I love that program!
Thanks for bringing it back to me! I just downloaded it again!
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
I looked at a few sites including this site. Where is it available?
I used to use EndItAll but switched over to SmartClose. It is more configurable and I don't have to pay PC's fee.
Find here: http://bmproductions.fixnum.org/index.htm?http://bmproductions.fixnum.org/smartclose/index.htm#downloads
Find here: http://bmproductions.fixnum.org/index.htm?http://bmproductions.fixnum.org/smartclose/index.htm#downloads
Anything you do to a slower, less capable machine will also speed up a newer, more beefed-up machine.
And most of this set concerns securing the OS against hackers, which is a very excellent idea.
And most of this set concerns securing the OS against hackers, which is a very excellent idea.
(NOTE: Much of the following may seem irrelevant to the preceding post. This is because the person who posted it edited what he said after I responded, eliminating much of the context.)
The article's point had little or nothing to do with system performance concerns. A couple of people who have responded to you already pointed out that there are security concerns as well as performance concerns at issue. I'll make that point a little more directly:
The entire point of the article is to provide people with information they can use to increase system security. Performance was not a primary concern here in part because this is TechRepublic's IT Security blog, but more because, all else being equal, security is more important than performance. The best reason to turn off simple file sharing has nothing to do with eking out a few extra clock cycles from your CPU for tasks you want to complete quickly, and everything to do with keeping unauthorized outsiders from accessing your filesystem network shares and gaining a foothold on your computer that can be used to escalate privileges and wreak havoc you probably haven't even considered possible yet.
Please go read the article again, and take careful note of the reasoning behind shutting down unneeded services on your MS Windows machines. This is not about getting better frame rates in World of Warcraft (though that's a benefit of shutting down unnecessary processes too), but about protecting yourself, your system resources, and your data from malicious security crackers.
The article's point had little or nothing to do with system performance concerns. A couple of people who have responded to you already pointed out that there are security concerns as well as performance concerns at issue. I'll make that point a little more directly:
The entire point of the article is to provide people with information they can use to increase system security. Performance was not a primary concern here in part because this is TechRepublic's IT Security blog, but more because, all else being equal, security is more important than performance. The best reason to turn off simple file sharing has nothing to do with eking out a few extra clock cycles from your CPU for tasks you want to complete quickly, and everything to do with keeping unauthorized outsiders from accessing your filesystem network shares and gaining a foothold on your computer that can be used to escalate privileges and wreak havoc you probably haven't even considered possible yet.
Please go read the article again, and take careful note of the reasoning behind shutting down unneeded services on your MS Windows machines. This is not about getting better frame rates in World of Warcraft (though that's a benefit of shutting down unnecessary processes too), but about protecting yourself, your system resources, and your data from malicious security crackers.
IPSEC is another service you can turn off if you do not use IPSEC VPN. Also Wireless configurations/services if you do not have a wireless card.
I wholeheartedly agree with you on disabling the Wireless service.
In my early adoption of XP (pre-service packs) my computer had both wired and wireless connections available, but I was connected via Ethernet. During some problems I was experiencing I found that someone had been using my wireless to gain free internet access until I disabled it! Of course I could have done other things to secure my wireless connection, but since I wasn't using it there was no need to let it eat resources.
The current security model (post - SP2) configurations keep intruders out, but still, if you're not using it, why keep it?
In my early adoption of XP (pre-service packs) my computer had both wired and wireless connections available, but I was connected via Ethernet. During some problems I was experiencing I found that someone had been using my wireless to gain free internet access until I disabled it! Of course I could have done other things to secure my wireless connection, but since I wasn't using it there was no need to let it eat resources.
The current security model (post - SP2) configurations keep intruders out, but still, if you're not using it, why keep it?
but of course if your using WPA2 and implementing it properly no one should be horning in on your connection. But of course as you said you don't need it.
With wireless becoming so ubiquitous now there will be fewer and fewer people who do not use wireless. Even wireless router/firewalls are getting cheaper than wired models.
With wireless becoming so ubiquitous now there will be fewer and fewer people who do not use wireless. Even wireless router/firewalls are getting cheaper than wired models.
I have no vested interest in either. I use Crap Cleaner for regular maintainence and to clean up stuff like hotfix installers. I use XP Lite to remove Internet explorer and the IE Html engine from Windows completely once I install Firevox. I also remove Windows media and use VLC for video playback. You can also try Nlite to remove things from Windows
The only problem with your solution is that there are an incredible number of applications that use the IE html engine to display help and other information in their window panes.
Your solution would require spending a great deal of time finding alternatives to anything that required the html engine, no?
Your solution would require spending a great deal of time finding alternatives to anything that required the html engine, no?
Believe it or not, there are sites all over the Internet that are still coded to only work properly using IE. This is criminal, IMO, but using IE-Tab in Firefox is pretty handy. Programs that force-load MSIE ought to be banned, though.
CCleaner is a good tool, yes. Nlite and XP Lite I've not heard of before today.
I agree that VLC is a useful (and powerful!) video player, though. I've seen it play things no other video player would touch, allowing me to preview the file as it came across, often allowing me to determine if the rest was worth downloading. In many cases, that's a definite no, especially since most video files are large even by today's standards.
CCleaner is a good tool, yes. Nlite and XP Lite I've not heard of before today.
I agree that VLC is a useful (and powerful!) video player, though. I've seen it play things no other video player would touch, allowing me to preview the file as it came across, often allowing me to determine if the rest was worth downloading. In many cases, that's a definite no, especially since most video files are large even by today's standards.
I would patch the machine even if I didn't use IE because maleware can use Explorer to initiate code execution; it doesn't aways need a functional Internet Explorer to do this.
I don't know if you can use Windows patch installers downloaded manually and saved to a file to install security patches to the OS without IE or not; don't remember trying it.. I do prefer using a service pack disk or any method other that going out on the internet to do it.
I don't know if you can use Windows patch installers downloaded manually and saved to a file to install security patches to the OS without IE or not; don't remember trying it.. I do prefer using a service pack disk or any method other that going out on the internet to do it.
I have had several installs fail without the Remote Registry service running. Even in the "Manual" state, it won't be started.
So, before you shoot yourself in the foot, make certain to take note of why future application installs may fail with no decent error message as to why.
So, before you shoot yourself in the foot, make certain to take note of why future application installs may fail with no decent error message as to why.
Poorly-written installer, then, or you're doing something funky that makes the installer think you're installing across a network. My suspicion is the former more than the latter. I have run into programs that, for some unknown reason, will not run at all unless you're in administrator mode. Again, really, really poor design, since any properly-coded program should run (in some capacity) even in Limited-User accounts. To help secure my network, I run as many of my XP machines as either Limited-User (if it's to be used by my nephews or other not-so-knowledgable people or Power User for when I'm using the machine in question.
If it needs the remote registry service to install, don't install it.
It's either bent or crap.
That goes on my list right next to.
If this web site isn't functional please turn your firewall off.
If there was a real need for an install to use remote registry and I was writing an installer. I'd check for it. Put up a message with the fault, and explain very carefully why it was required and the potential downside of doing so.
Actually that goes for any service any program is dependant on, I despise installers that only 'work on my machine'. If they are that slipshod, what other glaring errors are in there.
It's either bent or crap.
That goes on my list right next to.
If this web site isn't functional please turn your firewall off.
If there was a real need for an install to use remote registry and I was writing an installer. I'd check for it. Put up a message with the fault, and explain very carefully why it was required and the potential downside of doing so.
Actually that goes for any service any program is dependant on, I despise installers that only 'work on my machine'. If they are that slipshod, what other glaring errors are in there.
and if we couldn't upgrade or patch an application to work in restricted mode; we changed brands/vendors.
We even had to trash an expensive data base that had been purchased a fews years earlier because the company refused to work with us. It was a major project to migrate out of that mess, but there was no choice to stay HIPAA compliant.
We also had lot of fuffled feathers after all our "power users" lost their priveleges. But you know what? - No more problems!(either)
We even had to trash an expensive data base that had been purchased a fews years earlier because the company refused to work with us. It was a major project to migrate out of that mess, but there was no choice to stay HIPAA compliant.
We also had lot of fuffled feathers after all our "power users" lost their priveleges. But you know what? - No more problems!(either)
Oh I'm a manager, therefore a power user, therefore I should have more access than some lowly tech....
I think it was a mistake to call them privileges....
I think it was a mistake to call them privileges....
The problem we are experiencing is that when you turn of 'Simple File Sharing' then reboot it is turned on again. Any help on this would be appreciated
Are you using XP Professional? How exactly are you shutting it off? How are you checking to see if it is still running? Is this a personal system over which you have sole control, or does someone else have access to it? Does this happen if you unplug the network cable, then turn off simple file sharing, then reboot the system?
The fact that "simple file sharing" is turning itself back on is certainly not expected behavior. The problem is figuring out why it is misbehaving (or whether it's behaving, but someone else is misbehaving in some manner).
The fact that "simple file sharing" is turning itself back on is certainly not expected behavior. The problem is figuring out why it is misbehaving (or whether it's behaving, but someone else is misbehaving in some manner).
Hi Brad, are you operating in a security domain (with an AD)? If so, then there is probably a default Group Policy Administrative template value that is resetting the PC File Sharing parameter.
Check the "Default Domain Policy" settings:
ComputerConfig-WindowsSettings-SecuritySetting=LocalPolicy-SecurityOptions. Set the "Network Access: Sharing and Security model for local accounts" to "Classic - local users authentica as themselves".
Once the GPO is pushed to the workstation it wil always collect this setting at startup.
Check the "Default Domain Policy" settings:
ComputerConfig-WindowsSettings-SecuritySetting=LocalPolicy-SecurityOptions. Set the "Network Access: Sharing and Security model for local accounts" to "Classic - local users authentica as themselves".
Once the GPO is pushed to the workstation it wil always collect this setting at startup.
If you are a web developer, i think you should not disable IIS
I Have to take issue with one of the services Chad discusses. The Universal Plug and Play is not the ubiquitous Plug and Pray service used for hardware installation. Upnp is used to identify networked devices, usually routers etc, so that a common set of protocols can be configured (by UPnP) so that the end user doesn't need to dirty their hands with router configs and firewall settings.
True, UPnP is dangerous if left to its own devices, or worse left to a Worm or trojan to configure. I don't take issue with disabling the service, just the reason given.
True, UPnP is dangerous if left to its own devices, or worse left to a Worm or trojan to configure. I don't take issue with disabling the service, just the reason given.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
