Dedicated hardware profile for audio in XP?

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

Hello everyone,

Unfortunately, I now have to use the same computer for both internet access
and audio work.
So, I guess the logical solution is to create two different hardware
profiles in windows XP..or is it adequate just to create two different
"accounts" (audio and internet) for the same hardware profile?

I would like to have the internet access *completely* turned off when I'm
working, and free as much RAM as possible for audio apps and files when
using the audio profile/account. I've done some basic tuning menitoned in
the www.musicxp.net site, but since I'm not very familiar with windows'
inner workings, I'm a bit unsure about my "regedit/msconfig" actions.

Can you guys give me any pointers on how I should configure the two
different hardware profiles?
How do I setup my computer in a way that my internet connections are
completely disabled, but *only* when I'm using the audio work
profile/account?

Thanks for all the answers.
50 answers Last reply
More about dedicated hardware profile audio
  1. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    "Tommi M." wrote ...
    > Unfortunately, I now have to use the same computer for both
    > internet access and audio work.

    OK. But what problem(s) are you encountering when you do this?

    > So, I guess the logical solution is to create two different hardware
    > profiles in windows XP..or is it adequate just to create two different
    > "accounts" (audio and internet) for the same hardware profile?

    Creating different profiles *may* have some value (although maybe
    not worth the effort) Creating different accounts likely won't solve
    any significant problems.

    > I would like to have the internet access *completely* turned off when I'm
    > working,

    Use a profile to completely disable the network port, and unplug
    the cable.

    > and free as much RAM as possible for audio apps and files when using the
    > audio profile/account.

    I use a utility called "EndItAll" to kill off all those superfluous
    background processes (including anti-virus) when I am using the
    computer to record, but rarely find it necessary when just editing.

    Of course, disabling firewall, anti-virus, etc software while connected
    to the internet is NEVER advisable.

    > I've done some basic tuning menitoned in the www.musicxp.net site, but
    > since I'm not very familiar with windows' inner workings, I'm a bit unsure
    > about my "regedit/msconfig" actions.

    Are you chasing phantoms? I wouldn't "fix" anything I couldn't prove
    was broken.

    > Can you guys give me any pointers on how I should configure the two
    > different hardware profiles?

    It comes back to "what problems are you seeing"?

    > How do I setup my computer in a way that my internet connections are
    > completely disabled, but *only* when I'm using the audio work
    > profile/account?

    Completely disable any networking (all the way to the interface
    hardware) in the "audio profile". Those who are using invasive
    ISPs like AOL may find all sorts of insidious stuff installed all
    over their system. Better to use an old junker computer for internet
    access and save your good system for real work.
  2. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    In article <cptm91$c5b$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi> tomppaaREMOvE@kolumbus.fi writes:

    > Unfortunately, I now have to use the same computer for both internet access
    > and audio work.

    Why? You can get a whole computer for $300 and a keyboard/mouse/video
    switch for $20. Is your audio not worth a $300 investment?

    > So, I guess the logical solution is to create two different hardware
    > profiles in windows XP..or is it adequate just to create two different
    > "accounts" (audio and internet) for the same hardware profile?

    This seems like it would be such a logical solution, but I really
    don't know how much true separation you get by doing this. Hardware
    profiles only choose which drivers are active, and that really only
    makes a difference if there's a confilct. I don't know that it
    actually improves performance by not having a driver loaded, other
    than perhaps a bit of memory saved. I'd be curious to hear if there's
    any real data or valid facts about this.

    > I would like to have the internet access *completely* turned off when I'm
    > working

    You might try installing Zone Alarm, even the free version. That has
    an icon on the task bar from which you can pop up a menu with the
    choice "Stop all Internet activity" which they recommend when you're
    away from your computer. Perhaps that will do what you want, though
    the program of course is still active, shutting the door to whatever
    is trying to get in. Some people don't like Zone Alarm because
    apparently it's difficult to completely de-install. I don't know. I
    installed it and don't see any reason to get rid of it.


