 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 05.06.2011 23:38, schrieb Orchid XP v8:
> Actually, I just checked my system. JQS is a normal Windows service.
> Just configure it to not run at startup. Done.
X-actly.
Official procedure though is to go to the control panel, "Java" settings
dialog, "Advanced" tab, "Miscellaneous", deselect "Java Quick Starter",
and restart the system.
While this seems to be intended simply as an alternative way to both end
the process and set the service's start mode to disabled, on my system
it plainly doesn't. Checkbox toggles, but that's all it does. Next time
firing up the "Java" control panel, checkbox is back again.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/06/2011 11:06 PM, clipka wrote:
> Official procedure though is to go to the control panel, "Java" settings
> dialog, "Advanced" tab, "Miscellaneous", deselect "Java Quick Starter",
> and restart the system.
>
> While this seems to be intended simply as an alternative way to both end
> the process and set the service's start mode to disabled, on my system
> it plainly doesn't. Checkbox toggles, but that's all it does. Next time
> firing up the "Java" control panel, checkbox is back again.
I had something similar with MSN Messenger yesterday. I opened up the
settings pane and unchecked "run at startup". Reboot, and it still runs
at startup. Unselected the checkbox again, and this time it appears to
have taken effect. GO FIGURE.
I prefer the old days of the Amiga, where software almost always did
what it was supposed to. (Or else failed to work completely.) None of
this "sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't" nonsense. (Or "if works
if you press the buttons in this order, but no other order".)
This kind of thing seems to be endemic to Windows (and now Linux). For
example, when I was setting up our old file server, I discovered that
the only way to make the tape drive work was some long, complex routine
(which I eventually wrote down) where you uninstall and reinstall the
hardware drivers multiple times, rebooting in between, in just the exact
right sequence, and then it works perfectly. If you don't do this, the
device just refuses to function. WTF?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I'm pretty sure JQS has been there for years. Lots of software does this
> (e.g., Acrobat Reader). The idea, presumably, is to load stuff into
> memory ahead of time.
>
> Except that isn't this the entire point of the Windows prefetch cache?
> Also, won't the unused data simply get swapped back out to disk after a
> while? (Thus utterly defeating the entire purpose of it.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quick_start
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefetcher
In the process, I also came across this:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/hardware/gg463004.aspx
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I had something similarly strange happen:
My PC would wake up at night for no apparent reason. Each and every night.
I'm running it as a PVR and it usually goes to hibernate after recordings and
wakes itself for a new one. So it should have been off in the morning.
I finally foud out that it was a leftover from Windows Mediacenter, which I had
installed for the purpose of checking something with my new satelite tuner card.
It seems that uninstalling Mediacenter does not remove the daily EPGupdater task
which is set to wake the computer at 3:30am.
And since my PC doesn't have a timeout to go back into hibernation and the
EPGupdater was no longer available, it would just stay on. I suppose the EPG
updater would normally put the PC to sleep after it finishes.
Regards
Aydan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/5/2011 14:38, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Don't you just love the way most AV product insist on down periodic manual
> scans?
Security in depth. Try Microsoft Security Essentials. It's really good.
> 1. If a file is never opened, it doesn't *matter* how's inside it. It can't
> possibly run.
But you still might propagate it to someone else, even if you don't run it.
> 2. If a file is opened, the on-demand scanner will scan it anyway. There's
> no need to do a manual scan as well.
"I have an idea! Let's make the system seem more responsive by doing a scan
of a file the very instant the person starts waiting for it to run! That'll
have the double-good effect of loading every single page of the executable
into RAM, bypassing that pesky demand-paging stuff."
> 3. I've yet to see any AV product which "remembers" which files it's scanned
> and stops rescanning them unless they changed.
Microsoft security essentials.
> (Presumably because that
> would make it too easy for a virus to slip past; just tweak the file
> timestamp...)
Don't use the timestamp. Use the USN journal. That's what it's for. Indeed,
you can just do a lazy background scan of anything that might be an
executable after whoever is writing to it finishes writing to it.
> For that matter, I've yet to see an AV product that's any good at *removing*
> malware. Most of them will *detect* an infection, but they do an utterly
> crap job of *removing* it.
It depends on the malware. It's hard to "remove" an infection that has
replaced valid code with virus code.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/6/2011 1:28, Invisible wrote:
> I prefer the old days of the Amiga, where software almost always did what it
> was supposed to.
That particular one sounds like a permissions problem to me. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/06/2011 05:44 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 6/5/2011 14:38, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Don't you just love the way most AV product insist on down periodic
>> manual scans?
>
> Security in depth.
Seems to me more like "useless busy-work to reassure the customer that
we really are doing something".
I notice that Symantec AntiVirus Corporate Edition doesn't do scheduled
scans at all by default. (Unless you explicitly ask it to.) Neither did
Trend Micro, until our IT department turned it on. (Why?)
> Try Microsoft Security Essentials. It's really good.
It has "Microsoft" in the name. Why would it be good?
>> 1. If a file is never opened, it doesn't *matter* how's inside it. It
>> can't possibly run.
>
> But you still might propagate it to someone else, even if you don't run it.
That's a valid argument for a file server. But even in that case, you
(or somebody else) still has to *access* the file.
While we're on the subject, almost all AV product claim to be able to
detect "virus-like behaviour" even if they don't have signatures for it.
