME
occasionally).

So, I uninstalled SPF for other reasons. If yours is working okay, I
shouldn't worry about Smc [not responding].

Go to grc.com and follow the Shields Up links then test All Service Ports
(and, while you're at it, File and Print Sharing). The test is not the last
word in firewall testing but getting 100% (ie Stealth) is a good baseline,
but if your firewall is not working it'll certainly tell you that!

(Sygate also do a series of online firewall tests, but they're likely to
confuse rather than clarify as to whether yours is working. There are other
sites, too, but more for the advanced paranoiac).

Shane
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 10:53:01 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Shane:

In "ShieldsUp" under 'True Stealth Analysis' the 'Solicited TCP Packets'
failed, everything else was passing, some of it with flying colors.
Do you think it's a good idea to employ the "Unplug'n Pray" program?
Let me know, please.

Harry.


"Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23kCBXB8XFHA.2768@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > As I told Heather already, I got this dialog box using Ctrl+Alt+Del.
> > There were unfamiliar names listed and one of them as follows:
> > "Smc [Not responding]".
> > Have no idea what to make of it, Shane.
> > What's your take on that?
>
> OK, Harry. What I'm interested in, as Figgs rightly says, is whether, in
> running Sygate Personal Firewall, you see Winmgmt in the list when you hit
> Ctrl-Alt-Del (ie, bring up the Task Manager). While I haven't read all the
> messages in this thread and was just skimming, so far it looks like you
> don't have winmgmt running. This, to me, is interesting and as informative
> as if it *had* been running. But I'll finish the thread before drawing any
> conclusions.
>
> As for Smc [not responding], that's a Sygate component - the firewall
engine
> iirc. I always had that message in Task Manager when I was running SPF,
and,
> while it didn't appear to be a genuine problem, ie it didn't appear to
have
> frozen or crashed, it *was* a lesser reason for why I gave up on Sygate
(the
> main reasons are that I couldn't get a successful installation in XP -
> though now I gather there's a fix for that - and it did crash in ME
> occasionally).
>
> So, I uninstalled SPF for other reasons. If yours is working okay, I
> shouldn't worry about Smc [not responding].
>
> Go to grc.com and follow the Shields Up links then test All Service Ports
> (and, while you're at it, File and Print Sharing). The test is not the
last
> word in firewall testing but getting 100% (ie Stealth) is a good baseline,
> but if your firewall is not working it'll certainly tell you that!
>
> (Sygate also do a series of online firewall tests, but they're likely to
> confuse rather than clarify as to whether yours is working. There are
other
> sites, too, but more for the advanced paranoiac).
>
> Shane
>
>
May 23, 2005 11:12:27 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

> In that case an un- and a reinstallation would be advisable, wouldn't it?

I don't think it'd help. But if it's working, ie stopping unwanted traffic
in both directions, it's doing what you want it to do.

However, now I see you do have winmgmt running. You don't really want
winmgmt running all the time. It is associated with freeze ups and
continuous activity that stops, eg ScanDisk from completing.

> And if I'd have to go that far, I might as well go back to my EZArmor.

Which, as you know, is Zone Alarm. Does it work or doesn't it? The only
essentially infallible firewall is the one I usually recommend as does Silj
and Noel, Kerio 2.1.5. It has two problems only:

1. Just occasionally - and this may be the fault of other software, not
Kerio - it loses it's ruleset. Bear in mind that by *occasionally* I mean
about every 18 months to 2 years. And that is not a problem if you've backed
the configuration file up. And I just this week wrote a file that
automatically backs the Kerio 2.1.5 configuration file up once a day and
keeps seven days worth.

2. It's less of a newbie-friendly firewall than Zone Alarm/EZ Armor, Sygate
PF, or Kerio 4.x and rules have to be made to block certain ports. But there
are ready-made configuration files that do this, which you could be supplied
with if required.

> Don't you sympathize with my struggles?

http://download.kerio.com/dwn/kpf/kerio-pf-2.1.5-en-win...


> Thanks 'a whole lot'.

NP, Harry.


Shane
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 11:12:28 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Shane:

That is excellent advice.
Would you believe I had this particular version downloaded already?
To be sure I replaced it with your's.
Now my work is cut out for me.
All I need is a little bit of luck.
Thank you very much.

Harry.


"Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e4yZMM8XFHA.3356@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > In that case an un- and a reinstallation would be advisable, wouldn't
it?
>
> I don't think it'd help. But if it's working, ie stopping unwanted traffic
> in both directions, it's doing what you want it to do.
>
> However, now I see you do have winmgmt running. You don't really want
> winmgmt running all the time. It is associated with freeze ups and
> continuous activity that stops, eg ScanDisk from completing.
>
> > And if I'd have to go that far, I might as well go back to my EZArmor.
>
> Which, as you know, is Zone Alarm. Does it work or doesn't it? The only
> essentially infallible firewall is the one I usually recommend as does
Silj
> and Noel, Kerio 2.1.5. It has two problems only:
>
> 1. Just occasionally - and this may be the fault of other software, not
> Kerio - it loses it's ruleset. Bear in mind that by *occasionally* I mean
> about every 18 months to 2 years. And that is not a problem if you've
backed
> the configuration file up. And I just this week wrote a file that
> automatically backs the Kerio 2.1.5 configuration file up once a day and
> keeps seven days worth.
>
> 2. It's less of a newbie-friendly firewall than Zone Alarm/EZ Armor,
Sygate
> PF, or Kerio 4.x and rules have to be made to block certain ports. But
there
> are ready-made configuration files that do this, which you could be
supplied
> with if required.
>
> > Don't you sympathize with my struggles?
>
> http://download.kerio.com/dwn/kpf/kerio-pf-2.1.5-en-win...
>
>
> > Thanks 'a whole lot'.
>
> NP, Harry.
>
>
> Shane
>
>
May 24, 2005 12:05:25 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Unplug'n Pray is ok, but only does what you can do yourself anyway. Either
way you should have Universal Plug n Play disabled. You can disable it in
Add-Remove Programs/Windows Setup/Communications. Remove the checkmark,
close and reboot.