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

    >
    >> I would like to have the internet access *completely* turned off when I'm
    >> working
    >
    >You might try installing Zone Alarm, even the free version.

    Even easier would be to unplug the ethernet adapter going to your
    cable or dsl modem while recording.I would be willing to bet nobody
    could infiltrate your session if the cable is unplugged.

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

    "Randall Shawver" <rshawve2@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:d106s09hc03ivop0uq3lt9qh1tq093t27t@4ax.com...
    >
    > >
    > >> I would like to have the internet access *completely* turned off when I'm
    > >> working
    > >
    > >You might try installing Zone Alarm, even the free version.
    >
    > Even easier would be to unplug the ethernet adapter going to your
    > cable or dsl modem while recording.I would be willing to bet nobody
    > could infiltrate your session if the cable is unplugged.
    >
    > Randall


    Zone Alarm will remain active (and continue logging, if chosen) any
    time the PC boots, even if "Block All Internet Activity" is selected.

    Unplugging a wire will also not stop the software and hardware from
    being active.

    Buy a dedicated PC... as Mr. Rivers mentioned, it's *cheap* these days.

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

    In article <10s617lhus3vtd5@corp.supernews.com> rcrowley7@xprt.net writes:

    > > Unfortunately, I now have to use the same computer for both
    > > internet access and audio work.
    >
    > OK. But what problem(s) are you encountering when you do this?

    I'm not the one who asked the question, but I can certainly understand
    the risks, most of which are brought on by yourself - because of the
    ease, it's tempting to download and install some software that might
    conflict with the DAW's smooth working. It's also easier to get a
    virus when you're connected. But those things can be avoided mostly by
    self-control. If you restrict your Internet activities to downloading
    upgrades to your installed software and exchanging audio files, you're
    probalby safe.

    I don't believe that just by being connected, stuff can creep in by
    itslef, but I'm told that it can happen - primarily as a result of
    having software installed that attracts the nasties.

    > Use a profile to completely disable the network port, and unplug
    > the cable.

    In my case, I wouldn't want to disable the network port because I'd
    want my HDR24/96 to be able to talk to the computer and it's on the
    same router as the Internet service. I suppose I could install a
    second network card just for the Internet, but then I wouldn't be able
    to access the HDR from any computer on the network (not that I would
    need to, but it's a potential issue).

    > Completely disable any networking (all the way to the interface
    > hardware) in the "audio profile". Those who are using invasive
    > ISPs like AOL may find all sorts of insidious stuff installed all
    > over their system. Better to use an old junker computer for internet
    > access and save your good system for real work.

    I agree. So what would my network topology be if I wanted the studio
    computer to be able to talk to the junker that's connected to the
    Internet full time, but that wouldn't connect the studio computer to
    the Internet? That way, I could download stuff to the junk computer,
    then transfer it over the internal network to the studio computer.


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

    "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
    news:znr1103291094k@trad...
    >
    > In article <cptm91$c5b$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi> tomppaaREMOvE@kolumbus.fi
    > writes:
    >
    >> Unfortunately, I now have to use the same computer for both internet
    >> access
    >> and audio work.
    >
    > Why? You can get a whole computer for $300 and a keyboard/mouse/video
    > switch for $20. Is your audio not worth a $300 investment?

    :) Of course it is, but this is the situation I'm facing currently.

    >> So, I guess the logical solution is to create two different hardware
    >> profiles in windows XP..or is it adequate just to create two different
    >> "accounts" (audio and internet) for the same hardware profile?
    >
    > This seems like it would be such a logical solution, but I really
    > don't know how much true separation you get by doing this. Hardware
    > profiles only choose which drivers are active, and that really only
    > makes a difference if there's a confilct. I don't know that it
    > actually improves performance by not having a driver loaded, other
    > than perhaps a bit of memory saved. I'd be curious to hear if there's
    > any real data or valid facts about this.

