Slashdot Mirror
Why Does XP Auto-Connect to sa.windows.com?
termigator asks: "I have a private home network that has a Windows XP system on it (I know, the horrors, but it allows my wife to do some of her work at home). With recent discussions about DRM and the Microsoft EULA (which allows Microsoft to autodownload software), I decided to block all traffic on my Linux firewall from Microsoft systems (207.46.0.0/16) to the Windows XP box. This morning there was trapped traffic from Microsoft, after my wife was doing some work on the XP system the day before. I talked with my wife, and I could not determine what she could have done to cause the traffic to happen. Can anybody provide some insight?" Why can't Microsoft be up front about when it tries to phone home? Of course, phoning home isn't the big problem with most people, it's the fact that they try to be sneaky about it for certain tasks. With Microsoft pushing XP into the home, consumers should definitely be wary about storing private information on such systems until Microsoft provides some answers.
"Here is the logwatch summary:
Port 1053 is 'remote-as' and port 1054 is 'brvread'. I am guessing that the remote-as is related to the Remote Assistant feature in XP, but I've had no luck on finding any technical information about brvread via a Google search."Rejected packets from sa.windows.com (207.46.226.40). Port 1053 (tcp,eth0,output): 4 packet(s). Port 1054 (tcp,eth0,output): 4 packet(s). Total of 8 packet(s).
...if she had difficulties using the system. eg... did any programs crash? did any error messages pop-up? etc.
Also, how about you try using the box? Do exactly what she does, keeping watch on the firewall status for anything of interest. Experiment with the system and see what happens on the firewall.
Lastly, consider removing the firewall block, and instead doing a tcpdump of the suspicious packets. See if anything of interest comes up.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
Face it, if Microsoft wants, they can transmit all the information they want from your XP system. There are literally thousands of ways when it comes to sneaking something through a firewall that is not an airgap. It's only trust which matters and while Microsoft is not easily trusted, a detected breach of confidentiality would be a public relations nightmare for them. This is the single most important reason why you should not lose to much sleep over XP phoning home. You did buy that license, right? Most if not all phone home functions are just normal convenience functions btw: The system is keeping it's clock in sync, checking for security updates, looking for new codecs, giving up to date help information, etc.
Now should I complete the whoring and post a cut and paste?
naaa....
Bleh!
That huge ad blocks out some of the post. Wonderful.
I believe this is the address used to send error-reporting data after a system crash.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
One minute worth of searching on google explains that this is for the Search Assistant part of Windows XP. It appears to be benign, but you can block traffic and everything still works OK. Consult this google search for more info.
"And like that
Because it can.
You can turn the feature off by changing the search method to 'Classic' in Internet Options.
I have had already done everything in that article, but I tried a _local_ file search, no connections, closed the search window, ~30 seconds later 3 connections to sa.windows.com, from the shell explorer.exe process. hmmmm? Subsequent searches (from a different explorer.exe instance) caused the shell process of explorer.exe to immediately connect to sa.windows.com
This isn't just internet searches, it seems to be reports local searches on local files.
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." George HW Bush
The last sentence is:
I am guessing that the remote-as is related to the Remote Assistant feature in XP, but I've had no luck on finding any technical information about brvread via a Google search.
A Google search of my own for "brvread" reveals no information in the first few pages other than that port 1054 is assigned to brvread for either TCP or UDP.
Not only have you proved that you are a karma whore by racing to be the first to post a bunch of Google hits based on only the headline of the article; you have also utterly failed to answer the actual question, since searching within the results of your search for "brvread" returns nothing! Not even a single hit!
You have, of course, been moderated up, because none of the moderators bothered to read the article either. It is fortunate for you that you did not engage in any cut and paste, as that would have revealed to all your total lack of understanding of the question posed.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
It connects to sa.microsoft.com.
Then it proceeds to do a scan of all of your hard disk, counting the mp3's and divx's you have. It reports these figures to the MPAA and RIAA right off the bat.
In stage two, it scans all images on your PC searching for even the slightest bit of nudity. It then analyzes the photo for age, race, sex and fetish information. If it finds anything underage or otherwise disturbing, it notifies the police. And your ISP. And the feds.
Due to provisions of the PATRIOT act, the newest revision reports if you've visited aclu.org or any democratic candidate sites. It also counts the number of baptist websites you visit on a daily basis (minumum of 10 required).
It then audits your system for any source code you have. If it finds any, it will append to it a microsoft copyright and copy it over to microsoft. (You *DID* see that in the ELUA, right?)
In other words, it does everything you suspect of it. And more!
if you want to meta moderate, do it here: http://slashdot.org/metamod.pl
This seems to be a similar situation; in that Microsoft is intercepting data entered in a browser, and acting upon the contents of that data:
My father has a couple of computers, and I had to run a program on his Windows XP machine, because I needed to use the "QTopia Desktop" synchronization software that came on the CD accompanying my handheld Linux-based Sharp Zaurus (why they didn't give software on the CD that would work with a Linux-OS computer, I'll never understand...)
Anyway, I needed to do a search for some Zaurus sites (I didn't want to bother to go and check the URLs I had on my computer which was in the other room...so, not thinking, I cleared the URL window in Internet Explorer, and typed in "google" (to get the full URL automatically, the way you can in Mozilla). When I did this, I got a page that said: "If you wish to search the Internet, use MSN.COM"-- complete with the four-color butterfly/Windows XP logo...then, I was transferred to MSN.COM! I didn't even get a chance to say whether or not I really wanted to "Go There Today".
OK fine...I figured it was my fault, I should have typed in the full URL, I should have guessed that Microsoft would do this. So, I cleared the URL window again, and typed in "http://www.google.com/". The computer LOCKED UP-- then came a glimpse of the "Blue Screen of Death" (I think, I am not sure), and then the computer simply rebooted!
When I told me father about this, he laughed, and then when the computer had booted again, he drilled down through his "Favorites" menus, and came to the entry for "Google," and I was finally able to "Google". Since then, I only use the "Favorites" to get to Google whenever I'm using my Dad's machine, so that I don't get rebooted again.
Another thing: if you want to find a book online, Windows XP does it's level-best to make you buy it from Barnes & Noble. I have nothing against B&N, but I do like to use Amazon.com, or ThinkGeek, or some of the other tech bookstores online. But Barnes & Noble is paying Microsoft to be first with XP, and so they get all the traffic if somebody is new to computers, like a friend of mine who recently bought his first computer (this is how I learned about XP's desire to make you buy books only from B&N). My friend's system came with XP pre-installed.
At the time he was looking for a computer, I couldn't convince him that Linux would be a better choice (anyway, all the $800 dollar systems advertised in the newspapers come pre-loaded with XP, no Linux systems in sight) and now he's been spooked because the folks at the place where he bought the computer told him they couldn't (wouldn't?) help him if he switched the operating system (I said "So What! I'll help you!), but it seems that someone there implied that he would lose ALL support if he put Linux on his computer--that it would "Void the Warranty". They can't say it officially, but I wasn't there when the threat was made. Now my friend won't even consider switching; he is having problems with the CD-RW, a hardware problem. (In fact, nobody seems to know how to make it work; it just keeps screwing up blank CD's.)
However he is getting wary of Microsoft, now that some of the things I told him would happen are coming true, plus worse things I didn't even think would be problems (hours on the phone, but nothing gets fixed when they finally answer; being bounced back & forth between Microsoft, the company that sold the machine, & the manufacturer; nobody taking responsibility for tech support, and his "Free MSN Subscription for TWO Years" being WORTHLESS, because he can never get connected: either the lines are busy, or he gets tossed offline during important "secure" transactions, and doesn't know if orders went through or not. He likes use uBid.com (I think it is called). He finally gave up & got a cable modem subscription, and never uses his "Free MSN account" anymore.
--MarkVII
Because World Domination will come one stupid user at a time?
(Is this a riddle?)
The opposite of progress is congress
you can block windows explorer (explorer.exe) from accessing the network with zone alarm (or a similar product).
(and this doesn't interfere with internet explorer accessing the network, FYI)
When you do a local file search notice the panel on the left of the window that pops up. That is HTML generated from a few different xml files on your hard drive. The search assistant checks Microsoft's server every so often to see if there are newer versions of the xml files, which would allow for updated searching options.
Here is a (probably incomplete) list of ways Windows XP connects to Microsoft's servers. To generate this list yourself, disable Microsoft's firewall, and use the ZoneAlarm firewall, which is free for personal use. When Windows XP tries to connect to Microsoft, ZoneAlarm will bring up a dialog box asking whether that is okay. If you say no to some of the requests, some functions of Windows XP will not work (like networking).
- Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
- Fax Service
- File Signature Verification
- Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
- Microsoft Application Error Reporting
- Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
- Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
- Microsoft Help and Support Center
- Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
- Microsoft Management Console
- Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
- Microsoft Network Availability Test
- Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
- MS DTC Console program
- Run DLL as an app
- Services and Controller app
- Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
- Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies
your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
- Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect
to Microsoft computers.
These are just the ones I know. There may be others.So, if you use Windows XP, your computer is dependent on Microsoft computers. That's bad, not only because you lose control over your possession, but because Microsoft produces buggy software and doesn't patch bugs quickly. For example, as of July 26, 2002, there are 20 unpatched security holes in Microsoft Internet Explorer. This is a terrible record for a company that has $40 billion in the bank. Obviously, with that kind of money, Microsoft could fix the bugs if it wanted to fix them. Since the bugs are very public and Microsoft has the money, it seems reasonable to suppose that top management at Microsoft has deliberately decided that the bugs should remain, at least for now.
It seems possible that there is a connection between all the bugs and the U.S. government's friendly treatment of Microsoft's law-breaking. The U.S. government's CIA and FBI and NSA departments spy on the entire world, and unpatched vulnerabilities in Microsoft software help spies.
There are many other big shortcomings in Windows XP. Windows XP, and all current Windows operating systems, have a file called the registry in which configuration information is written. If this one (large, often fragmented) file becomes corrupted, the only way of recovering may be to re-format the hard drive, re-install the operating system, and then re-install and re-configure all the applications. The registry file is a single, very vulnerable, point of failure. Microsoft apparently designed it this way to provide copy protection. Since most entries in the registry are poorly documented or not documented, the registry effectively prevents control by the user. There are many areas like this where what Microsoft's design conflicts with the needs of the users.
