RE: Windows 2000 ERD
Title: RE: Windows 2000 ERD Be careful, this code is buggy. If you don't insert a floppy in time, it goes haywire. Even if you insert the floppy, if it takes longer than the code expects, it goes haywire. The code relies on SendKeys and assumed delays to perform a given operation. Almost always a risky approach to use in general. Best Regards, JMU Jim Underwood Apollo Information Systems, Inc. Houston, TX 77058 EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Bill Higgins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 10:08 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 2000 ERD http://www.windows2000faq.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=16150 One of the things I really miss from NT 4.0 is rdisk /s- but the above link has a script you can use to do the same thing http://www.sunbelt-software.com/ntsysadmin_list_charter.htm
RE: HP to Acquire Compaq in $25B Deal
Interesting articles at www.infoworld.com: HP, Compaq target enterprise, services markets in $25 billion acquisition Merger highlights role of HP's Fiorina While the merger may not guarantee an improvement in sales/performance, does anyone see a downside to the merger (other than HP/Compaq employees who will lose their job when duplicate positions are eliminated)? Do you expect the merger to provide better products and services? Best Regards, JMU http://www.sunbelt-software.com/ntsysadmin_list_charter.htm
RE: HP to Acquire Compaq in $25B Deal
HP has posted a press release on their web site, calling it a merger: http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/04sep01a.htm JMU -Original Message-From: Jim Underwood Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 11:36 PMTo: NT System Admin IssuesSubject: HP to Acquire Compaq in $25B Deal In case you haven't heard, HP will announce on Tue 9/4 that they will acquire Compaq in a $25B deal. According to the NY Times, both boards have approved the deal. Here's the story reported by the NY times: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/04/technology/04DEAL.html Best Regards, JMU Jim UnderwoodApollo Information Systems, Inc.Houston, TX 77058 EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunbelt-software.com/ntsysadmin_list_charter.htm http://www.sunbelt-software.com/ntsysadmin_list_charter.htm
HP to Acquire Compaq in $25B Deal
In case you haven't heard, HP will announce on Tue 9/4 that they will acquire Compaq in a $25B deal. According to the NY Times, both boards have approved the deal. Here's the story reported by the NY times: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/04/technology/04DEAL.html Best Regards, JMU Jim UnderwoodApollo Information Systems, Inc.Houston, TX 77058 EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunbelt-software.com/ntsysadmin_list_charter.htm
RE: Need KB DB Integration Tool
Hi Warren, Thanks for the suggestion of Opentext LiveLink. I checked out their web site, even went thru the demo. Looks like a very cool product that really integrates all activities in a company. But I think it's overkill for what I have in mind. I'm looking for something much simpler, and probably much less expensive. Best Regards, JMU http://www.sunbelt-software.com/ntsysadmin_list_charter.htm
Need KB DB Integration Tool
Greetings all, THE PROBLEM Today we receive many great articles, tips, suggestions, and best practices from a variety of sources, in a variety of formats that are applicable for a variety of OSs and applications. Some of these apply to only one OS or app. Some apply to several. Currently these "articles" are stored in several different places: Exchange Server PFs, NT/W2K Server folders, IE favorites. I'm looking for a tool that will provide a single repository for all KB info regardless of its original source. If anyone knows of a tool that comes close to the below requirements, please let me know. THE SOLUTION (I hope) Ideally, it would provide the following: A single DB in which to store all KB information that is pertinent to our organization Easily add new "articles" from any source: EMail from Internet lists like this one Newsgroups URLs of manufacturer's KB article Manual entries based on our own experience Other? Fields for tracking Applicable OSs, Source, Date, application A way to assign multiple categories to a given "article" Fields for tracking which clients and machines are involved (if appropriate) A query/search interface that can be based on more than just text --- includes the fields referenced above. A web interface so that we can get to this (at least the query/search part) from anywhere The key is that it must be easy to use. It should automate as much of the data entry as possible. TIA. Best Regards, JMU Jim UnderwoodApollo Information Systems, Inc.Houston, TX 77058 EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunbelt-software.com/ntsysadmin_list_charter.htm
Security Hotfixes Needed -- MPSA vs HFNetChk show big difference
