Re: [H] Spontaneous Reboots because of my graphics card?
Sorry, you've been bitten by the Radeon bug which is a biological invader from another world characterized by its voracious desire to screw up your computing experience in preparation for world domination. I really hate to be the one to inform you of this bug but it also bit me in the form of a Sapphire Radeon 9600XT AGP 8X which did the same from day one on two separate mobo's. I thought I had solved the problem by reducing the AGP bus speed from 66 to 50 MHz but it finally breathed it's last breath last week (it died after extensive fragging by a local LANParty group dedicated to saving the Earth). My best advise is to repeat after me: Radeon sucks! Radeon sucks! and eventually this mantra will enable you to make peace with your life and enable you to let go of all the goals you ever hoped to accomplish. Or you could just RMA it. This email will self-destruct in 5...4...3...2... @:D j m g wrote: Folks, I've got an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128mb in an Asus A7N8XE-Deluxe, everything is almost working fine except that when I go to play a game Brothers In Arms, EE2 within a couple of minutes my machine will just power off, like pull the power cord off, not a gracefull shutdown, no warning, no blue screen, nothing. This is a recent starting event, I've cycled through no ati driver, catalyst, and omega's - no difference. Running WinXP SP2 on hardware that hasn't changed for a while, I've run multiple benchmark stuff, Prime95 for 24 hours and the machine doesn't hiccup. Any Ideas? The Radeon is still within ATI's 3 year warranty if just barely so I might just try and RMA it. TIA -- -jmg -sapere aude
Re: [H] Nutty Steve Gibson claims WMF bug was planted by Microsoft
Listen to his Podcast and decide for yourself. He makes a compelling argument whether you think he's nutty or not. @:D Hayes Elkins wrote: http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml%3Bjsessionid%3DKAJMC5WZJL0XQQSNDBGCKHSCJUMEKJVN?articleID=177100970
Re: [H] Nutty Steve Gibson claims WMF bug was planted by Microsoft
I listened to his Podcast today before work and he was very very careful not to directly accuse MS of pulling a fast one but there was no doubt he believes its not a bug but a deliberate feature. @:D Wayne Johnson wrote: At 02:00 PM 1/20/2006, Thane Sherrington (S) typed: What? Pressure from MS? That's nuts! You don't think Steve might have heard from some MSFT atty's after that scathing article? If one makes false claims without documentation or without stating that this is my opinion then he certainly might have heard from their atty's. --+-- Wayne D. Johnson Ashland, OH, USA 44805 http://www.wavijo.com
Re: [H] Spontaneous Reboots because of my graphics card?
I vote for a Viking Funeral :-} fp At 01:08 AM 1/21/2006, Stan Zaske Poked the stick with: Sorry, you've been bitten by the Radeon bug which is a biological invader from another world characterized by its voracious desire to screw up your computing experience in preparation for world domination. I really hate to be the one to inform you of this bug but it also bit me in the form of a Sapphire Radeon 9600XT AGP 8X which did the same from day one on two separate mobo's. I thought I had solved the problem by reducing the AGP bus speed from 66 to 50 MHz but it finally breathed it's last breath last week (it died after extensive fragging by a local LANParty group dedicated to saving the Earth). My best advise is to repeat after me: Radeon sucks! Radeon sucks! and eventually this mantra will enable you to make peace with your life and enable you to let go of all the goals you ever hoped to accomplish. Or you could just RMA it. This email will self-destruct in 5...4...3...2... @:D j m g wrote: Folks, I've got an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128mb in an Asus A7N8XE-Deluxe, everything is almost working fine except that when I go to play a game Brothers In Arms, EE2 within a couple of minutes my machine will just power off, like pull the power cord off, not a gracefull shutdown, no warning, no blue screen, nothing. This is a recent starting event, I've cycled through no ati driver, catalyst, and omega's - no difference. Running WinXP SP2 on hardware that hasn't changed for a while, I've run multiple benchmark stuff, Prime95 for 24 hours and the machine doesn't hiccup. Any Ideas? The Radeon is still within ATI's 3 year warranty if just barely so I might just try and RMA it. TIA -- -jmg -sapere aude -- Tallyho ! ]:8) Taglines below ! -- A flying saucer results when a nudist spills his coffee.
Re: [H] Nutty Steve Gibson claims WMF bug was planted by Microsoft
Okay this is from the SysInternals writeup (very good btw, thanks for the link). Here is what Gibson based his conclusions on: 1. There is no need for WMF files to include support for the SetAbortProc API. 2. Even if an abort procedure is set by a WMF file, Windows shouldn't execute it unless some abort condition is triggered, which should never occur when executing a WMF file. 3. He could only get his WMF file's abort procedure to execute when he specified certain invalid values for the size of the record containing the SetAbortProc command. 4. Windows executes code embedded within the SetAbortProc record rather than expect the record to reference a procedure within the application executing the WMF file. Given that same sort of evidence I would have concluded the same exact thing. And I hope many of the other security professionals would have as well. SysInternals goes on to explain why some of Gibson's reasoning was incorrect, and I can see where he made his mistakes. But then there is this comment that follows the blog (one of many good ones): While I applaud your efforts to explain the *details* of this vulnerability (and nicely done too) and why it may have been allowed to exist, there's one point Gibson brought up you didn't cover: Why, if as you claim that this was seen as a 'feature' in days so long ago (Win 3.x) that code inside a .wmf file could rely upon 'hard-coded addresses when patches didn't exist,' did Microsoft make sure embedded-code-execution couldn't happen under Windows 9x (in fact adding extra code to keep it from ever doing so!) yet still allow it (or more correctly added it to?) their Windows NT series? Therefore, it seems at least one person in the 'NT development' dept. (who could have checked how Windows 9x handled .WMF files) chose to allow for arbitrary code execution instead. It's not a coding error: The 'mistake' was for Microsoft during many code reviews to allow it to continue that way in Win 2000, XP and beyond until an exploit finally made use of it! And this one: Mark, I don't claim to be the expert that either you or Steve Gibson are. I am fans of both and have been for many years. But there is one flaw in your argument that even I can spot. You stated, about the ability to run code inline with the SetAbortProc: The actual reason is lost with the original developer of the API, but my guess is that he or she was being as flexible as possible. That defines a back door. Code put in place by a developer that is not documented in the requirements or specifications! This may not be a back door intentionally placed by Microsoft, but it smells awfully much like a backdoor put in intentionally by someone at Microsoft. I completely agree. Gibson and the guy and SysInternals came up with the exact same results. One concluded that it was a backdoor, the other concluded that it was bad code written for an unkown reason, which could be exploited as a backdoor. IMHO, everyone who looks at this function and code knows what it is. Gibson is the only security expert with the balls to call it what everyone is thinking - a backdoor. And it's because you cannot prove it one way or the other. Everyone else doesn't want to risk the wrath of M$ unless they have proof. And even the term backdoor can be used differently. It's like the differnence betwen hacker and cracker. To us geeks there is a subtle but real difference between those camps. To the non-geek world they are exactly the same. I think the same semantics is at play here between the words badly coded feature and backdoor. The other thing I can't understand is why there seems to be a very vocal number of poeple out there who seem to use every single opportunity to bash and flame and destroy Gibson. I've been through all his stuff and I think the worst he can be accused of is sometimes going overboard on the ramifications of some of the problems he has found. -- Brian
Re: [H] Nutty Steve Gibson claims WMF bug was planted by Microsoft
I really don't get why folks like to bash Gibson. I've been reading this stuff for many years now. He's a good guy as far as I can see. He's also entertaining from a technical POV. Moreover, he doesn't seem to be a MS yes man, either. And when he points out stuff like this, which no one will ever be able to lay solid claim/blame for, at least there is some meaningful basis to his comments. As far as I can tell, he's definitely not nutty or and certinly not full of shit. Perhaps he's a bit like the boy who cries wolf, because he comes up with stuff that is potentially a big deal...but ends up not being so because of his efforts. Perhaps he should be elevated to some kind of PC sainthood. :) Brian Weeden wrote: Okay this is from the SysInternals writeup (very good btw, thanks for the link). Here is what Gibson based his conclusions on: 1. There is no need for WMF files to include support for the SetAbortProc API. 2. Even if an abort procedure is set by a WMF file, Windows shouldn't execute it unless some abort condition is triggered, which should never occur when executing a WMF file. 3. He could only get his WMF file's abort procedure to execute when he specified certain invalid values for the size of the record containing the SetAbortProc command. 4. Windows executes code embedded within the SetAbortProc record rather than expect the record to reference a procedure within the application executing the WMF file. Given that same sort of evidence I would have concluded the same exact thing. And I hope many of the other security professionals would have as well. SysInternals goes on to explain why some of Gibson's reasoning was incorrect, and I can see where he made his mistakes. But then there is this comment that follows the blog (one of many good ones): While I applaud your efforts to explain the *details* of this vulnerability (and nicely done too) and why it may have been allowed to exist, there's one point Gibson brought up you didn't cover: Why, if as you claim that this was seen as a 'feature' in days so long ago (Win 3.x) that code inside a .wmf file could rely upon 'hard-coded addresses when patches didn't exist,' did Microsoft make sure embedded-code-execution couldn't happen under Windows 9x (in fact adding extra code to keep it from ever doing so!) yet still allow it (or more correctly added it to?) their Windows NT series? Therefore, it seems at least one person in the 'NT development' dept. (who could have checked how Windows 9x handled .WMF files) chose to allow for arbitrary code execution instead. It's not a coding error: The 'mistake' was for Microsoft during many code reviews to allow it to continue that way in Win 2000, XP and beyond until an exploit finally made use of it! And this one: Mark, I don't claim to be the expert that either you or Steve Gibson are. I am fans of both and have been for many years. But there is one flaw in your argument that even I can spot. You stated, about the ability to run code inline with the SetAbortProc: The actual reason is lost with the original developer of the API, but my guess is that he or she was being as flexible as possible. That defines a back door. Code put in place by a developer that is not documented in the requirements or specifications! This may not be a back door intentionally placed by Microsoft, but it smells awfully much like a backdoor put in intentionally by someone at Microsoft. I completely agree. Gibson and the guy and SysInternals came up with the exact same results. One concluded that it was a backdoor, the other concluded that it was bad code written for an unkown reason, which could be exploited as a backdoor. IMHO, everyone who looks at this function and code knows what it is. Gibson is the only security expert with the balls to call it what everyone is thinking - a backdoor. And it's because you cannot prove it one way or the other. Everyone else doesn't want to risk the wrath of M$ unless they have proof. And even the term backdoor can be used differently. It's like the differnence betwen hacker and cracker. To us geeks there is a subtle but real difference between those camps. To the non-geek world they are exactly the same. I think the same semantics is at play here between the words badly coded feature and backdoor. The other thing I can't understand is why there seems to be a very vocal number of poeple out there who seem to use every single opportunity to bash and flame and destroy Gibson. I've been through all his stuff and I think the worst he can be accused of is sometimes going overboard on the ramifications of some of the problems he has found. -- Brian
Re: [H] Nutty Steve Gibson claims WMF bug was planted by Microsoft
I was dismayed about the spinrite (dis)info I found on grcsucks.com. Anthony Q. Martin wrote: I really don't get why folks like to bash Gibson. I've been reading -- Cheers, joeuser (still looking for the 'any' key)
Re: [H] Any MythTV users out there?
TW was just an easy example that it's being done and the hoops they might may you go through to get it. Notice it says you have to specifically ask for that box and they like stonewall without that info. Not to mention they don't do this in (any?) other TW markets. When I searched a few months ago for info on the Minnesota TW site there was no mention of 1394, period. The site I quoted was for their corporate headquarters region, no surprise they get it 1st. Let us know what happens! Wayne Johnson wrote: At 11:11 PM 1/19/2006, warpmedia typed: What is Time Warner Cable required to do to support 1394? Effective April 1, 2004, Time Warner Cable can replace any leased high definition box, which does not include a functional 1394 interface, with one that includes a functional 1394 interface. This new box is a special version of the Scientific Atlanta 3250 HD box and must requested by name. Unfortunately my cable co is not Time Warner the box is a Motorola DCT6412iii http://broadband.motorola.com/consumers/products/dct6412/ What you reference is old the link from slashdot goes to a FCC doc that is dated June 17, 2005 not April 1, 2004 as the article claims. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/part76.pdf but I see the quote word for word about half way thru that document from what I can tell there is nothing to the contrary in that document so I'll be giving my cable company a call. Thanks. --+-- Wayne D. Johnson Ashland, OH, USA 44805 http://www.wavijo.com
[H] ? Spyware or just wierd install..
Ok, I have a client who has a PC running XP Home (fine) they have Citrix agent installed to connect to work (also fine) but when they start Citrix agent, it automatically starts kill.exe and results in an error. I've scanned the registry for any prescence of kill.exe, I did find the file (kill.exe) renamed it as a test, and the software bombs on statup, saying it can't find kill.exe I've checked the PIF that links to it, no go. Scanned with Norton, TrendMicro, AntiVir, AVG McAfee. Scanned with Spybot SD, Ad-Aware, Microsoft Anti-Spyware. Nothing removed anywhere. Scanned from within the PC at boot from Bart. I'm running out of plausible ideas for anything ;) Anyone got something I may be missing?
Re: [H] Spontaneous Reboots because of my graphics card?
Sometimes increasing the AGP voltage a notch for stability is called for. My 9800pro is currently dead in mailer here, still awaiting me to ship it back to CW, sooner than later I'll get around to it. At 01:08 AM 1/21/2006, Stan Zaske Poked the stick with: I thought I had solved the problem by reducing the AGP bus speed from 66 to 50 MHz ...