    >> I would like to have the internet access *completely* turned off when I'm
    >> working

    > You might try installing Zone Alarm, even the free version. That has
    > an icon on the task bar from which you can pop up a menu with the
    > choice "Stop all Internet activity" which they recommend when you're
    > away from your computer. Perhaps that will do what you want, though
    > the program of course is still active, shutting the door to whatever
    > is trying to get in. Some people don't like Zone Alarm because
    > apparently it's difficult to completely de-install. I don't know. I
    > installed it and don't see any reason to get rid of it.

    I have the free Zone alarm, but the point is, provided that I use Zone alrm
    to fulfill the desired task, that I want it to be always "on" for the web
    profile, and always "off" (internet locked) when using the computer for
    audio work. There isn't an option in Zone Alarm which would allow me to
    "stop all internet access" automatically on startup for audio profile, but
    at the same time let the secured programs freely to the net when using the
    internet profile/account.

    My intentions are:

    - to free as much RAM as possible for my audio applications, which is
    achieved by
    turning off all unnecessary web/whatever services that run in the background
    etc.

    -To disable the whole internet connection but only for the audio
    profile/account from windows.

    The computer is stored in a place which makes unplugging the ethernet cable
    too much of a hassle, the goal is to configure this by software settings.
    Even if it was easy to unplug the cable, that'd leave room for
    forgetfulness...
  7. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    On 17 Dec 2004 23:45:09 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
    wrote:

    Two great questions (that have also been puzzling me for a while):


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

    And:

    > So what would my network topology be if I wanted the studio
    >computer to be able to talk to the junker that's connected to the
    >Internet full time, but that wouldn't connect the studio computer to
    >the Internet? That way, I could download stuff to the junk computer,
    >then transfer it over the internal network to the studio computer.

    Great questions, well framed, and could I add another?

    Are various Windows versions variously fragile?

    Thanks much,

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

    Chris Hornbeck wrote:
    > On 17 Dec 2004 23:45:09 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
    > wrote:
    >
    > Two great questions (that have also been puzzling me for a while):
    >
    >
    >
    >>I don't believe that just by being connected, stuff can creep in by
    >>itself

    Maybe. Nothing can "creep in by itself", the real question is how
    little of your help does it need?


    > And:
    >
    >
    >>So what would my network topology be if I wanted the studio
    >>computer to be able to talk to the junker that's connected to the
    >>Internet full time, but that wouldn't connect the studio computer to
    >>the Internet? That way, I could download stuff to the junk computer,
    >>then transfer it over the internal network to the studio computer.


    Some routers let you isolate blocks of IP addresses. Note, though, that
    a virus on your internet machine may affect other machines.


    > Great questions, well framed, and could I add another?
    >
    > Are various Windows versions variously fragile?


    I think even Microsoft acknowledges that ME was pretty bad.
  9. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Tommi M. (tomppaaREMOvE@kolumbus.fi)
    in article <cptm91$c5b$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi> wrote:
    > Unfortunately, I now have to use the same computer for both internet access
    > and audio work.

    XP can dual boot out of the box.
    Some 3rd party options are:
    BootMagic (via Partition Magic)
    System Commander

    There are ample online resources for this sort of approach.
    I recommmend using at least two physical drives (os + data...).
    I've been satisfied with System Commander for years.

    In addition, Norton Ghost can be a very, very useful utility, regardless
    of which approach you take to solve your stated problem. I never boot
    without it.

    Regards,
    -Brian
  10. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    In article <cpvv7t$s51$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi> tomppaaREMOvE@kolumbus.fi writes:

    > I have the free Zone alarm, but the point is, provided that I use Zone alrm
    > to fulfill the desired task, that I want it to be always "on" for the web
    > profile, and always "off" (internet locked) when using the computer for
    > audio work. There isn't an option in Zone Alarm which would allow me to
    > "stop all internet access" automatically on startup for audio profile, but
    > at the same time let the secured programs freely to the net when using the
    > internet profile/account.

    So you do what God gave you a mouse for - you click on the button and
    turn off Internet traffic when you're using the computer for audio.
    Or, if you don't need the Ethernet port for anything while you're
    using it as an audio computer, you turn that off in the Audio profile.


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

    "Brian Takei" <btakei@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:MPG.1c2d76d2daacf6d99897e1@news.chi.sbcglobal.net...
    > Tommi M. (tomppaaREMOvE@kolumbus.fi)
    > in article <cptm91$c5b$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi> wrote:
    > > Unfortunately, I now have to use the same computer for both internet access
    > > and audio work.
    >
    > XP can dual boot out of the box.
    > Some 3rd party options are:
    > BootMagic (via Partition Magic)
    > System Commander
    >
    > There are ample online resources for this sort of approach.
    > I recommmend using at least two physical drives (os + data...).
    > I've been satisfied with System Commander for years.
    >
    > In addition, Norton Ghost can be a very, very useful utility, regardless
    > of which approach you take to solve your stated problem. I never boot
    > without it.
    >
    > Regards,
    > -Brian


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

    --
    David Morgan (MAMS)
    http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
    Morgan Audio Media Service
    Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
    _______________________________________
    http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com
  12. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

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

    Norton and Mcafee products sometimes do not get along.I have seen
    cases when using both, that a pc will go to the blue screen after
    installing Mcafee when Norton internet securities is already
    installed, or refuse to boot at all.It is rare, but can happen.

    Keep in mind that Windows XP service pack 2 installs a windows
    firewall, which you can access through control panel/security center/
    windows firewall.

    I have been working in tech support for a while now, and service pack
    2 has caused more problems than it has resolved, especially for
    internet applications. It also disables ethernet cards on occasion,
    and disables some of the necessary local services in administrative
    tools.If using XP ,stay away from service pack 2, if possible.

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

    In article <it98s016t00b1uoh4975lcn4fu77ne9pov@4ax.com> rshawve2@tampabay.rr.com writes:

    > I have been working in tech support for a while now, and service pack
    > 2 has caused more problems than it has resolved, especially for
    > internet applications. It also disables ethernet cards on occasion,
    > and disables some of the necessary local services in administrative
    > tools.

    This may be what you're describing. I've heard that SP2 improves
    security by turning off things that have become necessary for the
    smooth Internet expeience to which we have become accustomed. But then
    security is a necessary inconvenience.

    I prefer my inconvenience to be not visiting porn web sites, not
    intentionally installing spyware or turning on features that "phone
    home" and not opening e-mail that's obviously not relevant to me. I
    check my system periodically and have never found a virus.


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

    Randall Shawver (rshawve2@tampabay.rr.com)
    in article <it98s016t00b1uoh4975lcn4fu77ne9pov@4ax.com> wrote:
    >
    > David Morgan wrote:
    > >Dual booting sounds like the cure.... but I've been scared to death
    > >by the invasiveness of some of the Norton stuff.
    >
    > Norton and Mcafee products sometimes do not get along.I have seen
    > cases when using both, that a pc will go to the blue screen after
    > installing Mcafee when Norton internet securities is already
    > installed, or refuse to boot at all.It is rare, but can happen.

    I'd be scared to install Norton Internet Security too (but if I ever
    decided to, I would definitely Ghost the system first).

    Ghost is a product in a totally different ballpark. In essence, it is a
    dos* utility designed to do 1 thing, and it does it very well. Ok, 2
    things: backup AND restore whole partitions or drives (aka. 'imaging').
    It can run directly from a bootable floppy.

    And it's fast -- on my DAW (2ghz p4), just now it took 17 minutes to make
    a backup image of my largest system partition (ntfs), packing 9 gig of
    'used' space into about 5 gig of image files.

    So, just for kicks, I could spend the rest of the day experimenting with
    what happens when I delete random DLL files and registry keys, and maybe
    even go hogwild and install Norton Internet Security. Then, I could boot
    from a floppy and start the restore process, go downstairs for a
    sandwich/beer, then come back to a system that is exactly the way it is
    right now. No kidding.