Greetings to all: I need some help in interpreting the results of two different MSFT security tools: 1. MPSA - Microsoft Personal Security Advisor at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/mpsa/start.asp 2. HFNetChk - Microsoft Network Security Hotfix Checker at http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q303/2/15.asp I am getting very different results on a NT4 SP6a PDC Server. Before I give you the results, let me own up to a couple of things: 1. I know I've been lax in keeping up with security hotfixes -- but I'm trying to get up to date now. 2. I know the MPSA states that it should NOT be used on a server, but I thought it would be interesting to see the results since the output is more readable. The HFNetChk report shows that there are 9 hotfixes possibly not applied. The MPSA report shows that there are 25 hotfixes not applied. How can there be such a large difference? Is the MPSA just a bogus report since "it should not be used on a server"? Should I just use the HTNetChk and not worry about the MPSA results? Environment: NT4 SP6a Server, PDC IIS4 Exchange Server 5.5 SP4 HP NetServer LC2 192MB RAM 27GB total HD space, 5GB free Single server used for small office, 10 users Here are the reports: === HFNetChk === WINDOWS NT4 SP6a WARNING MS99-036 Q155197WARNING MS99-041 Q242294Patch NOT Found MS00-081 Q277014WARNING MS01-022 Q296441WARNING MS01-041 Q299444 Internet Information Server 4.0 WARNING MS99-025 Q184375WARNING MS00-025 Q259799WARNING MS00-028 Q260267WARNING MS01-044 Q301625= == MPSA == MS00-003 Spoofed LPC Port Request Vulnerability MS00-004 RDISK Registry Enumeration File Vulnerability MS00-005 Malformed RTF Control Word Vulnerability MS00-007 Recycle Bin Creation Vulnerability MS00-021 Malformed TCP/IP Print Request Vulnerability MS00-027 Malformed Environment Variable Vulnerability MS00-029 IP Fragment Reassembly Vulnerability MS00-036 ResetBrowser Frame and Host Announcement Frame Vulnerabilities MS00-040 Remote Registry Access Authentication Vulnerability MS00-047 NetBIOS Name Server Protocol Spoofing Vulnerability MS00-052 Relative Shell Path Vulnerability MS00-063 Invalid URL Vulnerability MS00-070 Multiple LPC and LPC Ports Vulnerabilities MS00-081 New Variant of VM File Reading Vulnerability MS00-091 Incomplete TCP/IP Packet Vulnerability MS00-095 Registry Permissions Vulnerability MS01-003 Weak Permissions on Winsock Mutex Can Allow Service Failure MS01-008 Malformed NTLMSSP Request Can Enable Code to Run with System Privileges MS01-009 Malformed PPTP Packet Stream Can Cause Kernel Exhaustion MS01-041 Malformed RPC Request Can Cause Service Failure MS99-046 Improve TCP Initial Sequence Number Randomness MS99-047 Malformed Spooler Request Vulnerability MS99-055 Malformed Resource Enumeration Argument Vulnerability MS99-056 Syskey Keystream Reuse Vulnerability MS99-057 Malformed Security Identifier Request Vulnerability == TIA. Best Regards, JMU Jim UnderwoodApollo Information Systems, Inc.Houston, TX 77058 EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunbelt-software.com/ntsysadmin_list_charter.htm
RE: Guidelines for W2K Pro PageFile Size
Thanks for the feedback. So is there any penalty for having a PF too large? Other than wasting disk space of course. For my case of 512MB RAM with two SCSI drives, I'm thinking of setting min/max on both drives to 768MB for now. This gives a total of 1536 (3x RAM). If I get pressed for disk space later, I can always invest more time in a Perfmon analysis. Anything wrong with this approach? Best Regards, JMU Jim UnderwoodApollo Information Systems, Inc.Houston, TX 77058 EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message-From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 3:56 PMTo: NT System Admin IssuesSubject: RE: Guidelines for W2K Pro PageFile Size The main reason to set the pagefile to a static size is so that you don't incur a performance penalty as it grows. Of course, depending on what you do, you may never even reach the 768MB number, so it might be a moot point. I prefer static. Win2K likes a larger Pagefile, and the default is 1.5x to 3x of RAM. Perfmon is still the best way to figure out what you need... == ASB - http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/?File=~MoreInfo.TXT == "Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -- Douglas Adams -Original Message-From: Jim Underwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 3:57 PMTo: NT System Admin IssuesSubject: Guidelines for W2K Pro PageFile Size I'm looking for guidelines/recommendations for setting the pagefile size on a W2K Pro SP2 machine. My guideline for NT used to be to set both MIN and MAX = (2 * PhysicalRAM) + 16 I just bought 512MB SDRAM (only $80!!! for 2 Kingston 256M ECC sticks) , so this works out to be quite a good size pagefile: 1040 Interestingly enough, the W2K default setting is 768 - 1536. So, for W2K is it still best to set MIN and MAX to the same value? Is there a formula that's best to use? Or is it best to let W2K set it's own values? I know about setting the location of the pagefile: -- Only one PF per physical disk -- Create separate PFs on separate physical disks -- Best on non-RAID or RAID 1 -- Avoid putting on RAID 5 Best Regards, JMU Jim UnderwoodApollo Information Systems, Inc.Houston, TX 77058 EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunbelt-software.com/ntsysadmin_list_charter.htm http://www.sunbelt-software.com/ntsysadmin_list_charter.htm
Guidelines for W2K Pro PageFile Size
I'm looking for guidelines/recommendations for setting the pagefile size on a W2K Pro SP2 machine. My guideline for NT used to be to set both MIN and MAX = (2 * PhysicalRAM) + 16 I just bought 512MB SDRAM (only $80!!! for 2 Kingston 256M ECC sticks) , so this works out to be quite a good size pagefile: 1040 Interestingly enough, the W2K default setting is 768 - 1536. So, for W2K is it still best to set MIN and MAX to the same value? Is there a formula that's best to use? Or is it best to let W2K set it's own values? I know about setting the location of the pagefile: -- Only one PF per physical disk -- Create separate PFs on separate physical disks -- Best on non-RAID or RAID 1 -- Avoid putting on RAID 5 Best Regards, JMU Jim UnderwoodApollo Information Systems, Inc.Houston, TX 77058 EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunbelt-software.com/ntsysadmin_list_charter.htm