Re: [H] ? Spyware or just wierd install..
Yep. -Original message- From: joeuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:29:49 -0600 To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] ? Spyware or just wierd install.. Try reinstalling the agent? CW wrote: Ok, I have a client who has a PC running XP Home (fine) they have Citrix agent installed to connect to work (also fine) but when they start Citrix agent, it automatically starts kill.exe and results in an error. I've scanned the registry for any prescence of kill.exe, I did find the file (kill.exe) renamed it as a test, and the software bombs on statup, saying it can't find kill.exe I've checked the PIF that links to it, no go. Scanned with Norton, TrendMicro, AntiVir, AVG McAfee. Scanned with Spybot SD, Ad-Aware, Microsoft Anti-Spyware. Nothing removed anywhere. Scanned from within the PC at boot from Bart. I'm running out of plausible ideas for anything ;) Anyone got something I may be missing? -- Cheers, joeuser (still looking for the 'any' key)
Re: [H] Any MythTV users out there?
At 05:56 PM 1/21/2006, warpmedia typed: TW was just an easy example that it's being done and the hoops they might may you go through to get it. Notice it says you have to specifically ask for that box and they like stonewall without that info. Not to mention they don't do this in (any?) other TW markets. When I searched a few months ago for info on the Minnesota TW site there was no mention of 1394, period. The site I quoted was for their corporate headquarters region, no surprise they get it 1st. Let us know what happens! I called the gal didn't even know what a firewire or 1394 port was for which doesn't surprise me because the installation technician didn't even know what size HD the thing had freely admitted that no one had asked before. The gal that I spoke to wanted to know what that thingy was used for I told her to add an external HD for playback later just as it has an internal HD. She sounded amazed that one could do such a thing stated that she would pass it on up to her supervisor that I could expect a call next week. Sure I can I'm holding my breathe as I wait too. --+-- Wayne D. Johnson Ashland, OH, USA 44805 http://www.wavijo.com
RE: [H] Any MythTV users out there?
At 08:21 PM 1/21/2006, Chris Reeves typed: Yeah, Time Warner here has told me that have suspended all distribution of 1394 devices and carry none. The tech I spoke to said copyright issues prevent them from allowing units with turned on 1394 ports; therefore, I have a Scientific Atlanta unit which has firewire ports.. that are dead as a doornail. This is what I don't comprehend. Why is ok for me to save to an internal HD for playback later not to an external HD for playback later? Wouldn't both situations be a copyright issue ? Heck I can take the external coax out plug that into a stand alone dvd recorder just as easily as I can a TV. I wonder if we'll still be able to that with the new stand alone bluray or hd dvd recorders tho. --+-- Wayne D. Johnson Ashland, OH, USA 44805 http://www.wavijo.com
RE: [H] Any MythTV users out there?
*laugh* yeah, I think that too.. but realize, even in the open releases, Vista and other things coming down the pipe require an HDMI interface on the monitor to put out recorded HDTV conent.. *shrug* so, it's almost a no win There is nothing, and I mean -nothing- coming down the pike I've seen from anyone that can capture from component and do spit with it. I actually would think there would be a better chance of capturing from DVI, but I haven't found anything that does that either ;) Someone just needs to come up with a nice, external DVI-to-1394 Converter ;) CW -- FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM! Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter http://mail.giantcompany.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardware- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wayne Johnson Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 9:45 PM To: The Hardware List Subject: RE: [H] Any MythTV users out there? At 08:21 PM 1/21/2006, Chris Reeves typed: Yeah, Time Warner here has told me that have suspended all distribution of 1394 devices and carry none. Like I stated before I wonder if anyone makes a capture card that accepts component inputs then lets see the complaints about copyright infringement. ;-) --+-- Wayne D. Johnson Ashland, OH, USA 44805 http://www.wavijo.com
Re: [H] Any MythTV users out there?
The difference is that the content owners can control (theoretically) what's inside the box. Once its out, they cant control it. The content owners have always hated the consumer's ability to make copies using a cassette tape or VCR or whatever. But they were always inferior to the original so it wasn't a big deal. The copyright laws were made with the copies for personal use and backups written in, which was then uphelf by the Betamax decision. That is why we can do what we currently can. Now, exact digital copies can be made over and over equal to the source. And at the same time, the content owners now have the ability to control the format. So they are now trying to push legistlation to close the analog hole which, coupled with the DMCA, effectively will lock down the content and put it under their complete control. Until the consumer backlash and boycott hits, and DVD Jon cracks it :) -- Brian