As for the ShieldsUp test, what port or ports are not stealthed? Try it
again after disabling Universal Plug n Play. If you hover over the non-green
blocks, the port no. will come up.


Shane


"webster72n" <hbethke@copper.net> wrote in message
news:enj$rb8XFHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Shane:
>
> In "ShieldsUp" under 'True Stealth Analysis' the 'Solicited TCP Packets'
> failed, everything else was passing, some of it with flying colors.
> Do you think it's a good idea to employ the "Unplug'n Pray" program?
> Let me know, please.
>
> Harry.
>
>
> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23kCBXB8XFHA.2768@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > As I told Heather already, I got this dialog box using Ctrl+Alt+Del.
> > > There were unfamiliar names listed and one of them as follows:
> > > "Smc [Not responding]".
> > > Have no idea what to make of it, Shane.
> > > What's your take on that?
> >
> > OK, Harry. What I'm interested in, as Figgs rightly says, is whether, in
> > running Sygate Personal Firewall, you see Winmgmt in the list when you
hit
> > Ctrl-Alt-Del (ie, bring up the Task Manager). While I haven't read all
the
> > messages in this thread and was just skimming, so far it looks like you
> > don't have winmgmt running. This, to me, is interesting and as
informative
> > as if it *had* been running. But I'll finish the thread before drawing
any
> > conclusions.
> >
> > As for Smc [not responding], that's a Sygate component - the firewall
> engine
> > iirc. I always had that message in Task Manager when I was running SPF,
> and,
> > while it didn't appear to be a genuine problem, ie it didn't appear to
> have
> > frozen or crashed, it *was* a lesser reason for why I gave up on Sygate
> (the
> > main reasons are that I couldn't get a successful installation in XP -
> > though now I gather there's a fix for that - and it did crash in ME
> > occasionally).
> >
> > So, I uninstalled SPF for other reasons. If yours is working okay, I
> > shouldn't worry about Smc [not responding].
> >
> > Go to grc.com and follow the Shields Up links then test All Service
Ports
> > (and, while you're at it, File and Print Sharing). The test is not the
> last
> > word in firewall testing but getting 100% (ie Stealth) is a good
baseline,
> > but if your firewall is not working it'll certainly tell you that!
> >
> > (Sygate also do a series of online firewall tests, but they're likely to
> > confuse rather than clarify as to whether yours is working. There are
> other
> > sites, too, but more for the advanced paranoiac).
> >
> > Shane
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 12:05:26 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Funny you should say that, Shane.
I remember having trouble having it disabled some time back.
But I will follow your advice.
Have to go now.

Harry.


"Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23rco1p8XFHA.3716@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Unplug'n Pray is ok, but only does what you can do yourself anyway. Either
> way you should have Universal Plug n Play disabled. You can disable it in
> Add-Remove Programs/Windows Setup/Communications. Remove the checkmark,
> close and reboot.
>
> As for the ShieldsUp test, what port or ports are not stealthed? Try it
> again after disabling Universal Plug n Play. If you hover over the
non-green
> blocks, the port no. will come up.
>
>
> Shane
>
>
> "webster72n" <hbethke@copper.net> wrote in message
> news:enj$rb8XFHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Shane:
> >
> > In "ShieldsUp" under 'True Stealth Analysis' the 'Solicited TCP Packets'
> > failed, everything else was passing, some of it with flying colors.
> > Do you think it's a good idea to employ the "Unplug'n Pray" program?
> > Let me know, please.
> >
> > Harry.
> >
> >
> > "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:%23kCBXB8XFHA.2768@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > As I told Heather already, I got this dialog box using Ctrl+Alt+Del.
> > > > There were unfamiliar names listed and one of them as follows:
> > > > "Smc [Not responding]".
> > > > Have no idea what to make of it, Shane.
> > > > What's your take on that?
> > >
> > > OK, Harry. What I'm interested in, as Figgs rightly says, is whether,
in
> > > running Sygate Personal Firewall, you see Winmgmt in the list when you
> hit
> > > Ctrl-Alt-Del (ie, bring up the Task Manager). While I haven't read all
> the
> > > messages in this thread and was just skimming, so far it looks like
you
> > > don't have winmgmt running. This, to me, is interesting and as
> informative
> > > as if it *had* been running. But I'll finish the thread before drawing
> any
> > > conclusions.
> > >
> > > As for Smc [not responding], that's a Sygate component - the firewall
> > engine
> > > iirc. I always had that message in Task Manager when I was running
SPF,
> > and,
> > > while it didn't appear to be a genuine problem, ie it didn't appear to
> > have
> > > frozen or crashed, it *was* a lesser reason for why I gave up on
Sygate
> > (the
> > > main reasons are that I couldn't get a successful installation in XP -
> > > though now I gather there's a fix for that - and it did crash in ME
> > > occasionally).
> > >
> > > So, I uninstalled SPF for other reasons. If yours is working okay, I
> > > shouldn't worry about Smc [not responding].
> > >
> > > Go to grc.com and follow the Shields Up links then test All Service
> Ports
> > > (and, while you're at it, File and Print Sharing). The test is not the
> > last
> > > word in firewall testing but getting 100% (ie Stealth) is a good
> baseline,
> > > but if your firewall is not working it'll certainly tell you that!
> > >
> > > (Sygate also do a series of online firewall tests, but they're likely
to
> > > confuse rather than clarify as to whether yours is working. There are
> > other
> > > sites, too, but more for the advanced paranoiac).
> > >
> > > Shane
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
May 24, 2005 12:19:03 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Let us know when you're up and running. I could send you a config file
that'll pass Shield'sUp and you'd just have to do the same thing you do with
the other firewalls, ie Permit/Deny this or that program access.

And let me know if you want the script that backs the config file at the
first boot each day. I also use it to run EmptyTempFolders, delete the Adobe
Acrobat PrintMe Internet Printing Start Menu shortcut and the My
Documents/My e-Books folder.

Shane


> That is excellent advice.
> Would you believe I had this particular version downloaded already?
> To be sure I replaced it with your's.
> Now my work is cut out for me.
> All I need is a little bit of luck.
> Thank you very much.
May 24, 2005 1:03:43 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Harry,

There's no reason to have UPnP enabled and it is a security risk. The only
reason I can imagine disabling it would cause problems is if the hole had
already been exploited and the trouble was the malware not liking it.

