Digital BW, The Print

My Windows updater prompted me today that Service Pack 2 is now 
available for installation. I have not yet installed SP2, wanting to 
check with the Digital Darkroom community first. Have any of you out 
there that have installed SP2 had any issues since installation? Any 
problems with Photoshop, plug-ins, scanner and/or printer drivers? 
Any other issues I should be looking out for? Recommendations or 
suggestions? Thanks.

Never got that far...first it trashed my boot disk, then I recovered from
that and tried it again. This time it ran into a looped dialog box saying it
couldn't find a file. When I clicked ok the same dialog popped back up. This
continued until I did a hard reboot. Luckily, it recovered (99.999% still
have an issue with the dynamic bios updater) and I was able to uninstall SP2
and then reinstall all (99.999% - see above) services and devices.

I reported the details to MS - so we'll see if there's any action /
re-action.

I have installed SP2 on Win XP platform on 3 machines without incident. I run a RIP, 2 large format printers(Epson) and 2 small desktop printers(Epson & Canon) ,2 scanners and both firewire and USB(1 & 2) devices.So far so good.Installed about 3 weeks ago.


--
Frank 
Francis James Mares Photography


-------------- Original message from "Jeff Moore" : -------------- 

> 
> My Windows updater prompted me today that Service Pack 2 is now 
> available for installation. I have not yet installed SP2, wanting to 
> check with the Digital Darkroom community first. Have any of you out 
> there that have installed SP2 had any issues since installation? Any 
> problems with Photoshop, plug-ins, scanner and/or printer drivers? 
> Any other issues I should be looking out for? Recommendations or 
> suggestions? Thanks. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they 
> are often being updated. 
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint 
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page. 
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines: 
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them 
> short. 
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, 
> aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without 
> notice. 
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W 
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the 
> membership. 
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, 
> and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See 
> �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines� in the Files section: 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/ 
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! 
> GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF 
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, 
> INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT 
> NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER 
> INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR 
> DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP. 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I've installed it on 3 desktops and 2 portables, without any problem other 
than the latest Flashplayer wouldn't install direct from their website. But 
that is the sort of thing it is meant to prevent happening without your 
permission.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <fjmcsu@...>



I have installed SP2 on Win XP platform on 3 machines without incident. I 
run a RIP, 2 large format printers(Epson) and 2 small desktop printers(Epson 
& Canon) ,2 scanners and both firewire and USB(1 & 2) devices.So far so 
good.Installed about 3 weeks ago.

>
> My Windows updater prompted me today that Service Pack 2 is now
> available for installation. I have not yet installed SP2, wanting to
> check with the Digital Darkroom community first. Have any of you out
> there that have installed SP2 had any issues since installation? Any
> problems with Photoshop, plug-ins, scanner and/or printer drivers?
> Any other issues I should be looking out for? Recommendations or
> suggestions? Thanks.

I have not installed it myself and don't presently intend to - I see no need
as I consider my computer secure, and SP2 is primarily designed to heighten
security for Win XP.

Be sure to back up EVERYTHING first, and to set a new Restore point in
Windows Restore, or the equivalent if you're using GoBack.

Be sure to read all of MS's instructions for installing and setting up SP2
before you do it - there should be a hyperlink on the update page, or if not
then go to

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/default.mspx

Most people whose posts I have read had little or not trouble installing
SP2, though there have been some horror stories similar to Bill's.

Maris

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Jeff Moore
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 12:43 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Windows XP Service Pack 2


My Windows updater prompted me today that Service Pack 2 is now
available for installation. I have not yet installed SP2, wanting to
check with the Digital Darkroom community first. Have any of you out
there that have installed SP2 had any issues since installation? Any
problems with Photoshop, plug-ins, scanner and/or printer drivers?
Any other issues I should be looking out for? Recommendations or
suggestions? Thanks.

Hi Jeff,

I've updated both my desktop and laptop to XP2. On the desktop, I run PS with a bunch of plugins and automation tools (e.g., Photokit Sharpener), Ai6 for scanning, C1 for raw file conversion, IP 5.6 for printing, and many other tools. No issues with anything...so far.

Alan Huntley

> 
> From: "Jeff Moore" <jeffmoore17@...>
> Date: 2004/09/23 Thu PM 01:43:14 EDT
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Windows XP Service Pack 2
> 
> 
> My Windows updater prompted me today that Service Pack 2 is now 
> available for installation. I have not yet installed SP2, wanting to 
> check with the Digital Darkroom community first. Have any of you out 
> there that have installed SP2 had any issues since installation? Any 
> problems with Photoshop, plug-ins, scanner and/or printer drivers? 
> Any other issues I should be looking out for? Recommendations or 
> suggestions? Thanks.

I installed it once and my system became unsuable. I needed to format my HH. I reinstalled it a second time and it ended the same. May be SP 200000000 will be good !

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jeff Moore 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 7:43 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Windows XP Service Pack 2


  My Windows updater prompted me today that Service Pack 2 is now 
  available for installation. I have not yet installed SP2, wanting to 
  check with the Digital Darkroom community first. Have any of you out 
  there that have installed SP2 had any issues since installation? Any 
  problems with Photoshop, plug-ins, scanner and/or printer drivers? 
  Any other issues I should be looking out for? Recommendations or 
  suggestions? Thanks.



  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
  - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
  - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

  BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Yahoo! Groups Links

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Famous last words?

bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Maris V. Lidaka Sr." <mlidaka@...>


I have not installed it myself and don't presently intend to - I see no need
as I consider my computer secure,

Jeff Moore writes:

> My Windows updater prompted me today that Service Pack 2 is now
> available for installation.

If your current configuration is running fine and does what you need,
you don't need SP2.  Blindly updating just because someone or something
tells you to do so is a recipe for disaster.  Never fix something that
isn't broken.

Bob Frost writes:

> Famous last words?

Smart words, actually.  Every experienced sysadmin knows that you don't
fix things that aren't broken, and you definitely don't ever update
anything unless you absolutely, positively have no choice.

OK can we bang this one on the head right here.  Some have done the update
without issues and some with.  None appear to be directly related to B&W
Photography.  I suggest that the person who initiated this thread has enough
to go on.... :-)

> From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 21:30:39 +0200
> To: Bob Frost <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Windows XP Service Pack 2
> 
> Bob Frost writes:
> 
>> Famous last words?
> 
> Smart words, actually.  Every experienced sysadmin knows that you don't
> fix things that aren't broken, and you definitely don't ever update
> anything unless you absolutely, positively have no choice.
>

I'm of the same thoughts.  I have run a separate firewall (which
checks for both ingoing and outgoing communication) for as far back as
I can remember and have run all the tools and passed all the tests on
Gibson Research site (www.grc.com) which look for most
vulnerabilities.  I feel pretty safe.

Richard

----- Original Message -----
From: Anthony G. Atkielski <anthony@...>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 21:29:20 +0200
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Windows XP Service Pack 2
To: Jeff Moore <digitalblackandwhitetheprint@yahoogroups.com>

Jeff Moore writes:

> My Windows updater prompted me today that Service Pack 2 is now
> available for installation.

If your current configuration is running fine and does what you need,
you don't need SP2.  Blindly updating just because someone or something
tells you to do so is a recipe for disaster.  Never fix something that
isn't broken.

Anthony,

But Windows is broken! It was/is riddled with security holes, which account 
for the vast majority of virus infections and most of the spam that we 
receive. The updates are to cure these problems and to try and rid us of 
viruses, trojans, and spam. I've been updating XP on several computers ever 
since it came out with the weekly/monthly updates and have had no problems 
at all with them. My spam level has reduced drastically since installing 
SP2.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>

Blindly updating just because someone or something
tells you to do so is a recipe for disaster.  Never fix something that
isn't broken.

So you are still using Photoshop 2 are you? And you won't be wanting 
ImagePrint 6, I suppose (back ontopic), or any of QImage's hundreds of 
updates, or Epson updated drivers, etc, etc. And you definitely won't be 
wanting an updated camera, will you?

I know it is the B&W list, but there are hundreds of shades of gray in 
between the two extremes!

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>

 and you definitely don't ever update
anything unless you absolutely, positively have no choice.

Do not touch it with a barge pole unless you back up everything first... 
Obvious I know but I'm leaving well alone myself and staying as I am 
thanks...
My distrust of MS has left me loathe to dabble and I'e spent too long 
getting the "auld faithfull" rebuilt, upgraded and running sweetly 
thanks very much...


Jeff Moore wrote:

>My Windows updater prompted me today that Service Pack 2 is now 
>available for installation. I have not yet installed SP2, wanting to 
>check with the Digital Darkroom community first. Have any of you out 
>there that have installed SP2 had any issues since installation? Any 
>problems with Photoshop, plug-ins, scanner and/or printer drivers? 
>Any other issues I should be looking out for? Recommendations or 
>suggestions? Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
>- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
>- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the Files section:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>

No problems at all.

But clean up first.
Do run your virus checker
and
Do run you adware checker

and defragment and all the good stuff to ensure you have a clean 
system; release the multiple levels of recovery etc

If you try to install on top of a mess, guess what you will get!!

...John

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Moore" 
<jeffmoore17@c...> wrote:
> My Windows updater prompted me today that Service Pack 2 is now 
> available for installation. I have not yet installed SP2, wanting 
to 
> check with the Digital Darkroom community first. Have any of you 
out 
> there that have installed SP2 had any issues since installation? 
Any 

> problems with Photoshop, plug-ins, scanner and/or printer drivers? 
> Any other issues I should be looking out for? Recommendations or 
> suggestions? Thanks.

I got the free CD at Staples. No problems. It took about 50 minutes for the 
software
to make backups and do the installation. Everything was performed with no input 
from me
other than to get it started... so you can go have lunch while it does its 
thing.

...snip...
Any other issues I should be looking out for? Recommendations or
suggestions? Thanks.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bob Frost writes:

> But Windows is broken!

XP has worked fine for me for years, and I need it to continue doing so
for my photo and other work.  Goofing around with updates would thus be
completely illogical for me.

> It was/is riddled with security holes ...

Windows XP is one of the most secure PC operating systems available,
since it is built on the NT code base.  I've never had a security
problem with it.

> ... which account for the vast majority of virus infections and most
> of the spam that we receive.

People who send spam account for the spam; it has nothing to do with
security.  And people who are stupid enough to click on attachments
account for the virus infections, which again has very little to do with
OS security.  Most of both occur on Windows because virtually everyone
runs Windows.

> The updates are to cure these problems and to try and rid us of
> viruses, trojans, and spam.

I don't have these problems, so I don't need a cure.

> I've been updating XP on several computers ever
> since it came out with the weekly/monthly updates and have had no problems
> at all with them. My spam level has reduced drastically since installing
> SP2.

Microsoft thanks you, I'm sure.  I can't afford that kind of risk
myself.

Bob Frost writes:

> So you are still using Photoshop 2 are you?

I use Photoshop 5.02 for all my photo work (and for anything else that
requires manipulating bitmapped images).  I stopped updating because the
5.02 version does everything I require, and as I've previously
mentioned, prudence dictates that one not update something that isn't
broken, as long as it does what one requires.

The current version of Photoshop corrupts the boot sectors on your disk
as part of its brain-dead activation code.  I'm very glad I didn't waste
money on that.

> And you won't be wanting ImagePrint 6, I suppose (back ontopic),
> or any of QImage's hundreds of updates, or Epson updated
> drivers, etc, etc.

Right.

> And you definitely won't be wanting an updated camera,
> will you?

Some of the cameras I use have had the same design for half a century,
so I don't need an "updated camera," whatever that is.

> I know it is the B&W list, but there are hundreds of shades of gray in
> between the two extremes!

I see computers and cameras and printers as tools, not as ends in
themselves.  I like to spend my time taking pictures, not updating
software or struggling to fix the mess made when I update software.  And
I don't see any reason to continue making Adobe or Microsoft rich by
buying expensive software that I don't need, especially when it contains
intrusive code that interferes with the safe and reliable operation of
my computers and dramatically increases the risk of downtime that will
prevent me from doing the work that I prefer to do.

Maris V. Lidaka Sr. wrote:

>I have not installed it myself and don't presently intend to - I see no need
>as I consider my computer secure, and SP2 is primarily designed to heighten
>security for Win XP.
>
>  
>
The only problem is that after April 2005 the upgrade will not be 
preventable on any PC hooked up to the net..

<http://www.winnetmag.com/windowspaulthurrott/Article/ArticleID/43900/windowspaulthurrott_43900.html>


Keith

 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:

>Bob Frost writes:
>
>  
>
>>But Windows is broken!
>>    
>>
>
>XP has worked fine for me for years, and I need it to continue doing so
>for my photo and other work.  Goofing around with updates would thus be
>completely illogical for me.
>
>  
>
It doesn't matter, after April 12, 2005 you WILL upgrade... "Resistance 
is futile..."

>>... which account for the vast majority of virus infections and most
>>of the spam that we receive.
>>    
>>
>
>People who send spam account for the spam; it has nothing to do with
>security.
>
Wrong, a huge percentage of SPAM these days  is broadcast from Zombie 
machines hooked up to DSL or Cable.

That's why many ISP's now routinely block port 25, 80, and 100 requests 
that are not intranetwork..

>  
>
>>The updates are to cure these problems and to try and rid us of
>>viruses, trojans, and spam.
>>    
>>
>
>I don't have these problems, so I don't need a cure.
>
>  
>
It doesn't matter, you have no choice.  :-)   "We are Borg.."

>>I've been updating XP on several computers ever
>>since it came out with the weekly/monthly updates and have had no problems
>>at all with them. My spam level has reduced drastically since installing
>>SP2.
>>    
>>
>
>Microsoft thanks you, I'm sure.  I can't afford that kind of risk
>myself.
>
>
>  
>

Do it now and choose when you do it, or risk having it done automatically.

I hate the policy, but I've upgraded three machines with no problem, and 
these boxes have been quirky under earlier releases.
Keith

 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

Iain Kirk wrote:

>Do not touch it with a barge pole unless you back up everything first... 
>Obvious I know but I'm leaving well alone myself and staying as I am 
>thanks...
>  
>
That isn't an option... Oh, woe betide the uninformed masses...
Keith

 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

I think hte issue revolves around the seeming blind belief in the 
Service Packs doing nothing but good.  An IT outfit that 
occasionally hires me for the odd bit of Mac work that comes 
their way (right, I don't "do" Windows at home, but sometimes 
help others who do) has categorically advised *against* the XP 
SP2 on account of numerous problems they've encountered - 
hey, it's their bread-and-butter, not mine (at least not directly), 
although I've dealt enough with XP (among other Windows 
flavors) to know not to go blindly down the path of each and every 
"fix" (there's a reason why I think Win 2000 Pro might have been 
Windows at its peak). 

- Barrett


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob 
Frost" <bob@f...> wrote:
> Anthony,
> 
> But Windows is broken! It was/is riddled with security holes, 
> which account for the vast majority of virus infections and most 
> of the spam that we receive. The updates are to cure these 
> problems and to try and rid us of viruses, trojans, and spam. 
> I've been updating XP on several computers ever since it came 
> out with the weekly/monthly updates and have had no 
> problems at all with them. My spam level has reduced 
> drastically since installing 
> SP2.
> 
> Bob Frost.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@a...>
> 
> Blindly updating just because someone or something
> tells you to do so is a recipe for disaster.  Never fix something 
that
> isn't broken.

