XPSP2 will limit your max. connections/sec

[OptiPlex]

If Microsoft doesn't provide a workaround you can be sure that enthusiasts will hack it. Y'all know about uxtheme.dll...

[benny12345]

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.

[benny12345]

bah there will be some regedit hack to bypass that

Nope it surely won`t....

[benny12345]

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:

[Rimmel]

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?

[DoNuTs]

Don't know if it's been posted, i'm not planning on looking.

http://www.warp2search.net/modules.php?nam...ticle&sid=19039

[futb0l]

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.

[Rimmel]

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?

[Damien_Old]

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.

[offroadaaron]

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

[benny12345]

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:

[tomwarren Veteran]

Don't worry, people are already looking into getting this disabled. Give them time ;)

[DoNuTs]

Don't worry, people are already looking into getting this disabled. Give them time ;)

http://www.warp2search.net/modules.php?nam...ticle&sid=19039

It says here how to edit it.

[benny12345]

http://www.warp2search.net/modules.php?nam...ticle&sid=19039

It says here how to edit it.

Yeah but it doesn`t work as i said already.....:sleep::

[IceDogg]

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.

[OptiPlex]

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

[Wildies]

So isnt there a fix for this yet..

[L3thal Veteran]

^Yes, the fix is SP1 :whistle:

[Wildies]

but i am already installed SP2 from along time...

[L3thal Veteran]

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

[Night.Hawk]

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]

[L3thal Veteran]

^I guess they are trying to get a point across to the people installing it illegaly.

[Wildies]

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

[PROGAME]

i am amazed some of you still think there is something wrong with this feature :o something that will affect you and needs to be fixed

well there isn't :sleep:

[LvlLord]

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