Redestium Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 Most have no idea how to. And that's the reason why there is such a mess currently. Stupid users are the bane of computing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FM Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 Most have no idea how to Most? No, not most. Just your average idiot who runs out, buys a Dell, and runs a PC with no firewall, AV, or anti-spyware. People like that are the reason Sasser spreads, and they should be off PCs anyway. Darwin theory at work. I've been using Windows since 3.1 (I've recently switched to Linux permanently, after Windows ****ed me off for the last time) and guess how many viruses I got? Zero. Zip. None. Zilch. You know why? I always updated, always had an AV running, ran TWO software firewalls, and had a router firewall. Those are the kind of people that should be on a PC. Simple as this: If you don't know how to USE a PC, then stay the hell away from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qoa Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 IE on normal xp does that already. You can't make more than like 2 or 3 tcp connections to a website without a .reg hack. It'll be worked around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaKeY Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 P2P , which isnt legal Since when is P2P illegal? :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
em_te Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 Restricting my activities on the net is NOT better security. It's not about restricting your activity, but restricting the activity of your computer. And it is better security because most newbies get their computer hijacked and used to perform illegal actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Montage Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 In what way is P2P illegal? Get that idea straight outta your head. P2P is a perfectly legitimate platform. I would like an explanation of how P2P is illegal, as this baffles me! If you are referring to music swapping, film downloading etc, then thats a completely separate arguement. Thats ONE use of P2P. Also, where does pr0n come into this? How many times have MS said the future is online storage systems, online operating systems, etc? Web services etc? We are on the verge of getting good quality, high speed connections, and MS want to block that? It's rare for me to cuss MS, but man this seems short-sighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxikk Veteran Posted July 20, 2004 Veteran Share Posted July 20, 2004 yeah, you use p2p to download nature documentaries. PAH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Montage Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 o83zero: Unfortunately, the loser who buys a dell and leaves it unprotected is the lowest common denominator, and security is only as good as the lowest common denominator. It's a shame we need to take these guys into consideration, but we can't exclude people from the "digital revolution" (I feel dirty for using that phrase). Toxxic: No, but P2P is still a legitimate platform. It's the illegitimate uses that are in dispute. Hell, we could argue that the web is then illegal, as you can still download warez, mp3 over HTTP! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
me101 Veteran Posted July 20, 2004 Veteran Share Posted July 20, 2004 I for one wonder why this has not cropped up earlier... it begs the question "is microsoft trying to sneak a few new features into the final build?", or is the number of co-current threads accessing the net set so high that it took this long to find ? On the one hand it stops programs like msblaster trying to connect to the net via multiple and multiple threads... BUT, I for one darn hope that Microsoft make this some kind of regedit/option to change, somewhat similar to the "maxconnectionsperserver" setting which controls how many connections you can have with IE, which i usually crank up to like 16! If not... this SP2 upgrade is starting to be rather restrictive in my eyes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OptiPlex Posted July 20, 2004 Author Share Posted July 20, 2004 OMG Bink.nu has a POSSIBLE FIX!@!@12111``` Go see if it works all you SP2 users... http://bink.nu/DesktopModules/ArticleDetai...?ArticleID=2208 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N1CK Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 It will mainly affect your average windows xp user until a simple utility comes out to modify this key for you... (They can't be expected to edit the registry!) Check out: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=314053 Specifically: TcpNumConnections Key: Tcpip\Parameters Value Type: REG_DWORD - Number Valid Range: 0 - 0xfffffe Default: 0xfffffe Description: This parameter limits the maximum number of connections that TCP can have open simultaneously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 I for one wonder why this has not cropped up earlier... it begs the question "is microsoft trying to sneak a few new features into the final build?", or is the number of co-current threads accessing the net set so high that it took this long to find ?On the one hand it stops programs like msblaster trying to connect to the net via multiple and multiple threads... BUT, I for one darn hope that Microsoft make this some kind of regedit/option to change, somewhat similar to the "maxconnectionsperserver" setting which controls how many connections you can have with IE, which i usually crank up to like 16! If not... this SP2 upgrade is starting to be rather restrictive in my eyes! Of course XP SP2 is restrictive is a security update, its not designed to make computing easier just more secure. As we progress forward expect more security over ease of use and usable features. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Montage Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 If security overshadows usability, computer takeup will drop off, and progress will slow. I think eventually security will become invisible, applied in ways we do not yet understand or recognise - until then it's the ms "use a sledgehammer to break a walnut" aproach! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 another reason i'm going to be avoiding sp2 :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredde87 Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 good move microsoft... this will defently protect the normal user and let face it guys.. we will easly deactivate it... it wont be hard... isnt it better to have it activated as standard? do you think my grandmother will know how to activate it? No she wont, but we do know how to disable it so why complain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 No one anywhere should complain about security updates as that is all everyone screamed out for and now its happening so live with what you requested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 another reason i'm going to be avoiding sp2 :) Don't expect to install post SP2 updates because you will need SP2 before you can get them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demorgoron Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 its the same as with the windows messenger,everyone tought it could not be disabled,in a couple of month someone came up with a method for disabling it ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theyarecomingforyou Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 As we progress forward expect more security over ease of use and usable features. Why compromise? Why not have good features and security? It's not about complaining when Microsoft improve security, it's about Microsoft bumbling in and taking out the national grid just to stop a blind person from walking into a plug socket. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FriedApple Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 Most? No, not most. Just your average idiot who runs out, buys a Dell, and runs a PC with no firewall, AV, or anti-spyware. People like that are the reason Sasser spreads, and they should be off PCs anyway. Darwin theory at work. I've been using Windows since 3.1 (I've recently switched to Linux permanently, after Windows ****ed me off for the last time) and guess how many viruses I got? Zero. Zip. None. Zilch. You know why? I always updated, always had an AV running, ran TWO software firewalls, and had a router firewall. Those are the kind of people that should be on a PC. Simple as this:If you don't know how to USE a PC, then stay the hell away from them. Yes most. Your 'Average idiot' is the majority. The MASSIVE majority. Here, I will give you an example. I am the only 'IT Guy' in my company and we have about 100 employees. I know everyone there very well. I would say about 1 or 2 more know a good deal about PCs. Then there are about 5 more that can get around and know how to protect themselves a little but. The rest are just complete idiots when it comes to PCs. Everyone there owns atleast one PC. So with that example that would be 92%-93% have no idea of what the hell they are doing on a PC. I would say that closely reflects the rest of the U.S. If you don't know how to USE a PC, then stay the hell away from them. Well, that wouldn't be very good business for component and PC manufactures now would it. Granted I hate them just as much as the next admin. But that will not change. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csabo2 Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 hey o83zero, not to knock you off your cloud of leetness, but if you need AV at all then you arent that great with computers, i havent used AV since windows 98, and i havent had a single virus, you know why I DONT OPEN ATTACHMENTS , and i dont download off P2P, its not hard. also, if you are running with a router, why would you have 2 lame software firewalls? oh because youre a moron, i see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
me101 Veteran Posted July 20, 2004 Veteran Share Posted July 20, 2004 A quick, check over at eventid.net produced this... http://www.eventid.net/display.asp?eventid=4226&phase=1Event ID: 4226TCP/IP has reached the security limit imposed on the number of concurrent TCP connect attempts. Max A. Kostioukovitch (Last update 7/15/2004): Info quoted from ntcanuck.com forum: ?The limit you are hitting only applies to connections in which the destinations are unreachableb>. You absolutely should not hit it if you are opening TCP connections to addresses that are live with an active listener on the destination port. It is enforced by the stack and has nothing to do with your firewall software (third party or ours). There is an improvement to this code, which we are planning for SP2 RTM?. See the link to ?ntcanuck.com forum? for more details.In plain English if it occurs, there are many connection attempts to unreachable addresses like IP scanning performed by virus or a bad configuration.Plus, found this over at winguides.com Specify the Maximum Number of TCP/IP Connections (Windows NT/2000) http://www.winguides.com/registry/display.php/893/Registry Settings System Key: [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters]Value Name: TcpNumConnectionsData Type: REG_DWORD (DWORD Value)Value Data: 0 - 0xfffffe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearded Kirklander Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 I don't really mind Microsoft adding features, as long as we are allowed to turn them off / disable them if we wish to. Choice = Win (Y) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OptiPlex Posted July 20, 2004 Author Share Posted July 20, 2004 I don't really mind Microsoft adding features, as long as we are allowed to turn them off / disable them if we wish to. Choice = Win (Y) You win! Apparently we got riled up over nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FM Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 hey o83zero, not to knock you off your cloud of leetness, but if you need AV at all then you arent that great with computers, i havent used AV since windows 98, and i havent had a single virus, you know why I DONT OPEN ATTACHMENTS , and i dont download off P2P, its not hard. also, if you are running with a router, why would you have 2 lame software firewalls? oh because youre a moron, i see. It's called "overkill". It'd have to be one hell of a virus to get through all that. Of course, that means nothing now that I don't use Windows anymore. Anyway, I'm not going to fight with you over what I used to protect my PC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts