XPSP2 will limit your max. connections/sec


Recommended Posts

Writing MS as M$ makes you super cool!

Some people really got problems. Does your dad work at M$ or what. I thought this board had enough class to keep children like you away. If you can?t help the problem stop posting but don`t tell people how they have to write M$.....

BTW for the normal guys: I tried the tcpip.sys from XPSP1 but it didn`t work. I guess they changed another file too.

Think i will email the guy again to get things clear.

Any chance on using tcpip.sys from a previous version to get around this?

Just tried the tcpip.sys from xpsp1a but all it did was rendering the system unbootable.

Booted in safe-mode and restored the tcpip.sys from XPSP2.

Would have been too easy.

So if MS doesn`t fix it i think were really stuck here cause rewriting the tcpip.sys or the ntoskrnl.exe (i think this file is involved too) would be hard without the XP-Sourcecode.

What comes next if they realize that this will not protect nor help spreading blaster or sasser.

AAAH I could imagine they just make WinXP a non-online OS and remove everything from TCPIP to IExplore :wacko:

You all complain you want better security now you get it you compalin again :rolleyes:

Perhaps M$ should just turn off all internet connectivity.... that would be the ultimate security fix!!

No???? why not??? perhaps it would be a bit too restrictive?????

Thats the point, M$ just have no idea........ implementing security changes that can fundamentally effect your internet related activities is not the way to go.

They need to educate people, I have never had a virus in 15 years of computing. With a decent firewall, Virus checker and common sense when browsing and opening email NO ONE should ever get one. :rolleyes:

So I disagree with you, this is not a good attempt and a "security" fix, rather an half a$$ed attempt to stop the proliferation of viruses by restricting connectivity.....rather than educating people. :whistle:

Rimmel?

Perhaps M$ should just turn off all internet connectivity.... that would be the ultimate security fix!!

No???? why not??? perhaps it would be a bit too restrictive?????

Thats the point, M$ just have no idea........ implementing security changes that can fundamentally effect your internet related activities is not the way to go.

They need to educate people, I have never had a virus in 15 years of computing. With a decent firewall, Virus checker and common sense when browsing and opening email NO ONE should ever get one. :rolleyes:

So I disagree with you, this is not a good attempt and a "security" fix, rather an half a$$ed attempt to stop the proliferation of viruses by restricting connectivity.....rather than educating people. :whistle:

Rimmel?

Education is the way.

Say, during the windows xp install - instead of bragging on how windows is so good, they should let the users be aware on firewalls and stuff...

and do a paragraph on network settings, explaining what a firewall is...

or do a window popup that explains how the security of windows can be improved...

I do think that if they had continued developing IE,

if everyone has an antivirus and firewall,

things would be so much different.

Look, guys... this is a GOOD thing. I don't think this is really getting through to you. What this security measure does is put a cap on the number of attempts that can be made to random addresses from your computer by 'corking' the outgoing attempts after a certain number of failures. Why? well it makes sense that if something like sasser is trying to spread by trying to connect to random addresses, there will be a lot of failed attempts because many of the addys it tries to get to won't actually exist.

This is good. And a 'workaround' to dissable this.... is bad. That would mean that if you become infected by some new virus that attempts to do what this security measure tries to slow down, your computer would help the threat spread faster and do more damage than the computer belonging to someone who didn't bother to dissable this security measure. That would just be plain stupid.

And for the record, this has no effect on p2p programs, since p2p clients don't try to connect to random addresses.

Correct me if I'm wrong, guys.

Complete and utter tosh..........

If I wanted to restrict the connection out of my PC's then I would simply do that in my firewall (it has DDOS protection etc). I DO NOT need M$ doing it for me!!!!!

If people were educated properly then they would never get the sasser virus in the first place...... hence this stupid "Security fix" would not be needed.

Consider yourself corrected.

Rimmel?

Notice that it's mainly the people that are literate about computers complaining.

If all people were smart enough to secure their PC's themselves we wouldn't need the 'enhancements' going into Service Pack 2, now would we? However, the "mainstream" user doesn't know that much about computers and probably doesn't want to. Most of them just want a box to turn on, get on the internet, and check their e-mail. They look at their PC the same way they look at their toaster or blender. They expect it to do a few things and care less how it works, so long as it works.

So far as I'm concerned, limiting the amount of "random" outbound TCP connections, within reason, is a good thing as it *will* slow down the spread of worms and virii.

You all complain you want better security now you get it you compalin again :rolleyes:

people want better security that they can change themselves aswell not just something microsoft programs into its operating system so that people cannot turn it off or on, so that certain programs will run at certain times. I think its a good idea just needs to be implemented right

So far as I'm concerned, limiting the amount of "random" outbound TCP connections, within reason, is a good thing as it *will* slow down the spread of worms and virii.

And now the 1000000$ question:

What if i write a worm that doesn?t connects to RANDOM clients but connects to linear IP-ranges ??

Worms spread around like always AND the user has slow connections. So THAT?S a great feature:no:o:

Look, guys... this is a GOOD thing. I don't think this is really getting through to you. What this security measure does is put a cap on the number of attempts that can be made to random addresses from your computer by 'corking' the outgoing attempts after a certain number of failures. Why? well it makes sense that if something like sasser is trying to spread by trying to connect to random addresses, there will be a lot of failed attempts because many of the addys it tries to get to won't actually exist.

This is good. And a 'workaround' to dissable this.... is bad. That would mean that if you become infected by some new virus that attempts to do what this security measure tries to slow down, your computer would help the threat spread faster and do more damage than the computer belonging to someone who didn't bother to dissable this security measure. That would just be plain stupid.

And for the record, this has no effect on p2p programs, since p2p clients don't try to connect to random addresses.

Correct me if I'm wrong, guys.

OOOOHHH, it only corks or limits multi able "failed" attempts. I thought like you couldn't have many things accessing the Net at one time. That's the way it sounded. I don't personally know, because I haven't installed any betas of SP2. thanks for that info.. I sure hope your right.

Some people really got problems. Does your dad work at M$ or what. I thought this board had enough class to keep children like you away. If you can?t help the problem stop posting but don`t tell people how they have to write M$.....

BTW for the normal guys: I tried the tcpip.sys from XPSP1 but it didn`t work. I guess they changed another file too.

Think i will email the guy again to get things clear.

TYPING M$ MAKES ME A COOL KID!!! W00T!3131241

Say, during the windows xp install - instead of bragging on how windows is so good, they should let the users be aware on firewalls and stuff...

and do a paragraph on network settings, explaining what a firewall is...

or do a window popup that explains how the security of windows can be improved...

[RANT]I know. And for AOL they put all the reasons you should use AOL. Why do I need to be convinced IN the installation? I'm already installing it. Why do I need to know WHY I should install?

:rolleyes: Oh well, but I don't see a reason to have why it's good. That's like all those darn AOL ads IN AOL telling you you can get so many hours free. I'm already a member. What's the point in all the ads? [/RANT]

In that case, your options are to do a system restore. uninstall SP2, or reinstall XP and slipstream SP1 :yes:

i think i will wait for a fix for thats, as its not effecting me thats lot really , but i just dont like playing in my internet connection without my premision

Hi there!

There is a fix I created the day before yesterday.

It can be found under

http://mitglied.lycos.de/lvllord

It works with SP2 and SP2-2 and should also work with SP1 (but I don't know, because I have no testing-system).

So, have fun with the download again :-)

