Ads

 

Unfortunately, no. Hardware profiles no longer are supported in Vista and do not perform like they did in XP.

You can, for example, disable a service in the logon tab, hardware profile section for “Undocked”, but:

  • Cannot create any new profiles
  • Vista automatically detects what profile to use.

As such, an example of this would be a laptop that has a “docking station” with additional hardware attached to it. Vista would use the normal profile while the system is “docked” and use the “Undocked” hardware profile when on the road. This reduces the amount of drivers loaded and hardware detection issues (PnP) resulting from adding and removing hardware all the time.

 

You need to check:

  1. Head to Start
  2. Select Control Panel
  3. Select System and Maintenance
  4. Select System

Under the “System” section, look at “System Type”. This will tell you if you are using a 32-bit or 64-bit Operating System.

 

The short answer: depends.

The long answer: D E P E N D S.

The best way for you to figure that out is load up everything that you plan on doing “at the same time.” Meaning, if you regularly have 5, 10, 20 or more browser windows open, Email client, a media player streaming music/video, a game or high powered editing software, fire that all up! After doing so, hit CTRL+ALT+DEL to open up the task manager and determine how much memory all of your applications are using.

With Windows Vista and Windows 7, this is listed at the bottom of the Windows Task Manager as “Physical Memory:” and is shown as a percent.

For example, if all of your applications and OS are taking up 256MB, or 25% out of your available 1GB of system RAM (and notice I am NOT including virtual memory availability), you should be fine and MAY not notice any improvement with additional RAM. Again, this depends on your needs and your perception of a speedy system.

If, however, your system is using 1.5GB (1500MB) of memory and your system only has 1GB of physical RAM, then virtual memory is being utilized extensively and it would be best to upgrade to additional RAM. How much do you need? Depends on your wallet.

In all cases, the more the memory the better. However, a “gotcha” exists:

If you are using Windows XP, Vista or Windows 7 32-bit versions, they only support a maximum of 4GB physical RAM with, depending on hardware, between 2.5 and 3.5GB available for use by the OS. As such, if you have 3GB of memory and wish to upgrade to 8GB, it would be pointless while using a 32-bit OS as it will not “see” it or use it, anyway.

If, however, you are using a 64-bit OS, this particular 4GB barrier does not exist, so upgrading from 3GB to 8GB, depending on system use, may have an effect on your perceived system speed.

The “minimum” RAM to run XP SP2 is listed here:

64MB is low and any memory beyond that, up to the 4GB 32-bit barrier, would be better. What and how much you need depends on your wallet and the system hardware itself. Check with your PC manufacture for specifics on how much memory your particular model PC supports as they are all different.

The “minimum” RAM required to run Vista is listed here:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/systemrequirements.mspx

Even though it is listed at 512MB for Home Basic and 1GB for all other versions, my performance requirements are beyond the “minimum” and I would recommend no less then 2GB to run Vista at all. By default, on a system with 8GB of memory, due to caching and various other Vista mechinisms, the OS uses about 700MB to 1GB. Using less physical RAM may reduce that figure, but adding more RAM will increase system speed if only making the minimum requirements.

The “minimum” RAM required to run Windows 7 is listed here:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/get/system-requirements.aspx

Even though it is listed at 1GB for all versions, my performance requirements are beyond the “minimum” and I would recommend no less then 2GB to run Windows 7 at all. By default, on a system with 8GB of memory, due to caching and various other Windows 7 mechinisms, the OS uses about 700MB to 1GB. Using less physical RAM may reduce that figure, but adding more RAM will increase system speed if only making the minimum requirements. If anything, make the jump to “64-bit” and get a system with atleast 4GB, if not 6GB or 8GB. You can never have enough RAM.

 

What I am not going to do:

  • Predict on an individual basis whether Service Pack 1 or 2 “will work for you.”
  • Test whether or not System Restore will “undo” Service Pack 1 or 2 or if you will be able to go back to a previous install point before Service Pack 1 or 2 installation.

With that said, this is my recommendations:

  • No matter what, I would recommend to install SP1 and then SP2. If for nothing else, the knowledge that all of the “security” updates are current, not to mention the “bug” fixes.
  • Back up everything you cannot afford to lose.
  • Contact Microsoft for any Technical issues that arise with the Service Pack 1 or 2. I do not work for them. I do not have a direct line to them. They can answer and fix your problems much faster than I.
 

The reason is because during the installation of Windows XP Home, the workgroup setting is not saved. However, the workgroup setting is saved after the installation is complete with Windows XP Pro.

The defaults are as follows:

  • Windows XP Home workgroup default: “MSHOME”
  • Windows XP Pro workgroup default: “WORKGROUP”

To correct this error, have both Windows XP Home and XP Pro a member of the same workgroup.

You can do that by running the network wizard on each system and entering the proper information. I do not recommend using either of the default workgroups, however.

  1. Select Start
  2. Right click “My Network Places
  3. Select Properties
  4. Select “Network Setup Wizard
  5. Enter the proper information for your network at each dialog

You should then be able to see each system from the other.

 

This particular issue came about due to a family member that was unable to check their HTTP E-Mail accounts after a new installation of SBC DSL either by accessing it via a browser or Outlook Express. After over two hours of banging my head against the monitor, I figured out the solution:

The "normal" way many DSL providers offer their service is using what is called "PPPoE" or Point to Point Protocol over Ethernet. Under normal circumstances, this is fine. However, it can cause issues such as this one. The fix? Download and run DRTCP available from DSLReports.com: http://www.dslreports.com/drtcp

The only setting you need to change is the "MTU" or Maximum Transmission Unit. This value needs to be changed to 1492. The default value for most Windows OS configurations with a LAN connection to the internet via a router or DSL modem is 1500. After applying this change and rebooting the computer, all should be well again with HTTP E-Mail.

 

Unfortunately, the day has finally arrived when my information has become so popular that it has stretched my resources to the limit.

Each time I add something to the domain, more E-Mail is directed to my inbox. Some is positive feedback, but most are random technical support questions that I no longer have the time to answer.

I enjoy providing this domain to the Internet community, but my time has completely been overtaken by my desire to help as many people with their own personal computer issues. This desire to help has, thus far, outweighed my common sense when responding to technical questions.

At the onset a few years ago, it was a welcome event. I helped those that I could and the people that had questions that was beyond the capability to troubleshoot by E-Mail, I would point them in the right direction to help them resolve the issue on their own.

Then it became apparent that taking the time to point people in the right direction took too much time. Either I was "talking over their head" and spent lots of time trying to draft an E-Mail that everyone can understand about a complicated issue, or I was "talking under them" by automatically assuming this stranger that E-Mailed me does not know the first thing about computers. I began to ignore these more complex problems, sometimes after the sender has spent much time writing very extensive information about their particular issue, because I do not have as much time as the sender does to devote to a problem.

On March 25, 2003, I drafted the following: The Rant: Impossible Questions to Answer by E-Mail. This was in response to the large volume of E-Mail I get daily involving technical issues beyond what is humanly possible to solve remotely.

It hurts me to ignore people, as I have said many times before, if you have taken the time to send kind words about the domain my way, I will happily take the time to reply and thank you for them.

Feedback and encouragement has always fueled this domain. No banner ads are (or ever will) adorn this site. I provide the information because I enjoy my geekie hobby and encourage other people not to think of their own computer system as a toaster that "just works." However, saying "Thanks for the information on your web site" and my reply of "No problem, glad I can help" takes tons less time than to read a massive E-Mail about a technical issue that, in reality, is difficult if not impossible to solve from a remote location.

As such, I have to draw the line somewhere. I have dreaded this day from coming because, in part, I feel my domain has became popular because of my personal style of presentation and my responses to as many people as I can. The lack of obnoxious advertising bombarding the reader also plays a role. This word of mouth has came down to "don’t bother me, ask Black Viper! He will tell you the answer."

One person tells two friends, then those people tell other friends… before I knew it, I have 182 E-Mails waiting to be opened.

I have my own issues. Even though, on December 30, 2003, it took me relatively little time to "swap" the domain to a different computer and get it running, I spent several hours monitoring and testing to ensure everything was working.

I then got, once again, behind. I "just caught up" only the day before by spending several hours replying to E-Mail.

One day leads to more and again, I am behind. So, not only do I have to ignore and possibly make people mad by not responding or helping with their particular problem, but those that I finally get to their problem, I get a reply to my solution saying "I have already figured it out" or "you took too long." As such, I have spent time in replying for no greater good other than "seemingly wasting my already limited time."

Thus, I am going to further limit the amount of technical issues that get my personal response. I have tons of information that many people have utilized. I write it once, it is view by, not only hundreds, but thousands. A personal reply from one person, goes to that one person and is not an efficient use of my limited time.

Several times, as with the most recent Virus and Worm epidemic, I would post a page directing people on how to solve the problem. If I responded individually to each person that page helped, it would have taken more hours than what is in a day.

In closing, I thank all of my readers for visiting and utilizing what variety of information I offer to the internet community. I will still respond to those people with kind words or "specific issues" relating to my information. In the short term, that will not change. In the long run, that line may also need to be drawn.

This change of view does not mean that updates to content and additional articles will never happen. In fact, quite the opposite. Limiting the amount of one-on-one communication will free up some time to do just that. It also should not be thought of as a way for me to "leave my readers hanging." That, by far, is not the desire.

Feel free to use my forums for questions.

 

Related Questions:

  1. Why is LSASS.exe shutting down my computer after 60 seconds?
  2. Why is svchost.exe crashing my computer?
  3. Why is dllhost.exe taking 100% of my CPU time?

A buffer overrun is the cause of an issue affecting many versions of Windows to include NT, 2000, XP and 2003. The main indication of this is a 60 second shutdown counter just after connecting to the internet or “right after” an attack attempt. “Strange” network activity while you are not downloading or surfing is another key factor.

Upon examination of my firewall log files, I discovered that every two to five minutes, the vulnerable ports are being scanned. Since I am behind a firewall, I have not been affected by any of these problems. However, due to the firewall activity, I must assume that the Remote Procedure Call vulnerability information publicly released on July 16, 2003 and the LSASS vulnerability released April 13, 2004 are being exploited. The latest security patch described below (in the Third step) will solve all issues.

As I touched on with my configuration, by default, all incoming Remote Procedure Call traffic is blocked with all firewall’s to include Windows XP’s built in firewall. Being as though that is a general statement, I am sure I am going to get burned by it. But in all honesty, regardless if you are behind a firewall or not, the latest security patch should still be installed as it is the most critical one recently released and affects such a mass amount of systems.

ABSOLUTLY DO NOT disable the Remote Procedure Call Service using any Registry Patches or Hardware Profiles no matter who told you or why!

Remote Procedure Call is a vital core process that is required for your system to function properly and install the security patch. If you have already disabled it somehow and looking for help, I have a way to try and fix it.

The following is steps that you can take to protect yourself from this vulnerability:

Note: If you do not have a firewall or use something other than Windows XP, skip the first step.

First

In an effort to ensure that your system will not be attacked while attempting to solve the problem, disconnect the computer from the internet.

Block inbound (from the internet) and outbound (from your computer) TCP and UDP ports 135, 137, 138, 139, 445 and 593 at your firewall and ensure your firewall is active. This will stop Remote Procedure Call and LSASS.exe inbound traffic from the internet reaching your computer.

You can enable the built in Internet Connection Firewall with Windows XP by doing the following:

With the default Category Control Panel:

  1. Head to Start
  2. Select Control Panel
  3. Select Network and Internet Connections
  4. Select Network Connections
  5. Right click your “internet” connection, whether it is dial-up (your modem) or local area network (your network card if using broadband)
  6. Select the Properties option in the popup menu
  7. Select the Advanced tab
  8. Check the box next to “Protect my computer and network by limiting…
  9. Select the Ok button to apply the settings

With the Classic Control Panel:

  1. Head to Start
  2. Select Control Panel
  3. Select Network Connections
  4. Right click your “internet” connection, whether it is dial-up (your modem) or local area network (your network card if using broadband)
  5. Select the Properties option in the popup menu
  6. Select the Advanced tab
  7. Check the box next to “Protect my computer and network by limiting…
  8. Select the Ok button to apply the settings

This action will start the Internet Connection Firewall Service.

Second

You can stop a computer from automatically rebooting during the 60 second countdown by doing the following:

  1. Head to the Start button
  2. Select Run…
  3. type shutdown -a in the popup window
  4. Select the Ok button to issue the command
Image 1.1: (45KB .jpg)

You can “stop” the Remote Procedure Call Service from shutting down the system after 60 seconds each time the attack is attempted. This does not apply to LSASS.exe. I absolutely do not condone this action as a “fix,” but it could be used to stop the system from rebooting while you are attempting to repair the issue and scan your computer for vulnerabilities if you have not already activated your firewall. In an effort to ensure that your system will not be attacked while attempting to solve the problem, disconnect the computer from the internet:

  1. Head to the Start button
  2. Select Run…
  3. type services.msc in the popup window
  4. Select the Ok button to issue the command
  5. Select the Remote Procedure Call Service from the list by double clicking it
  6. Select the “Recovery” tab
  7. The default for this service is “Restart the Computer” for all failures
  8. Change each one to “Restart the Service
  9. Select the Ok button to apply the settings

Again, this should not be done to fix the reboot issue, only to ensure that you have the proper amount of time to correct the problems.

Third

Ensure that all security patches are currently downloaded and installed. Before troubleshooting your computer any further, this step needs to be complete to be positive that this particular security issue is not being exploited and causing your problems.

Take note: Cryptographic Services in Windows XP and 2003 needs to be placed on automatic and/or started before installing security patches. Cryptographic Services requires the Remote Procedure Call Service. Again, do not disable Remote Procedure Call! It is required to install the patch! They both are placed on automatic by default.

Remote Procedure Call Information:

A security patch for Windows NT, 2000, XP and 2003 with additional information about the previous vulnerability is located here:

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=823980 (superceded by the latest update)

A security patch for Windows NT, 2000, XP and 2003 with additional information about the latest vulnerability, which includes the previous update, is located here:

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=824146

A Microsoft Security Bulletin MS03-026 was posted about the first issue:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/security/bulletin/ms03-026

A Microsoft Security Bulletin MS03-039 was posted about the latest vulnerability:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/security/bulletin/ms03-039

LSASS.exe Information:

A Microsoft Security Bulletin MS04-011 was posted about the latest vulnerability and includes details on where to get the patch to fix it:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms04-011.mspx

Fourth

Scan your computer with the latest virus definitions. If your computer has already been attacked, any number of problems can arise from this:

  • A new user account could have been created with administrator privileges.
  • A trojan or worm could have been installed to attempt infection with other malicious code either to the local system or internet connected computers.

Exploits have already been circulating around the internet to include:

However, just because you have been hit with an attack against the Operating System vulnerability does not mean that you are automatically infected with anything.

Fifth

As far as I feel, if a system has been compromised, the only way to go would be to unplug the computer from the network and completely format the hard drives, turn off the computer, and then fire it back up and reinstall Windows clean. As far as I am concerned, that is the only way to ensure that all malicious code has been removed from the system in question. Understandably, this solution is not possible for everyone. However, if you patch the security hole and scan your computer for viruses, you should be closer to a safe system again.

Revision History

  • August 10, 2003:
    • Initial release.
  • August 11, 2003:
    • Added log file information.
    • Included information about possible virus and trojan infections with examples.
    • Added information on how to stop the Remote Procedure Call Service from rebooting the computer.
  • August 12, 2003:
  • August 13, 2003:
  • August 22, 2003:
    • Adjusted order of actions, placing activation of the firewall first.
  • September 10, 2003:
  • May 1, 2004:
    • Updated information to include latest LSASS.exe issue.
 

“C-Dilla” is the name of a company that was purchased by Macrovision. The previous company, and now Macrovision, use the “C-Dilla” technology to provide “software activation” services and CD Key verification services for anti-piracy reasons. This technology is now sold by Macrovision as “SafeCast” and is bundled with many products.

More information about C-Dilla and “official” content is located here:

  • The “old” C-Dilla site is here:
  • Macrovisions Web Site is here:
  • “FAQ” about C-Dilla, SafeCast and “spyware” concerns located on Macrovisions site is here:
 

This is due to spammers exploiting a feature that has been in Windows since Windows NT 3.5, but not Windows 95, 98, Me. It is called the “net send” command. This has nothing to do with MSN Messenger, nor is it “WinPopUp.”

The reason spammers have begun to target this “feature” is the fact that people are beginning to adopt OS’s built on NT, such as XP. Previously, the un-requested popups were not a problem because so few people were running an OS that supported it.

To test for this security vulnerability, at the command prompt, (run: cmd.exe) type:

net send 127.0.0.1 hi

If you get a popup “hi” message, you should disable the Messenger service.

How to change the state of a service is here.

If you get an error stating, “The message alias could not be found on the network,” you are safe.

If, for whatever reason, you need the Messenger service running but wish not to have spam popups active, you can disable the particular ports at your firewall. The Messenger service uses UDP ports 135, 137, and 138; TCP ports 135, 139, and 445.

Ads

Copyright © 1999-2012 by Charles "Black Viper" Sparks. All Rights Reserved.
Contact BV | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy

All comments are moderated. You will not see them appear instantly. Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha