Notice: Any messages purporting to come from this site telling you that your password has expired, or that you need to verify your details, confirm your email, resolve issues, making threats, or asking for money, are
spam. We do not email users with any such messages. If you have lost your password you can obtain a new one by using the
password reset link.
Due to spam on this forum, all posts now need moderator approval.
Entire forum
➜ MUSHclient
➜ Bug reports
➜ Problem with Win XP SP2?
It is now over 60 days since the last post. This thread is closed.
Refresh page
Pages: 1
2
| Posted by
| Magnum
Canada (580 posts) Bio
|
| Date
| Reply #15 on Wed 11 Aug 2004 11:52 AM (UTC) Amended on Wed 11 Aug 2004 12:00 PM (UTC) by Magnum
|
| Message
| Here's the likely problem:
Under XP SP2, the number of unresolved outbound connections is limited. If you exceed the limit, outgoing packets/connections are stacked internally until the outbound connections are within tollerance, and then queued connections are resolved in order.
XP SP2 is mostly security upgrades, and this code has been implemented to prevent a computer from spamming the internet, particularly viruses that use wardial like code to search for vulnerable systems, by opening many connections at a time.
For more information, see this link:http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/maintain/sp2netwk.mspx#XSLTsection127121120120
Ah heck, here's the relevent text, quoted from the page I gave URL for:
Limited number of simultaneous incomplete outbound TCP connection attempts
Detailed description
The TCP/IP stack now limits the number of simultaneous incomplete outbound TCP connection attempts. After the limit has been reached, subsequent connection attempts are put in a queue and will be resolved at a fixed rate. Under normal operation, when applications are connecting to available hosts at valid IP addresses, no connection rate-limiting will occur. When it does occur, a new event, with ID 4226, appears in the system’s event log.
Why is this change important? What threats does it help mitigate?
This change helps to limit the speed at which malicious programs, such as viruses and worms, spread to uninfected computers. Malicious programs often attempt to reach uninfected computers by opening simultaneous connections to random IP addresses. Most of these random addresses result in a failed connection, so a burst of such activity on a computer is a signal that it may have been infected by a malicious program.
What works differently?
This change may cause certain security tools, such as port scanners, to run more slowly.
How do I resolve these issues?
Stop the application that is responsible for the failing connection attempts.
|
Get my plugins here: http://www.magnumsworld.com/muds/
Constantly proving I don't know what I am doing...
Magnum. | | Top |
|
| Posted by
| Shadowfyr
USA (1,791 posts) Bio
|
| Date
| Reply #16 on Wed 11 Aug 2004 05:45 PM (UTC) |
| Message
| lol
Since when is making it harder for something that shouldn't be installed in the first place considered a security feature? The point is the prevent malicious software from installing in the first place, not making Microsoft look better by slowing it down so they can claim later that the OS must have been infected less often. This is a bloody stupid 'feature' imho. This is like deciding that you shouldn't be allowed to drive at the speed limit on a freeway, since someone 'may' choose to drive at 60-70 in a 20mhp zone instead. Why not just prevent the car from driving faster than 20mph in the first place? Problems solved right? Sigh... And here I was considering getting a copy of XP, since I have gotten tired of the few truely annoying glitches in 98 and can't run some newer software. :( | | Top |
|
| Posted by
| Flannel
USA (1,230 posts) Bio
|
| Date
| Reply #17 on Wed 11 Aug 2004 07:28 PM (UTC) |
| Message
| Shadowfyr, just dont install SP2, I have no intention of getting it, ever. Its designed for people who download every file they are emailed, and click on every single link on every webpage. And allow all activeX controls on every webpage, and all that other fun stuff.
Personally, I have NEVER gotten a virus email, I get AX popups, but of course, I never allow them.
And I agree, that "feature" is innately stupid, whats the point of having all those ports if you cant use them? |
~Flannel
Messiah of Rose
Eternity's Trials.
Clones are people two. | | Top |
|
| Posted by
| Shadowfyr
USA (1,791 posts) Bio
|
| Date
| Reply #18 on Wed 11 Aug 2004 10:50 PM (UTC) |
| Message
| Well.. Some of the problems it fixes go a tad beyond not letting some things run. If you use Windows and IE isn't patched, you can get nailed, plain and simple, though a real firewall would help a lot. Right now this isn't much of a problem, but if I ever get broadband, which is likely to happen once I in fact have the cash to get XP too...
I just think this is an example of how MS 'fixes' problems. Instead of solving the real issues, they merely disable features. It doesn't stop the stuff from installing or slowing down the system, it just keeps it from spreeding. Kind of like a twisted sort of quarentine. The sort of thing you might expect from medieval doctors during the black plague, but not from modern times when it is considered more reasonable to kill the bug carrying the disease in the first place. It isn't the first time they have used such a lame and pointless tactic to solve a problem they refused to find a way to properly fix either.
But yeah. You can just decide not to install it, but that doesn't give you any right to complain when something bites you in the rear that it could have prevented, if not for all the crap you didn't want it to change and wasn't related to the problem in the first place. | | Top |
|
| Posted by
| Poromenos
Greece (1,037 posts) Bio
|
| Date
| Reply #19 on Thu 12 Aug 2004 11:48 AM (UTC) |
| Message
| | It's not like they didn't fix the hole, they're just guarding against future infections. I agree, it is a bit stupid, and there should at least be an option for it, but it doesn't make Microsoft the devil... |
Vidi, Vici, Veni.
http://porocrom.poromenos.org/ Read it! | | Top |
|
| Posted by
| Nick Cash
USA (626 posts) Bio
|
| Date
| Reply #20 on Tue 17 Aug 2004 09:46 PM (UTC) |
| Message
| I keep seeing people talk about how you can just make it so it doesnt automatically download it. For any completely oblivious reader's out there, you might wish to know how. Its simple.
Get into the control panel (start->control panel on most computers), open up System.
This will bring up the system properties menu. Go to the Automatic Updates tab.
Most computers will be on Automatic, since its the recommended setting. Merely change it to any of the others. Turning off is probably not the best idea in the world, but hey, its up to you. Personally I recommend the third one down (Notify me but don't automatically download or install them). That way you have complete control over what "updates" go on your computer.
Most people could probably figure that out, but hey, maybe I helpped someone. |
~Nick Cash
http://www.nick-cash.com | | Top |
|
| Posted by
| Twrx
(5 posts) Bio
|
| Date
| Reply #21 on Fri 17 Sep 2004 10:57 AM (UTC) |
| Message
| For Example XP-Antispy can set the Number of max.
connections (in tcpip.sys) to unlimited.
so long, Twrx. | | Top |
|
The dates and times for posts above are shown in Universal Co-ordinated Time (UTC).
To show them in your local time you can join the forum, and then set the 'time correction' field in your profile to the number of hours difference between your location and UTC time.
70,807 views.
This is page 2, subject is 2 pages long: ![[Previous page]](/images/thin_prev.gif)
1
2
It is now over 60 days since the last post. This thread is closed.
Refresh page
![[Go to top]](/images/gototop.gif)
top