Note that Microsoft does not support making functional complete backups under Windows XP. Look at Microsoft's policy about this: Q314828 Microsoft Policy on Disk Duplication of Windows XP Installation. Only those who work with Microsoft software will understand the true meaning of Microsoft's policy. Since almost all programs use the registry operating system file, if you cannot make a functional copy of the operating system you cannot make a functional copy of all your application installations and configurations. There are other software companies that try to fix this, but the fixes don't work well, and Microsoft can, of course, break their implementations, as they have often done with other kinds of competitors.
Because the configuration information for the motherboard and the configuration information for the applications are mixed together in the registry file, the registry tends to prevent you from moving a hard drive to a computer with a different motherboard. That's another implication of the above Microsoft policy. So, if you have a motherboard failure, and a good complete backup, you may not be able to recover unless you have a spare computer with the same motherboard.
Only technically knowledgeable people know how to avoid signing up for a Microsoft Passport account during initial use of Windows XP. The name Passport gives an indication of Microsoft's thinking. A passport is a document issued by a sovereign nation. Without it, the nation's citizens cannot travel, and, if they leave, won't be allowed back in their own country. In Microsoft's corporate thinking, the company seems to be moving in the direction of believing that they own the user's computer. Most people are both honest and intimidated. Apparently about 95% do whatever they are asked on the screen. They give their personal information to Microsoft. They don't realize that, if they feel forced to get a Passport account, they should enter almost completely fictitious information, since the real question is not "What is your name and address", but "Can we invade your privacy". The honest answer to this is "No, you cannot invade my privacy", and the only effective way to communicate that is to give completely fictitious information. Since it is the educated people who have computers, Microsoft is building a database of the personal lives of educated people. Microsoft knows when they connect and from what IP address (which tends to show the area), what kind of help they ask, and information about what they are doing with their computers, including what music they like. It is not known, and there is no way to know, how much Microsoft or other organizations make use of this information, or their plans for future use.
Not only has Windows XP definitely gone further in the direction of allowing the user less control over his or her own machine, but with Palladium, Microsoft apparently intends to finish the job: Microsoft will have ultimate control over the user's computer and therefore all his or her data. Even now, under Windows XP, a recent security patch requires that the user agree to a contract that gives Microsoft administrator privileges over the user's computer. The contract says that if a user wants to patch his or her system against a bug which would allow an attack over the Internet, he or she must give Microsoft legal control over the computer. See this article also: Microsoft's Digital Rights Management-- A Little Deeper. You may need to be a lawyer to take apart the crucial sentence. "These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and [my emphasis] use other software on your computer" legally includes this meaning: "These updates may disable your ability to use other software on your computer." Note that the term "security related updates" is meaningless to the user because the updates have no relation to user security. So, the sentence effectively means that Microsoft can control the user's computer without notice and whenever it wants. That kind of sentence is known in psychology as "testing the limits". If there is no strong public complaint about this, expect to see more and stronger language like this.
This Register article shows the direction Microsoft is going: MS Palladium protects IT vendors, not you. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and Microsoft is well down that road. See this ZDNet article, also: MS: Why we can't trust your 'trustworthy' OS.
These Microsoft policies mean that any government which wants to be independent of the United States government, and any government which represents itself as controlled by the people, cannot use Microsoft operating systems, or other Microsoft proprietary systems.
Microsoft's self-destructiveness does not mean that the user should be self-destructive. There is no need to apologize for using Microsoft software. The correct solution to abuse is persuading the abuser to stop being abusive. Once I posted to a Slashdot story a link to an article on a web site of mine. By far the majority of visitors from the Slashdot story used Microsoft operating systems. Rather than feel embarrassed because Microsoft is abusive, action needs to be taken to prevent the abuse. If you are against Microsoft abuse, you are not against Microsoft; you are more pro-Microsoft than Bill Gates.
In some areas, Microsoft Windows XP has reduced functionality. For example, the command line interface does less in some ways than the CLI in Windows 98 SE (Second Edition). The CLI is a big embarrassment because of its limited capabilities, but at least in Win 95 it worked. With every version since then it has worked less well. (There are two kinds of command prompt, and, according to Microsoft employees, the differences between them are not fully documented.)
The command line prompt sometimes begins to display short file names. Microsoft employees say that Microsoft has no fix, although someone not connected with Microsoft did make a work-around.
Cutting and pasting into a command line program often puts successive extra spaces before each line. Microsoft employees say that there is no plan to fix this.
The fast paste mode that is in Windows 98 is gone in Windows XP. Microsoft employees say there is no plan to fix this.
The DOS QuickEdit mode sometimes flashes wildly when trying to edit from a DOS box.
When using the command line interface, Windows XP doesn't always update the time. After several hours, the time reported to command line programs can be several hours in error.
There is a DOS program called START.EXE that can be used to start other programs. But it does not operate the same way as in other versions of Windows. It starts a program, but cannot be made to return control to the command line program as previous versions did. There is no technical reason for this; it is just one of the shortcomings that are allowed to exist.
People often say that DOS has gone away. But Microsoft still calls the commandline interface DOS, and in Windows XP Microsoft has added new programs for configuring the OS that work only under DOS.
There are many other insufficiencies in Windows XP. Sometimes when you press a key while using Windows XP, it is seconds until there is any response. Apparently there is something wrong with the CPU scheduler in XP, because there are a lot of complaints about this in the forums and MS people have said that they are working on it. On one particular fresh installation of XP, on an Intel motherboard with either a Matrox G550 or an ATI Radeon video adapter, it requires 18 seconds to display a directory listing of 94 items. This is apparently related to a bug in the video software, not the adapter drivers.
Something is wrong with the Alt-Tab display of running programs under Windows XP. If there are a lot of programs, not all of them are displayed. The order jumps around in a seemingly random way.
Another indication of the direction Microsoft is taking Windows XP is that menus are sometimes 7 levels deep.
The most recent version of this article is available at http://www.hevanet.com/peace/microsoft.htm.
any more?
Bleh!
I'm sorry, that seems not to be the case. The link you post has *everything* to do with corporate installations and *nothing* to do with backups. Many corporate sites use disk duplication software (Ghost, etc.) in order to make sure that all their systems have exactly the same software, configured in exactly the same way. Windows XP (and Windows 2000 before it) will have duplicate security IDs if you use the same image on different machines and you don't use the sysprep tool mentioned in the link.
You most certainly can (and I have) use disk imaging software to back up and restore your system, complete with registry.
Jesus. /. article and clicking reply, it's been modded up again.
Whoever modded this up is an idiot. It's a direct fucking copy of the second link. Not slashdotted, not busy, nothing.
In the time between me looking at the
Fucking morons.
Or, if you really want to be sneaky, uninstall MSN EXPLORER (it was an optional program when I was doing my XP upgrade--so you don't need to install it in the first place) and just use IE.
This is another view of the world.
Blocked: Out TCP, localhost:4599->207.68.166.243:80, Owner: C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\DWWIN.EXE
Notice that the outgoing connection is going to a Port 80 address.
This is another view of the world.
I would pay money to see Oreily (as in Fox News) to get wind of this kindof stuff MS does. I can only imagine the pleasure of seeing the no-spinner grill Gates in front of millions, of course the bastard would never consider going on his show, after all it isn't MSNBC.
I noticed this a few weeks ago and also had connections open 24/7 to wustat.windows.com:80 which 2 days ago turned into wutrack.windows.com:80 and I've just checked my netstat and it's back to wustat.windows.com:80 so I figure it has something todo with Windows Updates, I do have automatic updates on and find it a useful feature however with hostnames like wutrack.windows.com it makes me wonder it's doing more. Also it only seems to check for updates every few days so why is the connection open 24/7 (its my own netstat program which I've also coded in a Close Socket button to close the connection, which if I do it wont reconnect until I reboot either), so why does something that checks for updates periodocally need to be constantly connected the entire time your PC is up, and if this applies to every copy of Windows XP, surely there's millions, how does Microsoft handle millions of constant TCP connections (especially if they use IIS)
I regularly hack my registry in order to eke out a little bit better performance from my computer. Nowadays, I never edit my file associations using Explorer's View->Folder Options->File Types window; I go straight into the registry and do it by hand. I've noticed a disturbingly large amount of extraneous data within the registry, and I slowly cull that as I find it.
As well, the Windows Registry has become very well-documented as of late. WinGuides offers a downloadable Registry Guide in
I will grant that my technical, empirical knowledge is based on use of the Win98SE Registry, but I can't imagine that things would be radically different between 98SE and XP.
Matthew G P Coe
http://mgpcoe.blogspot.com/
is there any way to find out all of the subdomains at microsoft.com (or msn.com) ?
ie:
sa.microsoft.com
windowsmedia.microsoft.
msid.msn.com
or can they create subdomains that are completly secret (until found out)
as i would like a list of every microsoft subdomain (and msn domains) so i can add them to the Host file project so they can be selectivly blocked ?
any help would be apreciated as i already have an extensive list of MS domains but i would really like to grab them all (and any future ones)
And before anyone gets huffy about phoning home, I also have talkback.exe on the XP machine which is the mozilla talkback/feedback agent. So it is not only MS that does this sort of stuff.
This is another view of the world.
FUD Alert!! Troll alert!!! 99% of this post is such BS that it's not even worth responding too...however, I'll tackle possibly the most egregious point (it kinda proves the rest as BS as well).
There are many other big shortcomings in Windows XP. Windows XP, and all current Windows operating systems, have a file called the registry in which configuration information is written. If this one (large, often fragmented) file becomes corrupted, the only way of recovering may be to re-format the hard drive, re-install the operating system, and then re-install and re-configure all the applications.
BULLSHIT! Microsoft has the ability (I know AT least since Win98) that Windows automatically backs up the registry periodically (ie, at shutdown or boot, major hardware change, etc). IF it ever gets corrupted, there will be a backup to restore from. That's also bullshit what you claim about not being able to backup--it works fine. If you had actualyl read the link you linked to, you would see it's refering to SID--a special identifier used on MS networks (somewhat akin to an IP address, not some evil ploy). Duplicate SID's, just like duplicate IP's, conflict.
How bout you go get a life and stop verbally stabbing at microsoft from your parents home (PennyArcade ;)
The Netcraft results show 223 sites ending in Microsoft.com. Yikes.
I'm running XP too (yeah, I know), and it connects to sa.windows.com every time I try to search for a file on my hd (that was covered in an article around here). I simply blocked the traffic, and the search still worked. Gee, that's strange. It doesn't *NEED* to phone home and it still works?
These people obviously aren't as skilled programmers as our friends at Real as far as Phoning Home Functionality is concerned.
Danish != nationality
This article is one of the biggest pieces of crap I've seen in a long time.
First of all, the list he gives of services that contact Microsoft is not accurate.(The time service has to be setup to tell it who to contact and MS recommends using NIST computers, and that's only one example I would want to verify the others) Second of all he's missing some well known ones like the Search command.
Then he goes off on some other rants. In the discussion about knowledge base article Q314828 it is clear he didn't read the article. Basically the warn against SID duplication and they will only support computers which have been imaged with the sysprep utility provided on the XP CD.
Whoever wrote this article is obviously not technically competent.
I've actually had at least 4 systems which had intermittent crashes, lockups and general failures that you would expect would be attributed to the cheap hardware in them... however this same equipment worked flawlessly for months on end once Windows was replaced with linux. My current workstation is custom built from quality parts, but still Windows 2000 sometimes hard reboots (no bluescreen, nothing) when I skip tracks when playing CDs, or trying to digitize video with my TV Wonder.
The problem here is that cheap hardware doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the hardware, just that it doesn't perform as well as competitors, or the drivers are not as well developed, etc, etc. The OS is still responsible to make sure your machine does not lock up, crash, reboot, corrupt data, etc., if this hardware's drivers malfunction. If you can't even do some simple error checking of what your device drivers are doing, I blame the OS, not the hardware. The question is, if other operating systems work fine on the same cheap hardware that windows crashes and burns on, why are you so quick to defend Microsoft's poor software?
Hell, Windows XP still has networking problems on all hardware with other versions of Windows using Microsoft's own protocols, so why would you expect that other parts of the OS are functioning as they should?
-- sudo.ca
"It's a direct
I wrote the story at the second link. But I wrote the present story AFTER the link was posted. The story needed to be updated. So I hastily updated it, FTP'd it to the server, and decided to post most of it directly to the story.
The story was modded up because it addresses a very, very serious issue. We are seeing a sickness among large companies. Consider Enron and WorldComm and Microsoft as part of a larger social illness. They all lost their way and began to be adversarial toward the world and towards themselves.
Without going into a long story, there is a problem in making backups of Windows XP that actually can be used to make a copy that restores full functioning. The Microsoft article says,
"Microsoft does not provide support for computers on which Windows XP is installed by duplication of fully installed copies of Windows XP. Microsoft does support computers on which Windows XP is installed by use of disk-duplication software and the System Preparation tool (Sysprep.exe)."
There is only one kind of backup that is a true backup: A fully installed copy, or some method of creating a fully installed copy. Microsoft is saying that that is "not supported". That language hides the fact that Microsoft made it difficult.
You said, "You most certainly can (and I have) use disk imaging software to back up and restore your system, complete with registry."
I've done it too. But, as Microsoft says, Microsoft does not support this. Think about that for a moment. Suppose Linus Torvalds said, "I don't want Linux to support fully functional backups". That would be preposterous. Why, then, do people accept the same statement from Microsoft? Maybe that is because they have been habituated to being abused.
Please take Microsoft's statement seriously. Consider a real life situation. If you have had a hardware failure, when you do the restore it may not be to a computer that is identical to the one on which Win XP was first installed. (If several years have passed since the computer was made, it may not be possible to buy identical components, for example.)
There can be serious problems with using a restored copy since, with Windows XP, most of the configuration is thrown into one pot, the registry. Yes, you may be successful hand-editing the registry, but maybe you won't. Even if you are successful, you could not call a backup that needs considerable adjustment a "fully functional backup". In a real life situation, the cost of doing a restore to alternate equipment may be more than the cost of completely re-installing the software.
The problem is not in changing the SID. SysInternals provides a free utility, NewSID, to change the SID. The problem is that Microsoft has deliberately made it difficult to make functional backups, apparently as a method of copy protection. Remember, we are NOT talking about manufacturers making copies that work on identical equipment. We are talking about a backup that can actually be used immediately after a hardware failure to do a repair in which the new system is not identical.
It is not impossible that someone could move a backup to new hardware. But, in practice, it may be impossible or too expensive under some circumstances.
I use disk cloning software when the hard drives are not identical, and a mirroring controller like the Promise FastTrak when the drives are identical. Remember, I am making copies that are fully legal because I have purchased licenses for them. I am only trying to save time; re-installing all the software might cost far more than the cost of Windows XP. The issue is not with rollout of new machines. The issue is whether your backup can actually be used to make a fully functional copy.
Most people who use Windows XP don't know of the existence of hard disk cloning software or hardware. One effect of Microsoft's policy is that Microsoft does not tell them. Even if they did have such software, and they new how to use it, most users might still have the difficulties mentioned here.
I was not able to get the time service to use any but Microsoft's computers. Please explain how to do this. Microsoft certainly does not make it easy to use NIST servers.
Sysprep does not allow fully functional backups, as Microsoft says. Sysprep is used to prepare new systems.
There's some misunderstanding here. First, it is not a registry backup that you want, it is a backup that you can restore. I don't know any way of replacing an entire registry with an exported text file. If there is a way, would someone tell me?
More details about registry problems: The problem with the registry is this. Suppose the registry becomes corrupted, but the software that the corruption affects is not used for a considerable time. After the corruption occurs, the computer is upgraded, perhaps with new application software, perhaps with new drivers. Then maybe new system preferences are applied. Suppose the company has saved backups of all previous versions of the registry on CD (an unlikely event).
See the problem? Since all the software is connected to all the other software by the registry, corruption that goes unnoticed for a while can create an impossible situation. If the company goes back to the original, known good registry, they must give up all the time they spent upgrading the computer. This may be substantial, especially since they may not have complete records about what upgrading was done.
In actuality the situations caused by the registry are far, far more complicated than this. For example, you may think that some failure you are having is caused by registry corruption. However, it may take far too much time to prove whether that is the case. If you think of all the combinations of difficult circumstances, you will see that having most configuration settings in one file is sometimes devastating for the user.
Consider that the person who is using the computer probably has an important job in the company, and wants to use the computer, since only some functions don't work, but others do. Consider that a repair person must be supervised 100% of the time at some companies, because of security needs.
Please educate me if I'm wrong, but there is nothing like this in Linux or BSD. First, there is no single file in which corruption can make an entire installation worthless. Second, there is far better error checking, so corruption of any kind is less likely to occur. With Windows XP, sometimes a faulty program can cause the entire OS to become unstable. (I have personally seen this at least 50 times.) My experience with Linux is that the OS just throws the faulty application out of memory and comes back and says, okay, what else do you want to do?
With Linux, a software upgrade that you much later discover was bad causes you to re-install a known good version. With Microsoft Windows XP, because of the connection between all programs by the registry, you may have to start over with a re-formatted hard drive. This usually takes many hours, especially in situations in which a company employee uses a system with special adjustments or programs, which is often the case.
About this dependence on connecting with Microsoft computers: What happens to Windows machines that aren't connected to the net?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
I hate Micro$not products. Windows SUCKS.
I provide tech support for quite a few people so I have to run a number of M$ machines here with variuous versions of WinBlows (98 through XP)
I am TRYING to migrate my own personal life to Linux but for now, M$ still owns my soul.
I have one customer with 12 stand alone machines and I'm installing a LAN/switch/router to get them all on broadband. There is a nightmarish hell of WinBlows there, all sorts of mucked up 95 machines, 98, ME, etc..
The customer just ordered a new machine from Dell (ugh! tech support MORONS!) and get this.
1. The ONLY OS they sell a machine with is XP Home.
2. They pre-install XP Home at the factory.
3. They pre-install tons of other bullshit at the factory.
4. If you demand that they ship the machine with a BLANK hard drive and provide a CD with the OS on it rather than a factory "restore image" they won't do it.
I tried to explain to my customer that XP is SHIT (in a nice way of course) and that the purpose of XP is to give M$ a window into her world so they can peer in and spy on her.
"Oh, but the nice man at Dell told me that they fixed all the bugs and security flaws in XP with a Service Pack and there is no problem any more and that XP Home works just fine now."
Uh, ok. Whatever. It appears now that they are going to ship her computer "their way", pre-loaded with spyware and useless Dell bloatware.
I could smack the shit out of these dumbasses that shit there and jab a button so that a robot flash loads racks full of HDD's with total bullshit then they shove them down hapless consumer's throats. "We're here to help you!"
I live one city over from a place where they farm out tech support. This place is a total ghetto, they could have dropped a nuke and done less damage to this place than what poverty has done to it. Anyway, since there are no businesses left there anymore, some big tech support company came in and bought up a bunch of old abandonded shopping centers and they filled them up with phone banks then hired bunches of welfare rejects. You can drive by and see them all out smoking at the door, wearing rags and looking pretty much unclean in general.
These are the people that you get when you call Dell and Gateway tech support and some other large companies too.
Job interview:
Interviewer: "Have you any experiance with computers?"
Prospect: "I hocked a few last week"
Interviewer: "Hired, report to the front office on Monday."
These people read questions from a laminated card. I suppose it is a flow chart, I find it amazing that they can read for one, and that they can follow the logic of a flow chart.
I would not be suprised to find that M$ is using some of these places to browse through peoples systems. We know that M$ grabs snapshots of your registry which is the tell all. With only that one item M$ knows all your comings and goings.
M$ can and does grab copies of your email when they feel the urge. They have the computing power to scan your messages for key words that either hits their tripwires, RIAA & MPAA tripwires, and now PATRIOT ACT tripwires.
Micro$snot XP Home *IS* the PATRIOT ACT. If you use XP you *ARE* being spied upon. If you use WinBlows 9x you *ARE* being spied upon.
2000 ( http://nsa2.www.conxion.com/win2k/download.htm ) can be secured but you have to know what you are doing, it's not a job for Joe Average.
Even following the guidlines above is not enough, you must take your *OWN* steps to secure your system. Build your own firewall and build your own IPTables. Trust no one and no thing.
Your computer is *NOT* your friend.
Bottom line, if you have XP, reformat your hard drive with Linux. Build a hardware firewall.
If you have a Cisco router, dump it. Punks can hack them in seconds. And those dopey little routers they sell at Worst Buy, take it fishing, they make nice sinkers.
Just remember, Bill Gate$ is the Anti-Christ and Micro$not is the 7th level of HELL.
Actually, in XP, the registry backup IS automagically made - that's what the "System Volume Information" folder in the root of your HD is used for. And that Application in the Accessories\System Tools Folder - called "System Restore"? That's how you access it. It'll work in safe mode, too.
Not a cureall for Registry Corruption, but it's an improvement from Windows 2000.
They've got to be kidding!
How can they convince anybody to trust them?
In particular, how could a corporate user who does really large contracts involving billion dollar tenders, store any such information on XP? E.G., suppose a tender is being let for a pipeline through Afghanistan!!!
It seems to me that anything must be considered public domain the moment after it is entered into a Windows XP keyboard.
What does the future hold? Will we need a dual computer hierarchy, first, secure, very expensive computers for confidential, valuable information and Windows for non-confidential and hence worthless stuff, managed by air-head secretaries?!
Maybe it doesn't really matter! All of US businesses look like they are following the Enron/Adelphia/WorldCom/Tyco example. After you declare bankrupcy, who cares anyway!
That is a good question. If you buy a Microsoft mouse, you don't get the full functionality until you let the mouse software(!) connect to the internet. So, that gives you an idea of what Microsoft would do. The question is, what does Microsoft do now? First, they make it quite difficult to upgrade your computer to fix bugs. Sometimes the downloadable updates lag behind those available with Windows Update.
Also, it is the direction that Microsoft is going that is even more alarming. Windows Media Player already reports your music choices to Microsoft. The EULA for a security bug fix to Windows Media Player gives Microsoft complete control over your computer: They own it, not you. That shows that Microsoft can and will be sneaky. (The EULA says that it is limited to Digital Rights Management, but Microsoft is trying, with Palladium, to extend Digital Rights Management to everything you do on your computer.)
"Ghost" is a term created by a company that was later bought by Symantec.
Symantec's product is expensive. Most users of Windows XP don't know it exists. In the situation mentioned, it doesn't always work as a backup.
I stand by my comments.
I suggest you deal with your anger problem, and not bring it to Slashdot.
Your comments do not apply to the situation mentioned. You apparently haven't read my comment carefully.
Users have always had the option of making backups of the registry. Making useful backups is often difficult or impossible. Backing up the registry in Windows XP is even more difficult, because the registry in now not all in one file, but is partly spread to several files, and the OS prevents you from making copies with xcopy.exe or the copy command. So, you cannot create your own backup tools, as you could in Windows 98.
I suggest you deal with your stupidity problem, and not bring it to Slashdot.
l 2= lets-argue.html
http://www.cableone.net/ctj92/index.html?row1co
What is most interesting about your comment is that you are using this situation as a way of acting out your anger.
I stand by what I said about making functional backups. Most people don't try to do restores, so they don't realize how many times backups aren't really backups.
It is interesting how difficult it is for people to deal with an abuser. Instead of efficiently moving to limit the destructiveness of the abuser, the the abused people often begin to attack each other, as you have done.
When I first tried to change the time server in Windows XP, I got error messages. The system I was testing would not let me make the change. I got error messages when I tried to use any but Microsoft's time server. Now, it works. Thanks for the info. I changed my article to reflect this new information.
I don't say that I know everything about Windows XP. You undoubtedly know things that I don't know. I think it is very likely I know things you don't know. It is interesting that you have the presumption that, if you know something I don't know, that gives you a license to make an angry attack. It is also interesting that you have the presumption that, if I say one thing that is mistaken, you can ignore everything else I said.
Irrespective of the whether the rest of his post is right, that's not true. Windows 2000 does not backup the SOFTWARE hive automatically, although it does back up the other even more important one, SYSTEM I think (this is completely moronic, because the system is almost unusable without an uptodate SOFTWARE hive). If you have a power cut, as I discovered to my cost, your registry may be corrupted beyond Windows ability to repair it. Your only option (unless there's some expensive payware I don't know about) is to completely reinstall Win2K.
You might say that I should have backed it up myself. But that would be nonsense. Is this covered anywhere in the getting started documentation? (I didn't see a copy of that, actually, because we have a site license and I just installed it from a CD) Does it say when you first install: "Tip of the Day: Windows 2000 is a crappy operating system, so you'd damn well back up your registry after every change if you don't want to have to reinstall everythign after a power cut!"
I think not.
Female Prison Rape in NY
I don't think I expressed the question very well. Those files do not pose the same problem as the registry in Windows. The registry connects the configuration of the OS with the configuration of all of the software that is installed.
In the registry, if you get corruption and don't realize it, and do other installations and changes that write to the registry, it can become impossible to go back to an earlier backup without losing all of the work of upgrading.
There is nothing like this in Linux or BSD, apparently. See the section "More Details about Registry Problems" in the article, Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going.
Besides running ZA on it, I'd think that if one knew basically what to look for, all they need do is load up a packet sniffer in promiscuous mode, then hunt down the offending data piece by piece and see if they can make head or tail of it.
Last I checked, there was a decent freeware sniffer floating around called Ethereal. It was made for Linux first, but there are a bunch of Windows ports also available. Works well in Win98SE, but I'm not too sure about XP.
A friend of mine had a problem with drives on a windows XP machine, somehow the drivers for the cdrom burner and the dvd rom got corrupted and would conflict with each other.
/etc, the kernel sources in /usr/src/linux
/etc
So at first I thought of downloading the drivers from an ftp or http site, when I finally located the location of the drivers, they were not available for XP, the site had a message saying this drivers come with XP.
But since windows XP was preinstalled, and it had no CD rom available, there was not much that could be done.
Installing the drivers again from the hard disk would just reproduce the problem, and due to the plug and play feature it would automatically install both drivers.
It was imposible to only install the dvd rom, or the cdrom burner alone. It was probably posible by going in the registry, but that is risky and it is probable not a good idea in general.
In general I would say to stay away from XP and use Linux, it is so much more friendly user, and it has no spyware. One you learn how to use Linux you will love it, if someone tells you it is more dificult than windows, it is simply not true.
For linux most of the configuration files are under
to install a program, it is a single line:
rpm -i program-i386.rpm
Lets say something goes wrong and the GUI is messed up, well you can always use CLI to fix the problem, with windows a reinstall if you have the CD otherwise a call to MS for another license, which is very costy.
In linux it is much easier to edit a file in
or in the home directory for a user, a file that is in plain ascii, readable by any editor, than to have to edit the windows registry wich are badly documented.
Lets say you want to install linux in a computer which already has an OS, well it is not a problem linux can be located on any disk, any partition, and it will not overwrite the boot sectors without asking you whant do you want to do, windows on the other hand will want to be on the first disk, and it will automatically overwrite the boot sectors if you are lucky, if you are not lucky it will overwrite your linux partition destroying all your data. Haven't check reacent versions of windows, but thats how it used to be. Linux never overwrote a windows partition, unless if I really wanted to do that.
Right now I have dual boot so that I can use my scanner, but as soon as I have an scanner that runs under linux, windows is gone for good.
One thing that in Linux is completely different than windows, is that in Linux the GUI is just a GUI, in other words it is very nice, and makes lifes easier, but linux works perfectly well and it is very usable without the GUI, windows has the GUI incorporated into the OS (political reasons in my opinion, to demolish the competition, remenber DR Dos), windows without the GUI is useless, you simply can not use it, if you don't believe try using windows without the GUI for something usefull, not possible.
In Linux you have the choice of using or not using the GUI, it is your choice.
In windows it is M$ choice, not yours.
Some comments by a few here were that windows can do everything linux can, and that is not true.
Linux is true multiuser, windows is not.
Linux can be booted over a network, were the kernel being run is on a remote machine, windows can not do this, and this is very usefull for diskless machines.
in linux for doing a task you have many ways to acomplish the task, in windows you choice is limited.
The bare minimun to run a current kernel (2.4.x) in a terminal is 16 MB, windows can not do that, even if you doble that amount.
I could go on forever, the point is that linux is a lot more powerfull, and windows CAN NOT do everything can do.
In recent times there have been a lot of atacks against linux, and other open source software, like the DMCA, that I believe is a real treat, its intent of destruction, I believe due to the fact that linux is internationation it will not be destroyed, but it can slow down its progress.
And then M$ taking avantage of proprietary technology, can make sure none of its software comply with industry standards, and if reverse engineering is ilegal, like the case with dvd roms, this will be a problem for linux created by politicians.
Now if you consider what you get with a full linux distribution vs windows, it is obvious that with linux you get much more software and of better quality, now in windows to get that type of functionality you would have to add thousands of dollars worth of software.
...that can be used to start other programs. But it does not operate the same way as in other versions of Windows. It starts a program, but cannot be made to return control to the command line program as previous versions did.
/W or /Wait (depending on OS) as a switch.
Well, unless you add
Start.exe waits when it shouldn't. The /wait parameter just makes things worse.
Start was asynchronous. Now the Windows XP version, in some cases, hangs up and doesn't return until the application it started is closed. This is without the /W parameter.
The site a100.ms.a.microsoft.com is running AkamaiGHost on Linux. [discovered using Netcraft]
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Your wifes computer could have automatic updates on and the computer is looking for updates. XP is so-so
This was written to use up your time hahahssa alaahsdhaj asdjfkjafjkfsd gsdd.dsgfsg gf.fs dsf dfdfds gffgfd
That pretty much sums up liberalism... HATE, all wrapped up in catchy phrases and rhetoric (like 'For the CHILDREN!') and topped with a ribbon of oppression and thought control.
I don't agree with a lot of what the man says, but he is rather consistent at forcing guests to stick to facts and not rhetoric and endless offtopic verbal vomitus (i.e. 'Spin') Believe in only what you want to believe (oh wait, you already do), reality will continue on regardless of how much rhetoric, lies and manipulative efforts you put in place.
it then creates a false reality where democrats can actually be trusted to do what is in the best interest of the WHOLE country, uphold the rule of law and defend the constitution instead of whoring themselves to their party first. It also makes the ACLU actually uphold civil liberty instead of pushing agenda on private citizens in the name of 'equalling the playing field' ("Hitler, Earth: 1939"). The third false reality is that it actually makes it so that people don't have a choice, and must 'choose sides' and sheepishly follow political parties instead of acting with integrity and honor.