    -Brian

    * p.s. I currently use Ghost 2003, but the latest version apparently
    also has fancy stuff like a "Hot imaging" app that runs in the background
    in Windows, so you might do some due diligence before installing/using
    the fancy stuff. But to be honest, I'd be more worried about not having
    Ghost (or some reliable imaging utility), than what this new fancy stuff
    does.
  15. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    In article <MPG.1c2e4cc86665c0749897e3@news.chi.sbcglobal.net> btakei@sbcglobal.net writes:

    > Ghost is a product in a totally different ballpark. In essence, it is a
    > dos* utility designed to do 1 thing, and it does it very well. Ok, 2
    > things: backup AND restore whole partitions or drives (aka. 'imaging').
    > It can run directly from a bootable floppy.

    What do you "ghost" to when your system is fairly large? Another hard
    disk installed in the computer? That could be a handful of DVDs, or a
    whole stack of CDs.


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

    "Brian Takei" <btakei@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:MPG.1c2e4cc86665c0749897e3@news.chi.sbcglobal.net...
    > Randall Shawver (rshawve2@tampabay.rr.com)
    > in article <it98s016t00b1uoh4975lcn4fu77ne9pov@4ax.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > David Morgan wrote:
    > > >Dual booting sounds like the cure.... but I've been scared to death
    > > >by the invasiveness of some of the Norton stuff.
    > >
    > > Norton and Mcafee products sometimes do not get along.I have seen
    > > cases when using both, that a pc will go to the blue screen after
    > > installing Mcafee when Norton internet securities is already
    > > installed, or refuse to boot at all.It is rare, but can happen.
    >
    > I'd be scared to install Norton Internet Security too (but if I ever
    > decided to, I would definitely Ghost the system first).
    >
    > Ghost is a product in a totally different ballpark. In essence, it is a
    > dos* utility designed to do 1 thing, and it does it very well. Ok, 2
    > things: backup AND restore whole partitions or drives (aka. 'imaging').
    > It can run directly from a bootable floppy.

    Ghost is probably the worst of all. It won't allow you to make changes
    and virtually cannot be turned off or removed without serious registry
    editing. I wish you luck... not in restoring anything, but in attampting to
    streamline your OS while it's in place.

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

    David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
    > "Brian Takei" <btakei@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:MPG.1c2e4cc86665c0749897e3@news.chi.sbcglobal.net...
    >
    >
    >> Ghost is a product in a totally different ballpark. In essence, it is a
    >> dos* utility designed to do 1 thing, and it does it very well. Ok, 2
    >> things: backup AND restore whole partitions or drives (aka. 'imaging').
    >> It can run directly from a bootable floppy.
    >
    >
    > Ghost is probably the worst of all. It won't allow you to make changes
    > and virtually cannot be turned off or removed without serious registry
    > editing. I wish you luck... not in restoring anything, but in attampting to
    > streamline your OS while it's in place.


    That depends completely on how you use it. Install on a spare workstation somewhere, create a bootable CD-ROM with the DOS app and appropriate LAN drivers and you've got a pretty useful tool.
  18. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> ("David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
    <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com>)
    in article <rn4xd.1867$hc7.867@trnddc06> wrote:
    >
    > "Kurt Albershardt" <kurt@nv.net> wrote in message news:32jt2qF3nl57tU2@individual.net...
    > > David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
    > > >
    > > > Ghost is probably the worst of all. It won't allow you to make changes
    > > > and virtually cannot be turned off or removed without serious registry
    > > > editing. I wish you luck... not in restoring anything, but in attampting to
    > > > streamline your OS while it's in place.
    > >
    > > That depends completely on how you use it. Install on a spare workstation
    > > somewhere, create a bootable CD-ROM with the DOS app and appropriate
    > > LAN drivers and you've got a pretty useful tool.
    >
    > True enough... though my exposure was in trying to install a couple of audio apps
    > on a friend's PC who had an entire Norton suite installed and running.

    <snip>

    > I guess I just have a bad taste in my mouth since the very first time I installed
    > it on a surfing box and watched how badly it slowed down my system - through
    > to incidents like the one above.


    David, were these problems you experienced attributable to Ghost?
    If so, which version?

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

    "Brian Takei" <btakei@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:MPG.1c2e939dc15a667f9897e4@news.chi.sbcglobal.net...
    > "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> ("David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
    > <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com>)
    > in article <rn4xd.1867$hc7.867@trnddc06> wrote:
    > >
    > > "Kurt Albershardt" <kurt@nv.net> wrote in message news:32jt2qF3nl57tU2@individual.net...
    > > > David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > Ghost is probably the worst of all. It won't allow you to make changes
    > > > > and virtually cannot be turned off or removed without serious registry
    > > > > editing. I wish you luck... not in restoring anything, but in attampting to
    > > > > streamline your OS while it's in place.
    > > >
    > > > That depends completely on how you use it. Install on a spare workstation
    > > > somewhere, create a bootable CD-ROM with the DOS app and appropriate
    > > > LAN drivers and you've got a pretty useful tool.
    > >
    > > True enough... though my exposure was in trying to install a couple of audio apps
    > > on a friend's PC who had an entire Norton suite installed and running.
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > > I guess I just have a bad taste in my mouth since the very first time I installed
    > > it on a surfing box and watched how badly it slowed down my system - through
    > > to incidents like the one above.
    >
    >
    > David, were these problems you experienced attributable to Ghost?
    > If so, which version?
    >
    > -Brian

    From the portion you quoted, no... they weren't. I just took offense at the
    invasiveness and burden the A/V protection imparted on my first PC used
    for surfing. (8 Years ago?)

    Ghost was the culprit I ran into on a friend's PC, which seemed to take a
    picture of the OS and re-start it with that same configuration regardless of
    what we attempted to disable or remove in the prior boot. Since we simply
    gave up on optimizing for audio, we never got deep enough to start ripping
    through the registry.... and again, this was about three years back.

    He had so many anti-virus peripheral applications and OEM 'system tools'
    installed that the two biggest problems were "Go-Back" and "Ghost". **I could
    actually be confusing the two.** The end result was to simply let the system
    be, due to the problems caused by OEM tools, and make it strictly a 'fun' box
    as far as audio was concerned.

    I wanted to wipe out the whole darned thing and start over, but he had purchased
    the box with a great deal of software included that he had lost the install discs for
    and perhaps had a pice or two that he <cough-cough> could not replace at all
    which would have left some of his more valuable files orphaned after restoring
    any back-ups.

    Just another reason or two that I recommended a second box to dedicate
    to audio, or a dual boot approach. I hope I didn't mislead with the reference
    to Ghost when the more serious problem may have been "Go Back". I just
    don't use anything but the OS tools and never have problems which I can't
    repair.

    --
    David Morgan (MAMS)
    http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
    Morgan Audio Media Service
    Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
    _______________________________________
    http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com
  20. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

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

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

    Well-known bad mistake.

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

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

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

    We have hundreds of machines in remote facilities that are deployed with very little human intervention. There's a PXI boot server that has the Ghost image on it and a menu so you can choose which function the machine will assume.
  22. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Don't Worry -- Be Imaged.

    Hope this helps,
    -Brian
  23. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

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

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

    <fx: splutter>

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    --
    David Morgan (MAMS)
    http://www.m-a-m-s.com
    Morgan Audio Media Service
    Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
    _______________________________________
    http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com
  28. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

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

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

    DM

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I'll mull that one over for a while. <g>
  34. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

    >Yes. I understand about the powers of Javascript.

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

    The numeric address should ring the alarm bell.

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

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

    Not in my experience. I installed SP2 on my internet/email/office
    PC (but never on my audio or video edit machines). File and print
    sharing on my home network was unaffected and continues to work
    as before SP2.
  38. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Just another good reason to avoid those invasive ISPs.
  40. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    In article <il6js0dkpvl0q59fcoe4ffj3ha1chcukua@4ax.com> hahn@hrzpub.tu-darmstadt.de writes:

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

    Is that printer sharing, like I have a printer connected to one
    computer on the network, and I can print to it from another computer
    on the network? I'll bet a lot of people use that. And file sharing?
    Like I can open a Word file on one computer that resides on another
    one? I do that a lot, too.

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

    I try to keep auto-updates turned off, but sometimes you don't know
    they're there until you catch them in action. I just installed a new
    version of AVG Anti Virus (got an e-mail saying that in five days
    they'd no longer support the version I'd been using) and that one
    didn't give me a choice of auto-update and auto-run on installation. I
    had to find them (through a slightly different user interface) and
    turn them off once I caught the program running when I wasn't
    expecting it, and downloading a new version of the virus definition
    file when I hadn't told it to.


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

    >
    >The question appeared to be on the topic of file and print sharing.
    >These are local network functions that have nothing to do with your
    >ISP or the internet. If people are doing file and print sharing over
    >the public internet, they have more serious issues than SP2.
    >
    True, but the original topic posted was how could he have internet and
    audio applications on the same pc and create different profiles when
    he wanted to use each seperately.That may be hard to do, but in case
    he decides to set up his pc this way, he should be careful what he
    installs.

    >> For isp's that run as many as 15 processes like AOL, the
    >> windows firewall has corrupted the connectivity services,
    >> and disabled other necessary services such as remote access
    >> connection manager.
    >
    >Just another good reason to avoid those invasive ISPs.

    Any audio pc should be set up for audio, and not for the internet. But
    any isp that only uses Internet Explorer to connect will also
    necessitate the installation of firewall, anti virus, and spyware
    applications to protect the pc.In the end, it will be just as invasive
    as using an isp like AOL, which includes a free firewall, anti virus
    and spyware application.

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

    "Randall Shawver" wrote ...
    > Any audio pc should be set up for audio, and not for the internet.

    Most certainly. No argument whatsoever.

    > But any isp that only uses Internet Explorer to connect will also
    > necessitate the installation of firewall, anti virus, and spyware
    > applications to protect the pc.
    > In the end, it will be just as invasive as using an isp like AOL,
    > which includes a free firewall, anti virus and spyware application.

    Well, the difference is that if you install any firewalls, anti-virus,
    software, etc. etc., you KNOW about it. AOL (et. al.) do it behind
    your back. And you can bet they are changing things you wouldn't
    agree to if they gave you a choice.
  43. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:54:02 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
    <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

    >"Randall Shawver" wrote ...
    >> Any audio pc should be set up for audio, and not for the internet.
    >
    >Most certainly. No argument whatsoever.
    >
    >> But any isp that only uses Internet Explorer to connect will also
    >> necessitate the installation of firewall, anti virus, and spyware
    >> applications to protect the pc.
    >> In the end, it will be just as invasive as using an isp like AOL,
    >> which includes a free firewall, anti virus and spyware application.
    >
    >Well, the difference is that if you install any firewalls, anti-virus,
    >software, etc. etc., you KNOW about it. AOL (et. al.) do it behind
    >your back. And you can bet they are changing things you wouldn't
    >agree to if they gave you a choice.

    Actually, AOL does not install anything behind your back. When you
    upgrade to a new version, you can skip installing the anti virus,
    firewall and spyware protection. Most people do not stop to read the
    pages though, and just install everything.

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

    "Randall Shawver" wrote ...
    > Actually, AOL does not install anything behind your back.

    Oh my. What a naive and trusting worldview. I sincerely wish
    you good luck as you will need it.

    > When you upgrade to a new version, you can skip installing
    > the anti virus, firewall and spyware protection. Most people
    > do not stop to read the pages though, and just install everything.

    We are talking about things much more fundamental and insidious
    than the add-on visible marketing pieces that you are refering to.
  45. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    "Randall Shawver" <rshawve2@tampabay.rr.com>

    > Actually, AOL does not install anything behind your back.


    Bzzzzzzzz....

    Sorry, but thanks for playing...