However, perhaps you're confusing Universal Plug 'n' Play (UPnP) with Plug
and Play. The one is a Windows setting, the other is a BIOS setting.

Plug And Play refers to the capability to simply fit a new piece of hardware
and it be recognised and configured automatically and with ease. If you
disabled it you might well have trouble.

Universal Plug 'n' Play is supposed to enable the integration of the
computer into the home like in those old shorts they used to knock out
trumpeting the technology to come, like how by 1970 we'd all have hover cars
and the stove would be atomic powered. If you don't have a coffee machine or
fridge connected to your computer, you don't need UP'n'P. And if disabling
it causes trouble, it's a symptom of something else.


Shane

"webster72n" <hbethke@copper.net> wrote in message
news:%23emyTB9XFHA.796@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
> Funny you should say that, Shane.
> I remember having trouble having it disabled some time back.
> But I will follow your advice.
> Have to go now.
>
> Harry.
>
>
> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23rco1p8XFHA.3716@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Unplug'n Pray is ok, but only does what you can do yourself anyway.
Either
> > way you should have Universal Plug n Play disabled. You can disable it
in
> > Add-Remove Programs/Windows Setup/Communications. Remove the checkmark,
> > close and reboot.
> >
> > As for the ShieldsUp test, what port or ports are not stealthed? Try it
> > again after disabling Universal Plug n Play. If you hover over the
> non-green
> > blocks, the port no. will come up.
> >
> >
> > Shane
> >
> >
> > "webster72n" <hbethke@copper.net> wrote in message
> > news:enj$rb8XFHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > Shane:
> > >
> > > In "ShieldsUp" under 'True Stealth Analysis' the 'Solicited TCP
Packets'
> > > failed, everything else was passing, some of it with flying colors.
> > > Do you think it's a good idea to employ the "Unplug'n Pray" program?
> > > Let me know, please.
> > >
> > > Harry.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:%23kCBXB8XFHA.2768@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > > As I told Heather already, I got this dialog box using
Ctrl+Alt+Del.
> > > > > There were unfamiliar names listed and one of them as follows:
> > > > > "Smc [Not responding]".
> > > > > Have no idea what to make of it, Shane.
> > > > > What's your take on that?
> > > >
> > > > OK, Harry. What I'm interested in, as Figgs rightly says, is
whether,
> in
> > > > running Sygate Personal Firewall, you see Winmgmt in the list when
you
> > hit
> > > > Ctrl-Alt-Del (ie, bring up the Task Manager). While I haven't read
all
> > the
> > > > messages in this thread and was just skimming, so far it looks like
> you
> > > > don't have winmgmt running. This, to me, is interesting and as
> > informative
> > > > as if it *had* been running. But I'll finish the thread before
drawing
> > any
> > > > conclusions.
> > > >
> > > > As for Smc [not responding], that's a Sygate component - the
firewall
> > > engine
> > > > iirc. I always had that message in Task Manager when I was running
> SPF,
> > > and,
> > > > while it didn't appear to be a genuine problem, ie it didn't appear
to
> > > have
> > > > frozen or crashed, it *was* a lesser reason for why I gave up on
> Sygate
> > > (the
> > > > main reasons are that I couldn't get a successful installation in
XP -
> > > > though now I gather there's a fix for that - and it did crash in ME
> > > > occasionally).
> > > >
> > > > So, I uninstalled SPF for other reasons. If yours is working okay, I
> > > > shouldn't worry about Smc [not responding].
> > > >
> > > > Go to grc.com and follow the Shields Up links then test All Service
> > Ports
> > > > (and, while you're at it, File and Print Sharing). The test is not
the
> > > last
> > > > word in firewall testing but getting 100% (ie Stealth) is a good
> > baseline,
> > > > but if your firewall is not working it'll certainly tell you that!
> > > >
> > > > (Sygate also do a series of online firewall tests, but they're
likely
> to
> > > > confuse rather than clarify as to whether yours is working. There
are
> > > other
> > > > sites, too, but more for the advanced paranoiac).
> > > >
> > > > Shane
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 1:03:44 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

No confusion with Plug and Play, Shane.
When I disable UPnP, Spybot is telling me something about
Windows/System/.....exe., making it appear as something important.
I didn't allow the change for that reason, until I checked with you.
Mike mentioned something about a limit in this thread.
Should we start a new one?

Harry.


"Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:o kmIZK9XFHA.2288@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Harry,
>
> There's no reason to have UPnP enabled and it is a security risk. The only
> reason I can imagine disabling it would cause problems is if the hole had
> already been exploited and the trouble was the malware not liking it.
>
> However, perhaps you're confusing Universal Plug 'n' Play (UPnP) with Plug
> and Play. The one is a Windows setting, the other is a BIOS setting.
>
> Plug And Play refers to the capability to simply fit a new piece of
hardware
> and it be recognised and configured automatically and with ease. If you
> disabled it you might well have trouble.
>
> Universal Plug 'n' Play is supposed to enable the integration of the
> computer into the home like in those old shorts they used to knock out
> trumpeting the technology to come, like how by 1970 we'd all have hover
cars
> and the stove would be atomic powered. If you don't have a coffee machine
or
> fridge connected to your computer, you don't need UP'n'P. And if disabling
> it causes trouble, it's a symptom of something else.
>
>
> Shane
>
> "webster72n" <hbethke@copper.net> wrote in message
> news:%23emyTB9XFHA.796@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >
> > Funny you should say that, Shane.
> > I remember having trouble having it disabled some time back.
> > But I will follow your advice.
> > Have to go now.
> >
> > Harry.
> >
> >
> > "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:%23rco1p8XFHA.3716@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > Unplug'n Pray is ok, but only does what you can do yourself anyway.
> Either
> > > way you should have Universal Plug n Play disabled. You can disable it
> in
> > > Add-Remove Programs/Windows Setup/Communications. Remove the
checkmark,
> > > close and reboot.
> > >
> > > As for the ShieldsUp test, what port or ports are not stealthed? Try
it
> > > again after disabling Universal Plug n Play. If you hover over the
> > non-green
> > > blocks, the port no. will come up.
> > >
> > >
> > > Shane
> > >
> > >
> > > "webster72n" <hbethke@copper.net> wrote in message
> > > news:enj$rb8XFHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > Shane:
> > > >
> > > > In "ShieldsUp" under 'True Stealth Analysis' the 'Solicited TCP
> Packets'
> > > > failed, everything else was passing, some of it with flying colors.
> > > > Do you think it's a good idea to employ the "Unplug'n Pray" program?
> > > > Let me know, please.
> > > >
> > > > Harry.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:%23kCBXB8XFHA.2768@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > As I told Heather already, I got this dialog box using
> Ctrl+Alt+Del.
> > > > > > There were unfamiliar names listed and one of them as follows:
> > > > > > "Smc [Not responding]".
> > > > > > Have no idea what to make of it, Shane.
> > > > > > What's your take on that?
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, Harry. What I'm interested in, as Figgs rightly says, is
> whether,
> > in
> > > > > running Sygate Personal Firewall, you see Winmgmt in the list when
> you
> > > hit
> > > > > Ctrl-Alt-Del (ie, bring up the Task Manager). While I haven't read
> all
> > > the
> > > > > messages in this thread and was just skimming, so far it looks
like
> > you
> > > > > don't have winmgmt running. This, to me, is interesting and as
> > > informative
> > > > > as if it *had* been running. But I'll finish the thread before
> drawing
> > > any
> > > > > conclusions.
> > > > >
> > > > > As for Smc [not responding], that's a Sygate component - the
> firewall
> > > > engine
> > > > > iirc. I always had that message in Task Manager when I was running
> > SPF,
> > > > and,
> > > > > while it didn't appear to be a genuine problem, ie it didn't
appear
> to
> > > > have
> > > > > frozen or crashed, it *was* a lesser reason for why I gave up on
> > Sygate
> > > > (the
> > > > > main reasons are that I couldn't get a successful installation in
> XP -
> > > > > though now I gather there's a fix for that - and it did crash in
ME
> > > > > occasionally).
> > > > >
> > > > > So, I uninstalled SPF for other reasons. If yours is working okay,
I
> > > > > shouldn't worry about Smc [not responding].
> > > > >
> > > > > Go to grc.com and follow the Shields Up links then test All
Service
> > > Ports
> > > > > (and, while you're at it, File and Print Sharing). The test is not
> the
> > > > last
> > > > > word in firewall testing but getting 100% (ie Stealth) is a good
> > > baseline,
> > > > > but if your firewall is not working it'll certainly tell you that!
> > > > >
> > > > > (Sygate also do a series of online firewall tests, but they're
> likely
> > to
> > > > > confuse rather than clarify as to whether yours is working. There
> are
> > > > other
> > > > > sites, too, but more for the advanced paranoiac).
> > > > >
> > > > > Shane
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 1:12:49 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Shane
One of the unfortunate things about UPnP is that it is sometimes (but not
often) necessary.....

1) (and the only reason worth having, IMVHO) your USB modem requires it
2) you have an internet capable refrigerator to remind you to get more beer
3) you have an internet-capable television
4) you have an internet-capable toaster to remind you to get more bread

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:o kmIZK9XFHA.2288@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Harry,
>
> There's no reason to have UPnP enabled and it is a security risk. The only
> reason I can imagine disabling it would cause problems is if the hole had
> already been exploited and the trouble was the malware not liking it.
>
> However, perhaps you're confusing Universal Plug 'n' Play (UPnP) with Plug
> and Play. The one is a Windows setting, the other is a BIOS setting.
>
> Plug And Play refers to the capability to simply fit a new piece of
> hardware
> and it be recognised and configured automatically and with ease. If you
> disabled it you might well have trouble.
>
> Universal Plug 'n' Play is supposed to enable the integration of the
> computer into the home like in those old shorts they used to knock out
> trumpeting the technology to come, like how by 1970 we'd all have hover
> cars
> and the stove would be atomic powered. If you don't have a coffee machine
> or
> fridge connected to your computer, you don't need UP'n'P. And if disabling
> it causes trouble, it's a symptom of something else.
>
>
> Shane
>
> "webster72n" <hbethke@copper.net> wrote in message
> news:%23emyTB9XFHA.796@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>
>> Funny you should say that, Shane.
>> I remember having trouble having it disabled some time back.
>> But I will follow your advice.
>> Have to go now.
>>
>> Harry.
>>
>>
>> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23rco1p8XFHA.3716@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> > Unplug'n Pray is ok, but only does what you can do yourself anyway.
> Either
>> > way you should have Universal Plug n Play disabled. You can disable it
> in
>> > Add-Remove Programs/Windows Setup/Communications. Remove the checkmark,
>> > close and reboot.
>> >
>> > As for the ShieldsUp test, what port or ports are not stealthed? Try it
>> > again after disabling Universal Plug n Play. If you hover over the
>> non-green
>> > blocks, the port no. will come up.
>> >
>> >
>> > Shane
>> >
>> >
>> > "webster72n" <hbethke@copper.net> wrote in message
>> > news:enj$rb8XFHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> > > Shane:
>> > >
>> > > In "ShieldsUp" under 'True Stealth Analysis' the 'Solicited TCP
> Packets'
>> > > failed, everything else was passing, some of it with flying colors.
>> > > Do you think it's a good idea to employ the "Unplug'n Pray" program?
>> > > Let me know, please.
>> > >
>> > > Harry.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:%23kCBXB8XFHA.2768@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> > > > > As I told Heather already, I got this dialog box using
> Ctrl+Alt+Del.
>> > > > > There were unfamiliar names listed and one of them as follows:
>> > > > > "Smc [Not responding]".
>> > > > > Have no idea what to make of it, Shane.
>> > > > > What's your take on that?
>> > > >
>> > > > OK, Harry. What I'm interested in, as Figgs rightly says, is
> whether,
>> in
>> > > > running Sygate Personal Firewall, you see Winmgmt in the list when
> you
>> > hit
>> > > > Ctrl-Alt-Del (ie, bring up the Task Manager). While I haven't read
> all
>> > the
>> > > > messages in this thread and was just skimming, so far it looks like
>> you
>> > > > don't have winmgmt running. This, to me, is interesting and as
>> > informative
>> > > > as if it *had* been running. But I'll finish the thread before
> drawing
>> > any
>> > > > conclusions.
>> > > >
>> > > > As for Smc [not responding], that's a Sygate component - the
> firewall
>> > > engine
>> > > > iirc. I always had that message in Task Manager when I was running
>> SPF,
>> > > and,
>> > > > while it didn't appear to be a genuine problem, ie it didn't appear
> to
>> > > have
>> > > > frozen or crashed, it *was* a lesser reason for why I gave up on
>> Sygate
>> > > (the
>> > > > main reasons are that I couldn't get a successful installation in
> XP -
>> > > > though now I gather there's a fix for that - and it did crash in ME
>> > > > occasionally).
>> > > >
>> > > > So, I uninstalled SPF for other reasons. If yours is working okay,
>> > > > I
>> > > > shouldn't worry about Smc [not responding].
>> > > >
>> > > > Go to grc.com and follow the Shields Up links then test All Service
>> > Ports
>> > > > (and, while you're at it, File and Print Sharing). The test is not
> the
>> > > last
>> > > > word in firewall testing but getting 100% (ie Stealth) is a good
>> > baseline,
>> > > > but if your firewall is not working it'll certainly tell you that!
>> > > >
>> > > > (Sygate also do a series of online firewall tests, but they're
> likely
>> to
>> > > > confuse rather than clarify as to whether yours is working. There
> are
>> > > other
>> > > > sites, too, but more for the advanced paranoiac).
>> > > >
>> > > > Shane
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
May 24, 2005 1:12:50 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Noel......does this mean I should have it enabled? Speaking of #1 only.

All my appliances are ancient and I have to remember to write down "Get More
Beer" the old-fashioned way.....LOL!!

Anyway.....I have the old USB I think.....the 1.5 one. Just thought I would
ask.

XX Figgs

"Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:uPKACP9XFHA.2884@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Shane
> One of the unfortunate things about UPnP is that it is sometimes (but not
> often) necessary.....
>
> 1) (and the only reason worth having, IMVHO) your USB modem requires it
> 2) you have an internet capable refrigerator to remind you to get more
beer
> 3) you have an internet-capable television
> 4) you have an internet-capable toaster to remind you to get more bread
>
> --
> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)
>
> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
> http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>
> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
>
> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:o kmIZK9XFHA.2288@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> > Harry,
> >
> > There's no reason to have UPnP enabled and it is a security risk. The
only
> > reason I can imagine disabling it would cause problems is if the hole
had
> > already been exploited and the trouble was the malware not liking it.
> >
> > However, perhaps you're confusing Universal Plug 'n' Play (UPnP) with
Plug
> > and Play. The one is a Windows setting, the other is a BIOS setting.
> >
> > Plug And Play refers to the capability to simply fit a new piece of
> > hardware
> > and it be recognised and configured automatically and with ease. If you
> > disabled it you might well have trouble.
> >
> > Universal Plug 'n' Play is supposed to enable the integration of the
> > computer into the home like in those old shorts they used to knock out
> > trumpeting the technology to come, like how by 1970 we'd all have hover
> > cars
> > and the stove would be atomic powered. If you don't have a coffee
machine
> > or
> > fridge connected to your computer, you don't need UP'n'P. And if
disabling
> > it causes trouble, it's a symptom of something else.
> >
> >
> > Shane
> >
> > "webster72n" <hbethke@copper.net> wrote in message
> > news:%23emyTB9XFHA.796@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >>
> >> Funny you should say that, Shane.
> >> I remember having trouble having it disabled some time back.
> >> But I will follow your advice.
> >> Have to go now.
> >>
> >> Harry.
> >>
> >>
> >> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:%23rco1p8XFHA.3716@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> >> > Unplug'n Pray is ok, but only does what you can do yourself anyway.
> > Either
> >> > way you should have Universal Plug n Play disabled. You can disable
it
> > in
> >> > Add-Remove Programs/Windows Setup/Communications. Remove the
checkmark,
> >> > close and reboot.
> >> >
> >> > As for the ShieldsUp test, what port or ports are not stealthed? Try
it
> >> > again after disabling Universal Plug n Play. If you hover over the
> >> non-green
> >> > blocks, the port no. will come up.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Shane
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "webster72n" <hbethke@copper.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:enj$rb8XFHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> >> > > Shane:
> >> > >
> >> > > In "ShieldsUp" under 'True Stealth Analysis' the 'Solicited TCP
> > Packets'
> >> > > failed, everything else was passing, some of it with flying colors.
> >> > > Do you think it's a good idea to employ the "Unplug'n Pray"
program?
> >> > > Let me know, please.
> >> > >
> >> > > Harry.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > > news:%23kCBXB8XFHA.2768@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >> > > > > As I told Heather already, I got this dialog box using
> > Ctrl+Alt+Del.
> >> > > > > There were unfamiliar names listed and one of them as follows:
> >> > > > > "Smc [Not responding]".
> >> > > > > Have no idea what to make of it, Shane.
> >> > > > > What's your take on that?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > OK, Harry. What I'm interested in, as Figgs rightly says, is
> > whether,
> >> in
> >> > > > running Sygate Personal Firewall, you see Winmgmt in the list
when
> > you
> >> > hit
> >> > > > Ctrl-Alt-Del (ie, bring up the Task Manager). While I haven't
read
> > all
> >> > the
> >> > > > messages in this thread and was just skimming, so far it looks
like
> >> you
> >> > > > don't have winmgmt running. This, to me, is interesting and as
> >> > informative
> >> > > > as if it *had* been running. But I'll finish the thread before
> > drawing
> >> > any
> >> > > > conclusions.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > As for Smc [not responding], that's a Sygate component - the
> > firewall
> >> > > engine
> >> > > > iirc. I always had that message in Task Manager when I was
running
> >> SPF,
> >> > > and,
> >> > > > while it didn't appear to be a genuine problem, ie it didn't
appear
> > to
> >> > > have
> >> > > > frozen or crashed, it *was* a lesser reason for why I gave up on
> >> Sygate
> >> > > (the
> >> > > > main reasons are that I couldn't get a successful installation in
> > XP -
> >> > > > though now I gather there's a fix for that - and it did crash in
ME
> >> > > > occasionally).
> >> > > >
> >> > > > So, I uninstalled SPF for other reasons. If yours is working
okay,
> >> > > > I
> >> > > > shouldn't worry about Smc [not responding].
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Go to grc.com and follow the Shields Up links then test All
Service
> >> > Ports
> >> > > > (and, while you're at it, File and Print Sharing). The test is
not
> > the
> >> > > last
> >> > > > word in firewall testing but getting 100% (ie Stealth) is a good
> >> > baseline,
> >> > > > but if your firewall is not working it'll certainly tell you
that!
> >> > > >
> >> > > > (Sygate also do a series of online firewall tests, but they're
> > likely
> >> to
> >> > > > confuse rather than clarify as to whether yours is working. There
> > are
> >> > > other
> >> > > > sites, too, but more for the advanced paranoiac).
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Shane
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 1:31:33 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Noel,

There are now many other reasons for having a UPnP router as this allows a
connected UPnP enabled PC to negotiate and setup and open incoming ports
dynamically. Many applications benefit from such a set up ranging from
Remote Desktop through to P2P clients such as BitTorrent and SoulSeek.
For example it is very difficult to use RD if both users are behind a NAT
router unless at least one is using UPnP. The same is true for file
transfer using Messenger.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mike.maltby@gmail.com


Noel Paton <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote:

> Shane
> One of the unfortunate things about UPnP is that it is sometimes (but
> not often) necessary.....
>
> 1) (and the only reason worth having, IMVHO) your USB modem requires
> it 2) you have an internet capable refrigerator to remind you to get
> more beer 3) you have an internet-capable television
> 4) you have an internet-capable toaster to remind you to get more
> bread
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 1:40:41 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

The formatting in my post seems to have gotten lost somewhere along the
line, Mike - I have no argument with people using UPNP for USB modems - it's
the rest of the stuff that annoys me!<g>
(and I have been known to use it for my own Ethernet/USB router/modem as a
troubleshooter when it dies for no apparent reason - about every second day
as a rule)

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:eL6sfa9XFHA.3356@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Noel,
>
> There are now many other reasons for having a UPnP router as this allows a
> connected UPnP enabled PC to negotiate and setup and open incoming ports
> dynamically. Many applications benefit from such a set up ranging from
> Remote Desktop through to P2P clients such as BitTorrent and SoulSeek. For
> example it is very difficult to use RD if both users are behind a NAT
> router unless at least one is using UPnP. The same is true for file
> transfer using Messenger.
> --
> Mike Maltby MS-MVP
> mike.maltby@gmail.com
>
>
> Noel Paton <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>> Shane
>> One of the unfortunate things about UPnP is that it is sometimes (but
>> not often) necessary.....
>>
>> 1) (and the only reason worth having, IMVHO) your USB modem requires
>> it 2) you have an internet capable refrigerator to remind you to get
>> more beer 3) you have an internet-capable television
>> 4) you have an internet-capable toaster to remind you to get more
>> bread
>
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 2:11:40 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

I'm not sure where USB modems come into Noel. I'm talking about where
applications running on a PC with UPnP enabled are able to dynamically
open ports in a UPnP (NAT) router. Connection to the router by the PC can
be ethernet or wireless so I guess some might be using a usb connection to
their router.

I've currently got three or four ports mapped to PCs where this has been
done by UPnP so I'm not surprised you might have used it at some time. To
be honest UPnP was one of the first requirements I had when I had to
replace my router about a year ago since it makes port forwarding so much
simpler and has significantly reduced the amount of permanent routing I
have set up.

PS It looks as if this thread has hit the limit of c1,000 characters in OE
for the reference header so will place this answer earlier in the thread.
--
Mike


Noel Paton <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote:

> The formatting in my post seems to have gotten lost somewhere along
> the line, Mike - I have no argument with people using UPNP for USB
> modems - it's the rest of the stuff that annoys me!<g>
> (and I have been known to use it for my own Ethernet/USB router/modem
> as a troubleshooter when it dies for no apparent reason - about every
> second day as a rule)
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 2:11:41 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Mike M wrote:

on a slightly related subject, my AGP subsystem requires USB to be
installed.

Rick
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 3:03:47 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

USB or UPnP?

This thread really has hit the buffers as OE just don't know how to handle
a Reference header with more than 1,000 chars.
--
Mike M


Rick T <plinnane3REMOVE@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

> on a slightly related subject, my AGP subsystem requires USB to be
> installed.
>
> Rick
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 3:54:06 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Mike M wrote:
> USB or UPnP?

USB ("slightly related" in that it, on the surface at least, has nothing
to do with AGP)

>
> This thread really has hit the buffers as OE just don't know how to
> handle a Reference header with more than 1,000 chars.

.... couple months ago a thread in another NG I participate in had over
3000 posts; I stopped counting after 30-something levels; TBird was
toast; I had to change the retention period to 2 days to get thread
expansion in under 2 minutes. No problems with this thread so far.



Rick
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 9:56:59 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

IIRC, you're still on dialup, Figgs? - if so, then you probably don't need
UPnP.