LvlLord

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Google begins rolling out its post-Epic Play Store billing model next week by Karthik Mudaliar Google has confirmed that its redesigned Play Store billing and fee structure will take effect on June 30, 2026, in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Economic Area. The changes will let eligible developers offer their own payment systems or send users to an external website for purchases, while separating Google’s platform service fee from the cost of using Google Play Billing. The rollout puts concrete dates and detailed rate cards behind the broader Android policy overhaul Google announced in March. That announcement followed a proposed settlement with Epic Games intended to resolve their long-running disputes over app distribution and payments, although the U.S. portion of the agreement still requires court approval. Under the new billing choice program, developers selling digital content or services can display an alternative payment option alongside Google Play Billing. They may also direct users to their own websites to complete a purchase. Developers can use Google’s standard payment-choice screen or design one that complies with the company’s user-interface rules. Choosing another payment processor does not eliminate Google’s cut altogether. The company will continue charging a service fee for transactions associated with apps distributed through Google Play, regardless of whether payment is handled by Google, an alternative provider, or a developer’s website. Google argues that this fee covers the value and infrastructure provided by Android and the Play Store. For developers earning up to $1 million annually, the service fee will generally be 10 percent. That rate also applies to auto-renewing subscriptions. When Google Play Billing is used in the U.S., U.K., or EEA, Google will add a separate 5 percent billing fee, and developers processing payments elsewhere will not pay that additional charge. This means Google’s familiar flat 30 percent commission is disappearing, but developers will not necessarily see a dramatic reduction on every transaction. An in-app purchase from an existing user processed through Google Play Billing can still reach a combined 30 percent. The biggest savings are likely to come from subscriptions, smaller developers covered by the $1 million tier, and companies able to move customers to their own payment infrastructure. Google is also offering lower rates through its Apps Experience and revamped Games Level Up programs. Apps and games that satisfy the company’s requirements can qualify for 15 percent service fees on new-install transactions and 20 percent on existing-install transactions. The criteria include performance and reliability standards, support for additional Android device categories, and selected platform features. Those program rates are scheduled to become available in the initial markets and Australia on September 30. For consumers, the immediate effect will depend on whether developers adopt alternative payments and pass any savings on through lower prices. For developers, however, June 30 begins a more flexible but considerably more complicated Play Store economy in which distribution, billing, install dates, revenue thresholds, and program participation can each affect Google’s final cut. Google is also separately developing a Registered App Stores program designed to simplify the installation of qualifying third-party stores. That initiative is expected to arrive with a major Android release later in 2026 and will launch outside the U.S. first. Google says the rest of the world will receive the changes by September 30, 2027, although billing rates for markets outside the US, UK, and EEA have not yet been announced.
    • 38% off a super insane price is still an INSANE price.
    • 1TB Samsung T9 and Samsung 9100 PRO SSDs are now selling at great prices by Fiza Ali Amazon is now offering the 1TB variant of Samsung T9 and Samsung 9100 PRO SSD at great prices with limited-time 38% and 39% discounts, respectively, so you may want to check them out if you have been looking to upgrade your storage solution. The Samsung T9 connects via a USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 (20Gbps) interface and delivers sequential read speeds of up to 2,000MB/s and sequential write speeds of up to 1,950MB/s, making it suitable for transferring large files, backing up data, and handling high-resolution media content. When it comes to the security features, the SSD includes AES 256-bit hardware encryption to help protect sensitive data. Designed for portability, the drive is reportedly resistant to drops from heights of up to 3 metres. Furthermore, it operates within a temperature range of 0°C to 60°C and can be stored at temperatures between -40°C and 85°C. Samsung Magician Software is included for drive management, firmware updates, performance optimisation, and health monitoring. Finally, the T9 is certified to multiple international standards, including CE, FCC, UL, UKCA, and RoHS 2 compliance, and is backed by a five-year limited warranty as well. 1TB Samsung T9 SSD: $179.99 (Amazon US) - 38% off The Samsung 9100 PRO uses the M.2 2280 form factor and connects through a PCIe 5.0 x4 interface with NVMe 2.0 support. Built with Samsung V-NAND TLC flash memory, an in-house controller, and 1GB of low-power DDR4X cache memory, the 9100 PRO is engineered for high-performance computing and gaming workloads. Furthermore, the SSD delivers sequential read speeds of up to 14,700MB/s and sequential write speeds of up to 13,300MB/s. Random performance is rated at up to 1,850,000 IOPS for reads and up to 2,600,000 IOPS for writes, depending on system hardware and configuration. The drive supports TRIM, S.M.A.R.T monitoring, automatic garbage collection, and device sleep mode to help maintain performance and efficiency over time. In terms of security features, it includes AES 256-bit encryption, TCG Opal support, and IEEE 1667 compliance. The 9100 PRO operates within a temperature range of 0°C to 70°C, is rated for 1.5 million hours MTBF, and can reportedly withstand shocks of up to 1,500G for 0.5 milliseconds. Finally, Samsung Magician Software is also included for firmware updates, performance monitoring, drive management, and optimisation. 1TB Samsung 9100 PRO SSD: $206.99 (Amazon US) - 39% off Alternatively, you can also check out other SSD deals here. Good to know This Amazon deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • This is about the already discredited 2025 announcement. Not the current one, which I've heard nothing negative about in the academic literature.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
    • One Year In
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      464
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      81
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!