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

    On 22 Dec 2004 21:17:33 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
    wrote:

    >
    >In article <il6js0dkpvl0q59fcoe4ffj3ha1chcukua@4ax.com> hahn@hrzpub.tu-darmstadt.de writes:
    >
    >> Dunno. I haven't installed SP2 yet. But, by default, file and print
    >> sharing is disabled in the firewall that SP2 installs.
    >
    >Is that printer sharing, like I have a printer connected to one
    >computer on the network, and I can print to it from another computer
    >on the network? I'll bet a lot of people use that. And file sharing?
    >Like I can open a Word file on one computer that resides on another
    >one? I do that a lot, too.

    Maybe the installation routine for the SP2 behaves differently
    depending on the network connection. Usually file and printer
    sharing is not used over dial up connection. Those installation
    that were reported to got the sharing disabled had a LAN type
    connection via external router to DSL.

    >... I just installed a new
    >version of AVG Anti Virus (got an e-mail saying that in five days
    >they'd no longer support the version I'd been using)

    Having an old virus scanner is almost as bad as having none
    at all.

    >and that one
    >didn't give me a choice of auto-update and auto-run on installation. I
    >had to find them (through a slightly different user interface) and
    >turn them off once I caught the program running when I wasn't
    >expecting it, and downloading a new version of the virus definition
    >file when I hadn't told it to.

    Auto update of some programs is controlled via the options menu,
    some other program establish a configurator in the control panel
    of Windows...

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

    On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 07:11:11 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
    <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

    >"Randall Shawver" wrote ...
    >> Actually, AOL does not install anything behind your back.
    >
    >Oh my. What a naive and trusting worldview. I sincerely wish
    >you good luck as you will need it.

    Name a program that lets you dictate every dll and exe to be
    installed.You want the program to work you install the essentials.
    You do not have to install the extras.
    >
    >> When you upgrade to a new version, you can skip installing
    >> the anti virus, firewall and spyware protection. Most people
    >> do not stop to read the pages though, and just install everything.
    >
    >We are talking about things much more fundamental and insidious
    >than the add-on visible marketing pieces that you are refering to.

    And I use AOL for surfing, and never get a spyware popup. Using
    Internet Explorer is like dodging bullets.To each his own, but AOL
    works a lot better for me than IE, or netscape.

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

    Randall Shawver wrote:

    > On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 07:11:11 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
    > <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>"Randall Shawver" wrote ...
    >>
    >>>Actually, AOL does not install anything behind your back.
    >>
    >>Oh my. What a naive and trusting worldview. I sincerely wish
    >>you good luck as you will need it.
    >
    >
    > Name a program that lets you dictate every dll and exe to be
    > installed.You want the program to work you install the essentials.
    > You do not have to install the extras.


    Well, you couldn't dictate or it wouldn't work when installed. But the
    Microsoft Wheel Mouse driver installer for OSX lists all the files
    (about six) it's about to install and where. Now, THAT's polite.

    Now, why the Windows version of the mouse driver needs to connect to the
    Internet, I don't know, but it sure wants to.

    But to stay on-off-topic, what on Earth makes you think that AOL's
    marketing research tool is not a bare essential, or they'd ask you for
    permission to install it?
  49. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
    in article <znr1103752111k@trad> wrote:
    > hahn@hrzpub.tu-darmstadt.de writes:
    >
    > > Dunno. I haven't installed SP2 yet. But, by default, file and print
    > > sharing is disabled in the firewall that SP2 installs.
    >
    > Is that printer sharing, like I have a printer connected to one
    > computer on the network, and I can print to it from another computer
    > on the network? I'll bet a lot of people use that. And file sharing?
    > Like I can open a Word file on one computer that resides on another
    > one? I do that a lot, too.


    I'm rusty on the details. But one hint that File and Printer Sharing can work
    when disabled [or, rather, 'blocked'] by a firewall, is that it doesn't require
    TCP/IP at all to function over the local network. If interested, look up
    NetBIOS, NetBEUI, and network bindings.

    -Brian
Ask a new question

Read More

Pro Audio Hardware Audio Windows XP