Editor P.O.V. Image Service writes:

> The only problem is that after April 2005 the upgrade will not be
> preventable on any PC hooked up to the net..

This is true only if you have Automatic Update or Windows Update Service
installed and enabled (AU is installed and enabled by default on XP).

Needless to say, I've turned it off.

Editor P.O.V. Image Service writes:

> It doesn't matter, after April 12, 2005 you WILL upgrade... "Resistance
> is futile..."

No, I won't.

> Wrong, a huge percentage of SPAM these days  is broadcast from Zombie
> machines hooked up to DSL or Cable.

Zombie machines are controlled by people who send spam.  The ultimate
source is still the same.

> That's why many ISP's now routinely block port 25, 80, and 100 requests
> that are not intranetwork..

That's why a lot of small businesses are finding it difficult to keep in
touch with anyone by e-mail: ISPs are blindly blocking their e-mail
servers.

> It doesn't matter, you have no choice.  :-)   "We are Borg.."

I've turned Automatic Updates off.

> Do it now and choose when you do it, or risk having it done automatically.

It's not going to be done automatically.

Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:

>Editor P.O.V. Image Service writes:
>
>  
>
>>The only problem is that after April 2005 the upgrade will not be
>>preventable on any PC hooked up to the net..
>>    
>>
>
>This is true only if you have Automatic Update or Windows Update Service
>installed and enabled (AU is installed and enabled by default on XP).
>
>Needless to say, I've turned it off.
>
>  
>
So had I, but apparently it will ignore the registry key disabling that 
update..

Whether they will force the service on, is another issue, but it doesn't 
look good..

Personally, I wonder who will have access to my machine with the 
"update." That whole Adobe Counterfeit Deterrence Software blackbox has 
me admittedly a bit paranoid..
Keith

 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:

>
>
>  
>
>>That's why many ISP's now routinely block port 25, 80, and 100 requests
>>that are not intranetwork..
>>    
>>
>
>That's why a lot of small businesses are finding it difficult to keep in
>touch with anyone by e-mail: ISPs are blindly blocking their e-mail 
>servers.
>
Agreed, I now have to MY  ISP's  SMTP relay instead of my own as hosted 
on my own domain... UGH.. And theirs gets all pissy if I fire off an 
email to even 20 people.. Hello?  "I run mailing lists with over 6000 
members.."


Keith

 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 

****************************************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY & COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
This e-mail message, including attachments and contents, is \ufffd Copyright, 
Keith Krebs, 2001-2004, All Rights Reserved. It is expressly for the 
sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and 
privileged information. Absent the express written authorization of the 
author, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, transfer, or 
distribution is explicitly prohibited and taken at your own risk. If you 
are not, or are unsure whether you are, the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original 
message. Violations will be prosecuted to the FULL extent allowed under 
applicable civil and criminal law. Imagery published or distributed in 
violation of these conditions shall be subject to a $1500/image 
liquidated damages charge, in addition to any applicable Copyright 
violation penalties.

POV IMage Service Banner
****************************************************************
{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }

And there is sound advice. That is what I've done with my beastie at home 
and forever will it remain that way. The PC's I'm responsible for at work 
are left to auto-update, but then they auto-back-up all files every night 
and do a full back-up over the weekend so I'm covered - I hope...
More learned academic, computer types than me have advised NOT to touch SP2 
unless I have had problems; which I have not - QED...
This debate seems essentially to be SP2 or not SP2; but will it make better 
B&W piccies???

IAK

--On 24 September 2004 07:13 +0200 "Anthony G. Atkielski" 
<anthony@...m> wrote:

> Editor P.O.V. Image Service writes:
>
>> The only problem is that after April 2005 the upgrade will not be
>> preventable on any PC hooked up to the net..
>
> This is true only if you have Automatic Update or Windows Update Service
> installed and enabled (AU is installed and enabled by default on XP).
>
> Needless to say, I've turned it off.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources
> as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
> same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
> keep them short. - Good manners are required at all time. No personal
> attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be
> removed from the membership without notice. - Keep your posts and threads
> related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who
> persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership. -
> By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
> and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files
> section: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND
> “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
> YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
> PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE
> “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE
> OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

--On 24 September 2004 01:45 -0400 "Editor P.O.V. Image Service" 
<editor@...> wrote:

> Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
>
>> Editor P.O.V. Image Service writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>> The only problem is that after April 2005 the upgrade will not be
>>> preventable on any PC hooked up to the net..
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This is true only if you have Automatic Update or Windows Update Service
>> installed and enabled (AU is installed and enabled by default on XP).
>>
>> Needless to say, I've turned it off.
>>
>>
>>
> So had I, but apparently it will ignore the registry key disabling that
> update..
>
> Whether they will force the service on, is another issue, but it doesn't
> look good..
>
> Personally, I wonder who will have access to my machine with the
> "update." That whole Adobe Counterfeit Deterrence Software blackbox has
> me admittedly a bit paranoid..
> Keith
>
>
> Keith Krebs
>


If MS even think of doing this, will they not be doing something immoral, 
if not illegal?? If they do do this and some major personage or company has 
a major system melt-down as a result... Yes, that is another debate but 
ever happened to making one's own choices on these matters???

IAK

Iain Kirk, wrote:

>--On 24 September 2004 01:45 -0400 "Editor P.O.V. Image Service" 
><editor@...> wrote:
>
>>Personally, I wonder who will have access to my machine with the
>>"update." That whole Adobe Counterfeit Deterrence Software blackbox has
>>me admittedly a bit paranoid..
>>
>
>If MS even think of doing this, will they not be doing something immoral, 
>if not illegal?? 
>
And the fact that some actions they undertake are immoral or illegal  
has stopped M$ before?

>If they do do this and some major personage or company has 
>a major system melt-down as a result... Yes, that is another debate but 
>ever happened to making one's own choices on these matters???
>  
>
When M$ became the monopoly of choice..

Remember the whole NSAkey thing?
Keith

 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

On 24 Sep 2004 at 4:06, Barrett Benton wrote:

> 
> I think hte issue revolves around the seeming blind belief in the 
> Service Packs doing nothing but good.  An IT outfit that 
> occasionally hires me for the odd bit of Mac work that comes 
> their way (right, I don't "do" Windows at home, but sometimes 
> help others who do) has categorically advised *against* the XP 
> SP2 on account of numerous problems they've encountered - 
> hey, it's their bread-and-butter, not mine (at least not directly), 
> although I've dealt enough with XP (among other Windows 
> flavors) to know not to go blindly down the path of each and every 
> "fix" (there's a reason why I think Win 2000 Pro might have been 
> Windows at its peak). 
> 


I have been in IT for over 20 years, and the rules are simple when it comes to 
updates, never apply any change that you can not reverse out, if it does not work.

That means you backup everything in the Windows directory, including the registry, 
the problem is that when Windows starts it locks the registry files for exclusive write 
access, meaning that your restore program can not overwrite the now FUBAR 
registry.  You need to copy out the registry in another format OR use another 
operating system that is not registry dependant to do the backup and restore. 
Hopefully you don't have boot problems.  A good program to have on hand, is one 
of the run-off-the-CD Linux versions, boot that, do your backup onto other media, 
like a CD-RW or DVD-RW, then you can always boot that, to do the restore.

The other thing, is that every installation of Windows, is slightly different, for a 
example a  machine that has Photoshop installed is different from one that does 
not.  

W

On 24 Sep 2004 at 0:03, Editor P.O.V. Image Service wrote:

> Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> 
> >Bob Frost writes:
> >
> >  
> >
> >>But Windows is broken!
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >XP has worked fine for me for years, and I need it to continue doing so
> >for my photo and other work.  Goofing around with updates would thus be
> >completely illogical for me.
> >
> >  
> >
> It doesn't matter, after April 12, 2005 you WILL upgrade... "Resistance 
> is futile..."

There is a way to prevent it, obviously the updater uses an internet port, so you 
need to figure out which port, and then using your router or gateway firewall, block 
that port, so that XP can't phone home, therefore it will not get the update.

Besides that, if XP can contact M$ with your knowledge, can it also, without your 
knowledge?  Yup, you betcha, and what information is it sending home?  

W

Why would it not be preventable? If you do not authorize an update, it is
not performed. Microsoft's government settlement does not permit updates
without user permission.
You will not, however, be able to get a copy of windows without the update
with a new system.
Bob

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Editor P.O.V. Image Service" <editor@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 11:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Windows XP Service Pack 2


Maris V. Lidaka Sr. wrote:

>I have not installed it myself and don't presently intend to - I see no
need
>as I consider my computer secure, and SP2 is primarily designed to heighten
>security for Win XP.
>
>
>
The only problem is that after April 2005 the upgrade will not be
preventable on any PC hooked up to the net..

<http://www.winnetmag.com/windowspaulthurrott/Article/ArticleID/43900/window
spaulthurrott_43900.html>


Keith


Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together
guys"








Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

This assumes you have automatic update enabled. You can disable it if you
wish. (I don't recommend doing so.)

-Stephen
 www.sbillard.org/Stephen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Editor P.O.V. Image Service [mailto:editor@...] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 8:57 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Windows XP Service Pack 2
> 
> 
> Maris V. Lidaka Sr. wrote:
> 
> >I have not installed it myself and don't presently intend to 
> - I see no 
> >need as I consider my computer secure, and SP2 is primarily 
> designed to 
> >heighten security for Win XP.
> >
> >  
> >
> The only problem is that after April 2005 the upgrade will not be 
> preventable on any PC hooked up to the net..
> 
> <http://www.winnetmag.com/windowspaulthurrott/Article/ArticleI
> D/43900/windowspaulthurrott_43900.html>
> 
>

Editor P.O.V. Image Service writes:

> So had I, but apparently it will ignore the registry key disabling that
> update..

It can't.  That would require a change to the local software, which
cannot occur by magic.

You may be mistaking all this for the administrative options used by IT
departments to control automated updates.

> Whether they will force the service on, is another issue, but it doesn't
> look good..

They can't force it on, any more than they can push the power button on
the PC.

> Personally, I wonder who will have access to my machine with the
> "update." That whole Adobe Counterfeit Deterrence Software blackbox has
> me admittedly a bit paranoid..

One more reason not to "upgrade" anything.

Iain Kirk, writes:

> This debate seems essentially to be SP2 or not SP2; but will it make better
> B&W piccies???

It won't have any direct effect on the photos, but not upgrading will
guarantee you a more stable platform.  If you prefer to take and print
photographs instead of spending your days diddling with your computer
trying to get it to work, then don't ever change a configuration that is
already working to your satisfaction.

Iain Kirk, writes:

> If MS even think of doing this, will they not be doing something immoral,
> if not illegal??

In some jurisdictions, yes, which is one reason why it won't happen.

Editor P.O.V. Image Service writes:

> And the fact that some actions they undertake are immoral or illegal
> has stopped M$ before?

It has stopped Microsoft and most other companies from doing many
things.

Personally I think that Adobe's current activation mechanism, which
hashes your entire disk drive, is much more intrusive than anything
Microsoft is doing.  Fortunately, I'm still on an old, safe version of
Photoshop.

> Remember the whole NSAkey thing?

I remember it being debunked, yes.

The Wogster writes:

> Hopefully you don't have boot problems.

In other words, hopefully you haven't installed Photoshop CS.

On 24 Sep 2004 at 11:27, Robert W. Shearer wrote:

> Why would it not be preventable? If you do not authorize an update, it is
> not performed. Microsoft's government settlement does not permit updates
> without user permission.
> You will not, however, be able to get a copy of windows without the update
> with a new system.


Getting a new system with the update isn't the issue, the issue is that your existing 
computer, which has nicely been working, for a couple of years, stops working, 
because Microsoft still hasn't figured out the solution for DLL hell, which was an 
issue with versions, prior to Windows 3.0!

W

I am reading the thread on the WinXP SP2 upgrade.  I have the upgrade plus Photoshop CS which required activation with Adobe.  Both have gone on without a hitch. Not one problem!!  Btw, I also had to activate WinXP when I first used it.  This is an upcoming trend so we have to live with it or ignore the upgrades and new programs. It is a personal choice.  You are going to see more and more software programs requiring activation to use.  Seems this is the only way software manufacturers are going to protect their products from "pirating."   I don't "pirate" or use "pirated" programs so I will continue to purchase new software and activate when necessary.  Should I encounter a problem, I am very good on calling tech service.  lol    Another btw, Microsoft did publish a list of programs that may be affected by the new Service Pak upgrade.   Look for it on the Microsoft site.

I am using PhotoshopCS almost everyday and it works the same as before the SP2 upgrade.  Hoping my computer won't blow up in the future!!

"T"


		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"guarantee"????  Oh really???!!!  Would you put that in writing, along with a monetaty incentive and mail it to me??  That's one "guarantee" I'd LOVE to have!!!  :-)))

John

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Anthony G. Atkielski 

   but not upgrading will
  guarantee you a more stable platform.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Wow, I did BOTH!!!  I'm a walking, er, ah, COMPUTING time bomb!!!!

John  (just waiting for the impending implosion and the accompanying doom and gloom.......)

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Anthony G. Atkielski 


  The Wogster writes:

  > Hopefully you don't have boot problems.

  In other words, hopefully you haven't installed Photoshop CS.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I wasn't going to wade in, but everyone is having such a great time bashing luddites and geeks.

Has anyone really taken note of the size of SP2? It is over 70MB compressed, and ends up taking over 1 gig on your hard drive when installed . . . whatever MS wants to say . . . and it is important to note here that MS is offering a free and "no charge shipping and handling" cd of the "fix" (MS NEVER gives anything away completely "for free"), it really only points out the dilemma in the "digital" age . . . including all our printing and camera software. Everybody is in such a rush to get to market so THEY can make a buck, and most of the time they are selling us what can only be construed as UNFINISHED and DEFECTIVE products . . . much like a drug dealer . . . "get them hooked . . . they are stupid". Ever bought a bed, then have to go back every six months until they finally put on all four legs?, and ultimately, if MS or Apple is doing it, they won't be the same length so you have to start ALL OVER AGAIN, usually with a "new", "better", "improved" bed . . . or a car,"oh sorry . . . we forgot to put the gas line to the motor . . . but an upgrade IS available . . . for a price". MS and Apple sell junk . . . period. What is appalling is how we as consumers have become so complacent about being screwed.

Paul Aparycki
     but not upgrading will
    guarantee you a more stable platform.

  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Paul  -
 
Do you have a better and viable alternative to MS and APPLE?  The most prevelant software for doing the digital imaging work runs on MS/APPLE only.
 
Tom Baker




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "bhhc"  What is
appalling is how we as consumers have become so complacent about being
screwed.

It's not like we have any alternatives.   Powerful tools like
Photoshop and Adobe illustrator run on Macs and PC's.   I run Suse
Linux at home but I have no illusions that GIMP is in the same class
as Photoshop - I would say it's in the same class as Elements or PSP.

You're right that XP is junky (I don't know anything about the Mac
OSes, so I can't comment)  but, professionally, I'm a software
engineer who writes C++ for win32, so I'm very familiar with the
innards of XP.  And they have a lot of problems, especially WRT
security, and SP2 fixes a lot of those problems.

I DISagree with people here who say SP2 will fix your spam problems. 
    Spam has nothing to do with the OS.  I don't have any spam
problems because I go through an email proxy and automatically change
my public email addresses (i.e., email addresses visible from places
like this).  
But SP2 WILL fix lots of security vulnerabilities involving the IP
stack and open ports and buffer overruns, and access to the registry,
and other stuff that really does matter.

I know . . . the most impressive demonstration I ever saw was by Silicon Graphics when they introduced their Onyx, and I can't remember the name of the "lesser" system . . . Indigo, maybe?. But there were a handful of photographers, and a majority of graphic artists anxiously watching as a variety of magic was being performed in "real time" on their machines . . .it was truly a jaw-dropping experience . . . until someone had the audacity to ask how much memory and at what cost was the system running under. When the presenter reluctantly gave the estimate, about 75% of the room left (this was about 15 or more years ago . . . memory cost a fortune then). Command line systems, which Unix is, are faster than the PHS (push here stupid) systems we use today, but obviously they aren't user (braiin-dead?) friendly. No we are stuck with what we have . . . my point was that what we have is sub-par.I work in the advertising field and I know how well the industry coddles and convinces everyone that they have "the greatest thing since sliced bread". Windows and Mac Virus are junk. They could be systems that actually worked properly, but that wouldn't make the snake oil salesman any money, would it?

Paul Aparycki

  Paul  -

  Do you have a better and viable alternative to MS and APPLE?  The most prevelant software for doing the digital imaging work runs on MS/APPLE only.

  Tom Baker


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Peter,

< I DISagree with people here who say SP2 will fix your spam problems.
<  Spam has nothing to do with the OS.

I think you will find that it does. The SP2 version of Outlook Express has 
the option of preventing the download of images in emails (some ISP's give 
this option as well). Since some spammers detect whether you have received 
their spam by whether you have downloaded their images, stopping the images 
prevents them knowing that you have received their spam, and you eventually 
get taken off the spam list as a 'waste of time'.

They'll probably find a way round this eventually, but for now it seems to 
work.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Nelson" <pnweb@...>

Bob Frost writes:

> The SP2 version of Outlook Express has the option of
> preventing the download of images in emails ...

So why not just upgrade Outlook Express; do you really have to reinstall
the entire operating system??

I moved to the current e-mail client I use (the Bat) mainly to get past
some limitations of Outlook Express, one of them being the limited
filtering capability (if you filter out messages that are specified as
multipart/alternative, you catch 99% of spam, but OE won't do that), and
another being the ability to completely disable any type of HTML
interpretation.  I just see text, no matter how a message was sent.
Spam is almost invariably in HTML; normal e-mail (at least among my
correspondents) is almost invariably plain text.

> ... (some ISP's give this option as well).

The very last thing I'd want is for my ISP to get into the act.

There are clients whom I cannot contact because their ISP thinks I'm a
spammer and blocks my e-mail.  Apparently anything not coming from a
corporation with 100,000 employees is treated as spam.

> Since some spammers detect whether you have received their spam by
> whether you have downloaded their images, stopping the images prevents
> them knowing that you have received their spam, and you eventually get
> taken off the spam list as a 'waste of time'.

I don't think that works very well.  I never download images, but I
still get just as much spam (over 1000 spam e-mails a day).

If you have a good provider you shouldn't get that many spam. SP2 is some kind of a band aid on a wooden leg. To me it is just a rotten patch. I have tried it twice and my hard disk needed to be formated just after installation,  nothing was working anymore, but everyone has his own experience, I think the less the better, but it is interesting to have everyone experience and idea.

It is the same for everything, it is a matter of personnal choice and camera is no exception, when Nikon started the FA some thirty years ago I sold all my equipment because I knew electronic and automatism would invade our cameras and all what I needed was a shutter and a diaphragm. So I switched to another brand where I was sure I could get all manual gear for a long time, I never had to regret it.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bob Frost 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2004 10:29 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Windows XP Service Pack 2


  Peter,

  < I DISagree with people here who say SP2 will fix your spam problems.
  <  Spam has nothing to do with the OS.

  I think you will find that it does. The SP2 version of Outlook Express has 
  the option of preventing the download of images in emails (some ISP's give 
  this option as well). Since some spammers detect whether you have received 
  their spam by whether you have downloaded their images, stopping the images 
  prevents them knowing that you have received their spam, and you eventually 
  get taken off the spam list as a 'waste of time'.

  They'll probably find a way round this eventually, but for now it seems to 
  work.

  Bob Frost.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

sinwen writes:

> If you have a good provider you shouldn't get that many spam.

If you have a good ISP and you're running your own business, you should
receive _all_ the spam, because no business can afford to miss
legitimate e-mail simply because it's ISP has decided to filter its
mail.

ISP filtering is only for unsophisticated, private Internet users.
Anyone running a business needs unfiltered e-mail service.

> SP2 is some kind of a band aid on a wooden leg. To me it is just a
> rotten patch. I have tried it twice and my hard disk needed to be
> formated just after installation, nothing was working anymore, but
> everyone has his own experience,

Why did you install it to begin with?

> It is the same for everything, it is a matter of personnal choice
> and camera is no exception, when Nikon started the FA some thirty
> years ago I sold all my equipment because I knew electronic and
> automatism would invade our cameras and all what I needed was a
> shutter and a diaphragm. So I switched to another brand where I was
> sure I could get all manual gear for a long time, I never had to
> regret it.

Nikon still makes at least one manual body, although other brands, such
as Leica, are probably a safer bet (as long as Leica doesn't turn into a
worthless Rolex under pressure from one of its owners).

Anthony,

< Goofing around with updates would thus be
< completely illogical for me.

You don't have to 'goof' around with them (whatever that might mean); it 
updates itself automatically without any operator hassle and the updater 
itself is better in SP2.

< Windows XP is one of the most secure PC operating systems available,
< since it is built on the NT code base.

Which world do you inhabit? Microsoft has issued hundreds of updates for XP 
mainly to block security loopholes that have been discovered.

< People who send spam account for the spam; it has nothing to do with
< security.

Most spam these days emanates from the computers of people who live in 
'Never, never land' and don't update their computers or use updated 
viruscheckers because they think they don't need them and therefore get 
infected with trojans that send out the majority of spam without their 
knowing.

< I don't have these problems, so I don't need a cure.

Security updates are not cures for problems that you have; they are 
'vaccinations' against ever getting a problem.

< Microsoft thanks you, I'm sure.  I can't afford that kind of risk
< myself.

Why should Microsoft thank me? You've got it round the wrong way again. I 
thank Microsoft for providing me with the means of protecting my computer 
from the nutters out there, and yours is the 'risk' is in not having that 
protection.

Bob Frost.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>

Anthony,

< but not upgrading will guarantee you a more stable platform.

Stability and Security are NOT the same thing.

<don't ever change a configuration that is already working to your 
satisfaction.

Some people are obviously more easily satisfied than others. But 'tis time 
to wind this one up, it is even boring me now.

Bob Frost.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>

Bob Frost writes:

> You don't have to 'goof' around with them (whatever that might mean); it
> updates itself automatically without any operator hassle and the updater
> itself is better in SP2.

Same thing.

> Which world do you inhabit?

The part of the world that has seen the source code.

> Microsoft has issued hundreds of updates for XP
> mainly to block security loopholes that have been discovered.

Every system has security holes. In systems that are not widely used,
most holes are never discovered--but they are there.  In systems that
are used by hundreds of millions of people, new holes are discovered
every day.  This is all a function of how widespread the operating
system is, not how secure it is.

> Most spam these days emanates from the computers of people who live in
> 'Never, never land' and don't update their computers or use updated 
> viruscheckers because they think they don't need them and therefore get
> infected with trojans that send out the majority of spam without their
> knowing.

The spam still comes from specific individuals who know perfectly well
what is being sent.

> Security updates are not cures for problems that you have; they are
> 'vaccinations' against ever getting a problem.

You don't need vaccinations if you don't expose yourself to infectious
agents.

> I thank Microsoft for providing me with the means of protecting my
> computer from the nutters out there, and yours is the 'risk' is in not
> having that protection.

I haven't had a problem thus far.  The only time I've had problems with
my computers is when I attempt to "upgrade" anything, which almost
always means a few days of work lost, or more.

Bob Frost writes:

> Stability and Security are NOT the same thing.

True.  And stability is more important in many environments.  Better to
have a system that never crashes than a system that guards carefully
against attacks that never come.  Indeed, antivirus software is one of
the major destabilizers of any computer.

Anthony,

< The only time I've had problems with my computers is when I attempt to 
"upgrade" < anything

Well, why not get someone to show you how to do it properly? ;)

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>

Bob Frost writes:

> Well, why not get someone to show you how to do it properly?

There isn't anyone who knows how to do it better than I do.

Ah, those of us who do know everything can be so frustrated by those who
think that they do!
Bob

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>
To: "Bob Frost" <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2004 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Windows XP Service Pack 2


Bob Frost writes:

> Well, why not get someone to show you how to do it properly?

There isn't anyone who knows how to do it better than I do.




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Frost"
<bob@f...> wrote:
 
> Why should Microsoft thank me? You've got it round the wrong way
again. I  thank Microsoft for providing me with the means of
protecting my computer from the nutters out there, and yours is the
'risk' is in not having that protection.
> 
I now stay away from anything Microsoft if I can help it. I no longer
use their Internet Explorer nor their Outlook mail program. The
security holes in those programs as evidenced by the countless
security updates is to say the least, scary. 

It is generally thought that Microsoft's Internet Explorer has about
95% of the market to itself. This is changing. According to Reuters,
only 53% of those who connect to the popular site www.engadget.com use
Internet Explorer. Others are Firefox 20%, Safari 11.3%, Opera 2.5%.

Internet Explorer has yet to offer tabbed browsing which is present in
the other internet browsers. Microsoft was late in blocking pop-up
windows. And Internet Explorer is a lightning rod for those nutters
out there.

According to Internet Storm Center (ISC), an unprotected computer
(security updates not installed)has about 20 minutes survival time
before it becomes infected by viruses. This short lapse of time is
worrysome according to ISC, because it's shorter than the time it
takes to install the security updates once the security breach are known.

The last Internet Explorer breach called the "drag and drop"  was
discovered on august 19th and was still uncorrected as of sept 23rd.
It is used to install, unknown to the user, a malware called Agent.ce
According to F-Secure, this could turn an infected computer into a
spam sending machine.

http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/agent_ce.shtml

There is an underground market where can spammers buy the use of
infected computers. These are sold in lots of 10,000 or more.

Andre Moreau

Andre writes:

> According to Internet Storm Center (ISC), an unprotected computer
> (security updates not installed)has about 20 minutes survival time
> before it becomes infected by viruses.

That's a fantasy.  It implies that viruses can magically infect a
computer without any human interaction, and that just isn't true.

Hogarth Hughes


Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:

>Andre writes:
>
>  
>
>>According to Internet Storm Center (ISC), an unprotected computer
>>(security updates not installed)has about 20 minutes survival time
>>before it becomes infected by viruses.
>>    
>>
>
>That's a fantasy.  It implies that viruses can magically infect a
>computer without any human interaction, and that just isn't true.
>
>  
>
No, *that's* a fantasy. Human interaction is not required at all. The 
vast majority of infections and ownings are fully automated. That's the 
whole concept behind the term "script kiddie." They run scripts that 
probe PCs all over the net including the one you just connected, 
identify the vulnerabilities, run the exploits, install the bots, cover 
their tracks, and enter your PCs vital statistics into a list while your 
human is suffering through his/her school day. When they get home from 
school they've got another string of zombies to play with or sell. BTW, 
spammers are currently paying about USD 3000.00 for a string of 25000 
zombies. Tell me you could do it by hand for that price.

In my own experience, it is nearly impossible now to install the OS from 
CDROM on a fresh disk drive, then connect to the 'net and download the 
patches. But the time your download is complete, you are almost assured 
of being infected. Twenty minutes is very generous, two minutes is more 
likely.

The only way to be sure to end up with a healthy PC is to go to a known 
stable PC, download the patches to CDROM, and apply the patches from 
this CDROM before connecting to the 'net.

This was true when I was CTO for a website four years ago. It's worse 
today. But don't take my word for it. Try it yourself. You might get lucky.

>>According to Internet Storm Center (ISC), an unprotected computer
>>(security updates not installed)has about 20 minutes survival time
>>before it becomes infected by viruses.
> That's a fantasy.  It implies that viruses can magically infect a
> computer without any human interaction, and that just isn't true.

One such virus was the Blaster worm which exploited a flaw in the RPC 
service to infect a machine. Any unpatched windows 2000 or windows XP 
machine could be infected just by being connected to the internet. In 
fact I got infected myself, in spite of having updated versions of 
Norton Antivirus on all my machines and never opening unknown email 
attachments. If it's true that you've never patched your machine you are 
still vulnerable to this particular worm, and probably many others.

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no

{sigh}  He said, she said, yes it will, no it won't.......manual cameras???  Maybe a manual computer would solve all this......

John  <now getting 15-20 Win XP SP2 "spams" a day ;-(

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hogarth Hughes writes:

> No, *that's* a fantasy. Human interaction is not required at all. The
> vast majority of infections and ownings are fully automated.

Describe one of them.

> They run scripts that probe PCs all over the net including
> the one you just connected, identify the vulnerabilities ...

Which vulnerabilities, specifically?

> In my own experience, it is nearly impossible now to install the OS from
> CDROM on a fresh disk drive, then connect to the 'net and download the
> patches. But the time your download is complete, you are almost assured
> of being infected.

How?

Daniel Staver writes:

> One such virus was the Blaster worm which exploited a flaw in the RPC
> service to infect a machine. Any unpatched windows 2000 or windows XP 
> machine could be infected just by being connected to the internet.

Why doesn't the firewall stop it?

> In fact I got infected myself, in spite of having updated versions of
> Norton Antivirus on all my machines and never opening unknown email 
> attachments.

How did it get past your firewall?

> If it's true that you've never patched your machine you are
> still vulnerable to this particular worm, and probably many others.

I block essentially all incoming traffic at the firewall for desktop
client machines.  Doesn't everyone?

A friend of mine has been running XP pro for a while now with no
antivirus software and no firewall except the one that comes with
windows, and hasn't even installed SP1, despite my advise against it.
She hasn't noticed anything out of the ordinary that would indicate
infection (is there a way to check btw?). The only problem she has is
that any site using applets shuts down her browser (no Yahoo Pool!),
which I'm told was a fix in SP1.  My friend uses either Mozilla or
Firefox I think, and a couple Yahoo accounts for email (one a junk
account for entering into websites that catches spam, another as her
main account that is spam free).  She's been set up for a year or so
now, and so far so good.  I realize that this is risky behavior, but
to me it dispells the mith that "your computer will be hacked and
hijacked or otherwise rendered inopporable within an hour if left
unprotected on a broadband connection."  Maybe she's just been lucky.
Who knows.

I believe the most secure way to protect your digital photo setup, if
one has the means (which I currently don't btw)and is that concerned,
 is to set up a separate computer dedicated specifically to photo
manipulation and printing, keep it off any network, and don't let
anyone else touch it.  

my 2 cents
john


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony G.
Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:

> Andre writes:
> 
> > According to Internet Storm Center (ISC), an unprotected computer
> > (security updates not installed)has about 20 minutes survival time
> > before it becomes infected by viruses.
> 
> That's a fantasy.  It implies that viruses can magically infect a
> computer without any human interaction, and that just isn't true.

weareallsosmall writes:

> I believe the most secure way to protect your digital photo setup, if
> one has the means (which I currently don't btw)and is that concerned,
>  is to set up a separate computer dedicated specifically to photo
> manipulation and printing, keep it off any network, and don't let
> anyone else touch it.  

The best insurance for a computer used for photography, or for any other
important purpose, is a policy of regular, verified, complete backups.

However, it is also true that machines unconnected to any network are
less vulnerable than machines with net connections.  Unfortunately, they
are often a lot less useful as well.

> I block essentially all incoming traffic at the firewall for desktop
> client machines.  Doesn't everyone?

Using a firewall is a good idea, but that is besides the point. What you 
said was that it's impossible for a virus to infect a computer without 
human interaction and that's not true.

Even with a firewall it could still happen that a service on one of your 
open ports had a security hole in it and that a virus used that 
vulnerability to infect your machine.

Another example is the recent JPEG vulnerability recently discovered in 
windows which could leave you open to attack just by viwing a web-page 
with a JPEG image on it. I guess this could technically be decribed as 
user interaction, but viewing images online was previously thought to be 
safe behaviour even by security experts.

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "weareallsosmall"
<weareallsosmall@y...> wrote:
> A friend of mine has been running XP pro for a while now with no
> antivirus software and no firewall except the one that comes with
> windows, and hasn't even installed SP1, despite my advise against it.
> She hasn't noticed anything out of the ordinary that would indicate
> infection (is there a way to check btw?). 

Without proper safegards, internet intrusions are unnoticeable. Your
computer can be hijacked and rented out in sabotage-for-hire rackets
without your knowlege to spammers, fraudsters, digital saboteurs...

Here's something as recent as 7/7/2004 from Reuters, on the USA Today
site:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/computersecurity/2004-07-07-zombie-pimps_x.htm

Andre Moreau

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Staver 
> Another example is the recent JPEG vulnerability recently discovered in 
> windows which could leave you open to attack just by viwing a web-page 
> with a JPEG image on it. 

So true. How many people on this forum know about it, let alone
downloaded the patch for it.

http://sophos.com/virusinfo/articles/jpegpatch.html

Daniel Staver writes:

> Using a firewall is a good idea, but that is besides the point. What you
> said was that it's impossible for a virus to infect a computer without
> human interaction and that's not true.

One can configure a computer to welcome outside attacks, but that should
not be the default configuration.

> Even with a firewall it could still happen that a service on one of your
> open ports had a security hole in it and that a virus used that 
> vulnerability to infect your machine.

There aren't any open ports leading to any listening services on my desktop.

> Another example is the recent JPEG vulnerability recently discovered
> in windows which could leave you open to attack just by viwing a
> web-page with a JPEG image on it. I guess this could technically be
> decribed as user interaction, but viewing images online was previously
> thought to be safe behaviour even by security experts.

It still requires interaction, although this particular problem is
irritatingly pervasive.  C has been around for forty years or so; are
there still programmers so incompetent that they never check for buffer
overflows?

Andre writes:

> Without proper safegards, internet intrusions are unnoticeable.

Without opening the machine to attacks, they are impossible.  The
machine has to respond to incoming traffic.  By default, desktops should
be configured to respond to nothing coming in from the outside world.

> Your computer can be hijacked and rented out in sabotage-for-hire
> rackets without your knowlege to spammers, fraudsters, digital
> saboteurs...

No unsolicited incoming net traffic reaches my desktop machines.  Not
only is it all stopped at the firewall, but virtually all services that
might answer incoming traffic are shut down, even on my NT server.
There are also many Net services that I simply do not use because they
are not secure enough to please me.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Frost"
<bob@f...> wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> < I DISagree with people here who say SP2 will fix your spam problems.
> <  Spam has nothing to do with the OS.
> 
> I think you will find that it does. The SP2 version of Outlook
Express has 
> the option of preventing the download of images in emails (some
ISP's give 
> this option as well).

A.  That has nothing to do with XP.   Outlook Express is an email
client that is totally separate from XP.  For example, I run XP but I
don't even have Outlook Express on my system.     Microsoft may
include patches to their application programs as part of the same
package of software that includes patches to XP, but that doesn't make
them part of XP.

B.  If the image is embedded in the email then the sender has no way
of knowing if it was "downloaded".  The situation you're thinking of
is when the image resides on the spammer's server.   And that doesn't
get downloaded until you open message.   And no one short of an idiot
opens email he's not expecting.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony G.
Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> Bob Frost writes:
> 
> > You don't have to 'goof' around with them (whatever that might
mean); it
> > updates itself automatically without any operator hassle and the
updater
> > itself is better in SP2.
> 
> Same thing.
> 
> > Which world do you inhabit?
> 
> The part of the world that has seen the source code.
> 
> > Microsoft has issued hundreds of updates for XP
> > mainly to block security loopholes that have been discovered.
> 
> Every system has security holes. In systems that are not widely used,
> most holes are never discovered--but they are there.  In systems that
> are used by hundreds of millions of people, new holes are discovered
> every day.  This is all a function of how widespread the operating
> system is, not how secure it is.

I've also seen the source code, or at least enough of it to know how
sloppy they are.  And I write Win32 code for a living.   And Windows
internals are very sloppy.   I've also seen Linux source, and I do
believe that Linux is better-written.  This is probably due to having
a better peer-review process - Linux coders know their work will be
seen by a wider audience.

Furthermore it's NOT true that Windows has more exposure because
they're a bigger target.   In the server industry Windows does not
have the kind of monopoly they have on the desktop.   In fact by many
statistics Linux has more server numbers than Microsoft.  But I read
the IT press - Infoworld, Computerworld, EWeek, etc, and it's very
clear that more patches are issued for MSFT *server-based* products
than their competitors'.

Andre: Thanks for the link. I installed the update and feel better already.
Joe

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Andre [mailto:am1000@...]
  Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2004 12:22 PM
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Windows XP Service Pack 2


  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Staver
  > Another example is the recent JPEG vulnerability recently discovered in
  > windows which could leave you open to attack just by viwing a web-page
  > with a JPEG image on it.

  So true. How many people on this forum know about it, let alone
  downloaded the patch for it.

  http://sophos.com/virusinfo/articles/jpegpatch.html






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Hogarth Hughes
<hogarth@s...> wrote:
> No, *that's* a fantasy. Human interaction is not required at all. The 
> vast majority of infections and ownings are fully automated.

That's alarmist.

If you don't download and run their scripts or programs then the only
way they can get in is through an open port.   If you run with your
ports hidden (not just closed) and only open the ones you need when
you need them they can't get in that way.


I have 3 or 4 PC's at my studio connected to the Internet 24/7 and we
have NEVER had a worm or virus get past our defences.   We have simple
rules:
1.  No Microsoft browsers or email allowed.
2.  Never open an email message that you aren't expecting.
3.  ActiveX controls and Java always disabled in browsers.
4.  No software installed over the Internet without first downloading
it to a test PC and scanning it there.
5.  Daily virus scans.  Frequent malwars and port scans.  Virus
definitions updated or checked daily.
6.  Automatic updates to everything DISabled.  When we need to update
virus definitions, or get patches or updates to software we do it
manually.

> 6.  Automatic updates to everything DISabled.  When we need to update
> virus definitions, or get patches or updates to software we do it
> manually.

Here's something that I call the next generation of internet
counter-intrusion software. No virus definitions are ever needed.

Two versions are available: Entreprise and Home which is free.
Advertised as being used by the Avon and Somerset Constabulary (Police
dept.) in the UK.

https://www.prevx.com/

This is my last post on the subject.

Andre Moreau

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Andre"
<am1000@v...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Staver 
> > Another example is the recent JPEG vulnerability recently
discovered in 
> > windows which could leave you open to attack just by viwing a
web-page 
> > with a JPEG image on it. 
> 
> So true. How many people on this forum know about it, let alone
> downloaded the patch for it.
> 
> http://sophos.com/virusinfo/articles/jpegpatch.html

If you read the details on this, all the affected components are
Microsoft ones, such as IE, Outlook, Picture-It!, etc.   Nothing about
Mozilla, Eudora, Photoshop, etc.   The OS is not typically what opens
a JPEG file, or even knows that it's a JPEG.   Applications do that. 
If the OS itself has any knowledge that what it's processing is a JPEG
file then Microsoft is even worse than I ever imagined.

Peter,

< And no one short of an idiot opens email he's not expecting.

Being an idiot, I opened this email of yours in order to read it. I wasn't 
expecting it.

What am I supposed to do? Wait for you to telephone or write first to say 
you are sending an email?

Bob Frost.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Nelson" <pnweb@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>

In my own experience, it is nearly impossible now to install the OS from 
CDROM on a fresh disk drive, then connect to the 'net and download the 
patches. But the time your download is complete, you are almost assured 
of being infected. Twenty minutes is very generous, two minutes is more 
likely.

The only way to be sure to end up with a healthy PC is to go to a known 
stable PC, download the patches to CDROM, and apply the patches from 
this CDROM before connecting to the 'net.



The simplest solution, and it does support the attitude that "less is more" (those who don't subscribe to geek-headism, "I gotta upgrade, upgrade, upgrade . . . gimme a fix"), is to have a second computer dedicated to web usage only. I know, here come the violins about "that's soooo expensive". Well, buy an older Mac or a Pc set-up with 95/98 and a small screen (17"). It can be had for at the very most a couple of hundred, more likely a sack of potatoes and a promise to never bring it back to the geek who is getting rid of it . . . read: nothing. Then your system that you use for your "work" is free of any potential infection, and consequently can be run with a less memory hungry and more stable OLDER system . . . including as one poster remarked, an older photoshop. The entire computer industry is founded on the same mentality of the drug dealer . . . give them a little, promise them a lot, get them hooked . . . and as always the victims . . . yes, that means YOU, are too stupid to realize what you have gotten into.

I defy any of you out there who support MS or rotten Apple to show me at least one person who utilizes ALL the "wonderful innovations in the operating system" who does actually not only use, but understand all the "features". No one does, the same goes for suites like "office" etc, and indeed photoshop itself. The computer industry operates the same way as does the cable TV business and record clubs with their "negative marketing" (I don't remember if that is the right phrase . . . I think not). Sell you absolutely everything, unless you say no . . . ensuring that you have to buy more and more just to make sure it works, while you really only need a very little slice . . . like I said . . . stooo. . . . pid.

Now . . . I have to go and feed the mice running in the treadmill of the back of my commodore 64

rots of ruck ;-)
Paul Apaycki


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

You mean an abacus of course?

Funny, I have never heard of a virus or spam problem with one of them

Paul Aparycki
  {sigh}  He said, she said, yes it will, no it won't.......manual cameras???  Maybe a manual computer would solve all this......

  John  <now getting 15-20 Win XP SP2 "spams" a day ;-(

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Windows firewall has been there since XP first shipped. It's just disabled
by default. If you install it, just enable the firewall before connecting to
the network. I'm also assuming you're using a modem. Virtually every
DSL/Cable Modem router out there has a firewall built in, which makes this
all moot.

g

> -----Original Message-----
> From: bhhc [mailto:tawow@...]
> Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2004 15:06
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Windows XP Service Pack 2
> 
> 
> In my own experience, it is nearly impossible now to install the OS from
> CDROM on a fresh disk drive, then connect to the 'net and download the
> patches. But the time your download is complete, you are almost assured
> of being infected. Twenty minutes is very generous, two minutes is more
> likely.
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Frost"
<bob@f...> wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> < And no one short of an idiot opens email he's not expecting.
> 
> Being an idiot, I opened this email of yours in order to read it. I
wasn't 
> expecting it.

I didn't send you any email.  So if you got email from "me" you
definitely should delete it unread.   On the other hand if you got
email from this group or thread, then we must assume you signed up to
receive it, so you WERE expecting it.

I, on the other hand, set my Yahoo group setting to receive no mail,
so if I got an email digest from this group I would not open it.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Gus J Grubba"
<gus@g...> wrote:
> Windows firewall has been there since XP first shipped. It's just
disabled
> by default. If you install it, just enable the firewall before
connecting to
> the network. I'm also assuming you're using a modem. Virtually every
> DSL/Cable Modem router out there has a firewall built in, which
makes this
> all moot.

*** It certainly does NOT make it moot! ***

1.  A firewall in a router typically only blocks incoming traffic.  If
you are infected with a virus that initiates a connection from your
side, it won't help.
2.  A firewall in a router is only as good as you've set or configured
it to be.  (ditto with a wireless network - I've gotten onto LOTS of
wireless networks LITERALLY without even trying)
3.  Typical home router firewalls only do NAT.   That's only the most
basic level of protection.   A better level is to also do Stateful
Packet Inspection, but the typical cheap, home router can't do that.

Since we're all photographers here, let's use this analogy:  a typical
home router is like a really basic point-and-shoot camera.   Even a
basic point-and-shoot needs to be used PROPERLY and with some basic
technical understanding, to take good photos.     But there are some
things it's never going to be capable of, even in skilled hands.   For
some things you need better gear (a DSLR, a long, fast prime lens,
studio lights, etc) AND you need to understand how to use them!

> 
> *** It certainly does NOT make it moot! ***
> 
> 1.  A firewall in a router typically only blocks incoming traffic....
> 2.  A firewall in a router is only as good as you've set or configured...

It's still all moot in the context of installing Windows XP and updating it
without being "attacked" by a worm. This is how this started. The question
was how to install XP and get the updates without being completely open to
the world. Blocking outgoing connections is irrelevant in this case because
you are installing a new OS from scratch. Most, if not all routers come with
all [incoming] ports blocked by default. You may have an argument with
regards to wireless gateways. Those are indeed a nightmare but it is a bit
beyond the scope of the question.

g

PULLLEEEEEZZZEEEEE.....argh!!!

John

(setting SPAM filter for SP2 and Atkielski)

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Anthony G. Atkielski 
  To: Hogarth Hughes 
  Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2004 11:24 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Windows XP Service Pack 2


  Hogarth Hughes writes:

  > No, *that's* a fantasy. Human interaction is not required at all. The
  > vast majority of infections and ownings are fully automated.

  Describe one of them.

  > They run scripts that probe PCs all over the net including
  > the one you just connected, identify the vulnerabilities ...

  Which vulnerabilities, specifically?

  > In my own experience, it is nearly impossible now to install the OS from
  > CDROM on a fresh disk drive, then connect to the 'net and download the
  > patches. But the time your download is complete, you are almost assured
  > of being infected.

  How?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]