If you're on DSL, then the modem/router/hub/switch possibly wouldn't work
without UPnP :) 

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"Heather" <figgs@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:eNkxEp%23XFHA.3464@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Noel......does this mean I should have it enabled? Speaking of #1 only.
>
> All my appliances are ancient and I have to remember to write down "Get
> More
> Beer" the old-fashioned way.....LOL!!
>
> Anyway.....I have the old USB I think.....the 1.5 one. Just thought I
> would
> ask.
>
> XX Figgs
>
> "Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:uPKACP9XFHA.2884@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> Shane
>> One of the unfortunate things about UPnP is that it is sometimes (but not
>> often) necessary.....
>>
>> 1) (and the only reason worth having, IMVHO) your USB modem requires it
>> 2) you have an internet capable refrigerator to remind you to get more
> beer
>> 3) you have an internet-capable television
>> 4) you have an internet-capable toaster to remind you to get more bread
>>
>> --
>> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)
>>
>> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
>> http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>>
>> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
>>
>> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:o kmIZK9XFHA.2288@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> > Harry,
>> >
>> > There's no reason to have UPnP enabled and it is a security risk. The
> only
>> > reason I can imagine disabling it would cause problems is if the hole
> had
>> > already been exploited and the trouble was the malware not liking it.
>> >
>> > However, perhaps you're confusing Universal Plug 'n' Play (UPnP) with
> Plug
>> > and Play. The one is a Windows setting, the other is a BIOS setting.
>> >
>> > Plug And Play refers to the capability to simply fit a new piece of
>> > hardware
>> > and it be recognised and configured automatically and with ease. If you
>> > disabled it you might well have trouble.
>> >
>> > Universal Plug 'n' Play is supposed to enable the integration of the
>> > computer into the home like in those old shorts they used to knock out
>> > trumpeting the technology to come, like how by 1970 we'd all have hover
>> > cars
>> > and the stove would be atomic powered. If you don't have a coffee
> machine
>> > or
>> > fridge connected to your computer, you don't need UP'n'P. And if
> disabling
>> > it causes trouble, it's a symptom of something else.
>> >
>> >
>> > Shane
>> >
>> > "webster72n" <hbethke@copper.net> wrote in message
>> > news:%23emyTB9XFHA.796@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> >>
>> >> Funny you should say that, Shane.
>> >> I remember having trouble having it disabled some time back.
>> >> But I will follow your advice.
>> >> Have to go now.
>> >>
>> >> Harry.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:%23rco1p8XFHA.3716@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> >> > Unplug'n Pray is ok, but only does what you can do yourself anyway.
>> > Either
>> >> > way you should have Universal Plug n Play disabled. You can disable
> it
>> > in
>> >> > Add-Remove Programs/Windows Setup/Communications. Remove the
> checkmark,
>> >> > close and reboot.
>> >> >
>> >> > As for the ShieldsUp test, what port or ports are not stealthed? Try
> it
>> >> > again after disabling Universal Plug n Play. If you hover over the
>> >> non-green
>> >> > blocks, the port no. will come up.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Shane
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > "webster72n" <hbethke@copper.net> wrote in message
>> >> > news:enj$rb8XFHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> >> > > Shane:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > In "ShieldsUp" under 'True Stealth Analysis' the 'Solicited TCP
>> > Packets'
>> >> > > failed, everything else was passing, some of it with flying
>> >> > > colors.
>> >> > > Do you think it's a good idea to employ the "Unplug'n Pray"
> program?
>> >> > > Let me know, please.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Harry.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> > > news:%23kCBXB8XFHA.2768@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> >> > > > > As I told Heather already, I got this dialog box using
>> > Ctrl+Alt+Del.
>> >> > > > > There were unfamiliar names listed and one of them as follows:
>> >> > > > > "Smc [Not responding]".
>> >> > > > > Have no idea what to make of it, Shane.
>> >> > > > > What's your take on that?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > OK, Harry. What I'm interested in, as Figgs rightly says, is
>> > whether,
>> >> in
>> >> > > > running Sygate Personal Firewall, you see Winmgmt in the list
> when
>> > you
>> >> > hit
>> >> > > > Ctrl-Alt-Del (ie, bring up the Task Manager). While I haven't
> read
>> > all
>> >> > the
>> >> > > > messages in this thread and was just skimming, so far it looks
> like
>> >> you
>> >> > > > don't have winmgmt running. This, to me, is interesting and as
>> >> > informative
>> >> > > > as if it *had* been running. But I'll finish the thread before
>> > drawing
>> >> > any
>> >> > > > conclusions.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > As for Smc [not responding], that's a Sygate component - the
>> > firewall
>> >> > > engine
>> >> > > > iirc. I always had that message in Task Manager when I was
> running
>> >> SPF,
>> >> > > and,
>> >> > > > while it didn't appear to be a genuine problem, ie it didn't
> appear
>> > to
>> >> > > have
>> >> > > > frozen or crashed, it *was* a lesser reason for why I gave up on
>> >> Sygate
>> >> > > (the
>> >> > > > main reasons are that I couldn't get a successful installation
>> >> > > > in
>> > XP -
>> >> > > > though now I gather there's a fix for that - and it did crash in
> ME
>> >> > > > occasionally).
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > So, I uninstalled SPF for other reasons. If yours is working
> okay,
>> >> > > > I
>> >> > > > shouldn't worry about Smc [not responding].
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Go to grc.com and follow the Shields Up links then test All
> Service
>> >> > Ports
>> >> > > > (and, while you're at it, File and Print Sharing). The test is
> not
>> > the
>> >> > > last
>> >> > > > word in firewall testing but getting 100% (ie Stealth) is a good
>> >> > baseline,
>> >> > > > but if your firewall is not working it'll certainly tell you
> that!
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > (Sygate also do a series of online firewall tests, but they're
>> > likely
>> >> to
>> >> > > > confuse rather than clarify as to whether yours is working.
>> >> > > > There
>> > are
>> >> > > other
>> >> > > > sites, too, but more for the advanced paranoiac).
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Shane
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
May 24, 2005 1:19:48 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

> No confusion with Plug and Play, Shane.
> When I disable UPnP, Spybot is telling me something about
> Windows/System/.....exe., making it appear as something important.

Well, would want to know more, like what comes between the System/ and the
..exe!

> I didn't allow the change for that reason, until I checked with you.

This isn't the machine you've lost connectivity on?

> Mike mentioned something about a limit in this thread.
> Should we start a new one?

I tried to reply to the part where Noel and Mike put me right about UP'n'P's
current status, but got an error re: incorrectly-formed message ID.

Basically, start a new thread if you have a new issue.

Shane
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 10:52:34 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

test
Mike M <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote:

> USB or UPnP?
>
> This thread really has hit the buffers as OE just don't know how to
> handle a Reference header with more than 1,000 chars.
>
>> on a slightly related subject, my AGP subsystem requires USB to be
>> installed.
>>
>> Rick
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 1:51:52 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

"Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ukWnklDYFHA.160@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > No confusion with Plug and Play, Shane.
> > When I disable UPnP, Spybot is telling me something about
> > Windows/System/.....exe., making it appear as something important.
>
> Well, would want to know more, like what comes between the System/ and the
> .exe!
>>>
>>>ok, here it is:
>>>"C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\ssdpsrv.exe".
>>>Hope that helps, Shane. < Harry >
>>>
>>>
>
> > I didn't allow the change for that reason, until I checked with you.
>
> This isn't the machine you've lost connectivity on?
>
> > Mike mentioned something about a limit in this thread.
> > Should we start a new one?
>
> I tried to reply to the part where Noel and Mike put me right about
UP'n'P's
> current status, but got an error re: incorrectly-formed message ID.
>
> Basically, start a new thread if you have a new issue.
>
> Shane
>
>
May 28, 2005 8:40:54 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

"webster72n" <hbethke@copper.net> wrote in message
news:%23JSQVfyYFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ukWnklDYFHA.160@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > > No confusion with Plug and Play, Shane.
> > > When I disable UPnP, Spybot is telling me something about
> > > Windows/System/.....exe., making it appear as something important.
> >
> > Well, would want to know more, like what comes between the System/ and
the
> > .exe!
> >>>
> >>>ok, here it is:
> >>>"C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\ssdpsrv.exe".
> >>>Hope that helps, Shane. < Harry >
> >>>
> >>>

OK, now I reckon I understand. You must have real time monitoring of the
Startup Axis enabled in Spybot, as ssdpsrv.exe is the UPnP startup item.
When you disable UPnP, ssdpsrv.exe is removed from the Startup axis and
Spybot is warning you of that.

So what I say to that is, go ahead and disable UPnP. Tell Spybot it's okay
(I presume it has a button saying 'Allow this action', or the equivalent?).

If you lose something, eg your internet connection, as a consequence, the
likelihood is you need UPnP and should simply re-enable it. If it doesn't
seem to have any effect, though, leave it disabled.

btw what's with the multiple arrows, above? It does make it rather difficult
to find what's new in the post!


Shane
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 8:32:50 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

"Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:o tAZ1czYFHA.2288@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
> "webster72n" <hbethke@copper.net> wrote in message
> news:%23JSQVfyYFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >
> > "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:ukWnklDYFHA.160@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > > > No confusion with Plug and Play, Shane.
> > > > When I disable UPnP, Spybot is telling me something about
> > > > Windows/System/.....exe., making it appear as something important.
> > >
> > > Well, would want to know more, like what comes between the System/ and
> the
> > > .exe!
> > >>>
> > >>>ok, here it is:
> > >>>"C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\ssdpsrv.exe".
> > >>>Hope that helps, Shane. < Harry >
> > >>>
> > >>>
>
> OK, now I reckon I understand. You must have real time monitoring of the
> Startup Axis enabled in Spybot, as ssdpsrv.exe is the UPnP startup item.
> When you disable UPnP, ssdpsrv.exe is removed from the Startup axis and
> Spybot is warning you of that.
>
> So what I say to that is, go ahead and disable UPnP. Tell Spybot it's okay
> (I presume it has a button saying 'Allow this action', or the
equivalent?).
>
> If you lose something, eg your internet connection, as a consequence, the
> likelihood is you need UPnP and should simply re-enable it. If it doesn't
> seem to have any effect, though, leave it disabled.
>
I did disable it and promptly had this error message at startup:
"Windows Update:
An error occurred loading C\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\upnp.dll.
The file may not have been installed or it has been corrupted".
As a system file shouldn't it be there?
I didn't go as far as logging on to the internet.
Merely enabled it again.
What do you think?
>
> btw what's with the multiple arrows, above? It does make it rather
difficult
> to find what's new in the post!
>
It was supposed to make it easier!
Sorry about that, Shane.
>
>
> Shane
>
>
May 29, 2005 8:26:32 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Harry, we just hit the malformed message id problem again.

> > > > > No confusion with Plug and Play, Shane.
> > > > > When I disable UPnP, Spybot is telling me something about
> > > > > Windows/System/.....exe., making it appear as something important.
> > > >
> > > > Well, would want to know more, like what comes between the System/
and
> > the
> > > > .exe!
> > > >>>
> > > >>>ok, here it is:
> > > >>>"C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\ssdpsrv.exe".
> > > >>>Hope that helps, Shane. < Harry >
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> >
> > OK, now I reckon I understand. You must have real time monitoring of the
> > Startup Axis enabled in Spybot, as ssdpsrv.exe is the UPnP startup item.
> > When you disable UPnP, ssdpsrv.exe is removed from the Startup axis and
> > Spybot is warning you of that.
> >
> > So what I say to that is, go ahead and disable UPnP. Tell Spybot it's
okay
> > (I presume it has a button saying 'Allow this action', or the
> equivalent?).
> >
> > If you lose something, eg your internet connection, as a consequence,
the
> > likelihood is you need UPnP and should simply re-enable it. If it
doesn't
> > seem to have any effect, though, leave it disabled.
> >
> I did disable it and promptly had this error message at startup:
> "Windows Update:
> An error occurred loading C\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\upnp.dll.
> The file may not have been installed or it has been corrupted".

Presumably you have Automatic Updating turned on and it goes online at
Startup, but you require UPnP to go online. Your modem or router requires
it.

> As a system file shouldn't it be there?

Short answer, it's not a system file if the system doesn't require it.
However, as this exercise is about trying to establish whether it is
required, one way to look at it would be that we've been in a limbo of not
knowing whether those files were system, or not. Well, now it looks to me
like they are, as I can't imagine any other reason upnp.dll would be
required for Windows Update.

> I didn't go as far as logging on to the internet.
> Merely enabled it again.
> What do you think?
> >

Sounds like you did the right thing, Harry.

> > btw what's with the multiple arrows, above? It does make it rather
> difficult
> > to find what's new in the post!
> >
> It was supposed to make it easier!
> Sorry about that, Shane.
> >
> >

<vbg>


Shane
!