But I've yet to see this actually work in practise...
> "I have an idea! Let's make the system seem more responsive by doing a
> scan of a file the very instant the person starts waiting for it to run!
> That'll have the double-good effect of loading every single page of the
> executable into RAM, bypassing that pesky demand-paging stuff."
It's an optimisation in that it only scans files which could actually
harm the system, without wasting time scanning files which are never
used. On the other hand, it also scans them at the worst possible time...
>> (Presumably because that
>> would make it too easy for a virus to slip past; just tweak the file
>> timestamp...)
>
> Don't use the timestamp. Use the USN journal. That's what it's for.
And how many 3rd parties know this exists? (Also, it only works for
NTFS. Which should be a non-issue, because *nobody* should be using FAT
by now...)
> Indeed, you can just do a lazy background scan of anything that might be
> an executable after whoever is writing to it finishes writing to it.
You might argue that you could also do lazy on-access scans by logging
who's accessing stuff, and then checking after. Still, difficult to
block access to a file after it's been accessed...
>> For that matter, I've yet to see an AV product that's any good at
>> *removing*
>> malware. Most of them will *detect* an infection, but they do an utterly
>> crap job of *removing* it.
>
> It depends on the malware. It's hard to "remove" an infection that has
> replaced valid code with virus code.
For example, when my laptop was infected by MS Blaster, McAfee correctly
detected the virus file on disk, but was utterly unable to delete it. It
kept complaining about "access denied", because the virus was still
running. When *I* manually killed it in Task Manager and then deleted
the file myself, it worked just fine. Now why the **** couldn't McAfee
have done that for itself? Isn't that what we paid exorbitant sums of
money for? So that people who aren't the IT System Administrator can
clean malware off their systems?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/6/2011 10:29, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Seems to me more like "useless busy-work to reassure the customer that we
> really are doing something".
Or maybe "check that you haven't installed something while the scanner was
turned off"?
> I notice that Symantec AntiVirus Corporate Edition doesn't do scheduled
> scans at all by default. (Unless you explicitly ask it to.) Neither did
> Trend Micro, until our IT department turned it on. (Why?)
See above.
>> Try Microsoft Security Essentials. It's really good.
> It has "Microsoft" in the name. Why would it be good?
Because it's written by the same people whose OS you're trying to protect is?
> That's a valid argument for a file server. But even in that case, you (or
> somebody else) still has to *access* the file.
But the other person might not have a virus scanner.
> While we're on the subject, almost all AV product claim to be able to detect
> "virus-like behaviour" even if they don't have signatures for it. But I've
> yet to see this actually work in practise...
I have.
> It's an optimisation in that it only scans files which could actually harm
> the system, without wasting time scanning files which are never used. On the
> other hand, it also scans them at the worst possible time...
Right. That's why using the USN journal is such a good idea.
>> Don't use the timestamp. Use the USN journal. That's what it's for.
>
> And how many 3rd parties know this exists? (Also, it only works for NTFS.
> Which should be a non-issue, because *nobody* should be using FAT by now...)
If you don't have the USN turned on, fall back to on-demand scanning. Lots
of third parties know it exists. It's well documented and has been around
for years. Heck, *I* know it exists and I don't even try to write
non-portable Windows code.
Too many people try to do cool stuff and just skip all the tools that
Windows gives you to make it work well. Not knowing the USN journal exists
when you're writing file scanning software for Windows is like not knowing
the Apple UI guidelines exist when trying to write interactive code.
>> Indeed, you can just do a lazy background scan of anything that might be
>> an executable after whoever is writing to it finishes writing to it.
>
> You might argue that you could also do lazy on-access scans by logging who's
> accessing stuff, and then checking after. Still, difficult to block access
> to a file after it's been accessed...
Right. But this way, you're scanning the executable as soon as it gets
potentially-infected, not when the person is waiting for it to run. You get
notified as soon as you visit the web page that gives you the virus, not a
week later after you have no idea why the program you only use once a week
is suddenly different.
> Now why the **** couldn't McAfee have done that for itself?
Dunno. Privilege problems?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/06/2011 06:55 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 6/6/2011 10:29, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Seems to me more like "useless busy-work to reassure the customer that we
>> really are doing something".
>
> Or maybe "check that you haven't installed something while the scanner
> was turned off"?
...which the on-demand scanner is *still* going to detect...
>>> Try Microsoft Security Essentials. It's really good.
>> It has "Microsoft" in the name. Why would it be good?
>
> Because it's written by the same people whose OS you're trying to
> protect is?
Heheh. These are the people who thought "hey, let's make it so that
every home user has full admin rights by default". Yes, I'm sure they
know a thing or two about security. ;-)
>> That's a valid argument for a file server. But even in that case, you (or
>> somebody else) still has to *access* the file.
>
> But the other person might not have a virus scanner.
If the file is on a file server, then each time you try to access it,
the AV product on the server will perform an on-demand scan.
> Too many people try to do cool stuff and just skip all the tools that
> Windows gives you to make it work well.
Now /that/ I can agree with.
>> Now why the **** couldn't McAfee have done that for itself?
>
> Dunno. Privilege problems?
What, this scenario didn't show up in testing? "We want to clean a virus
that's currently running" seems like more or less test #2 or #3 in any
sane test suite...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 06.06.2011 20:22, schrieb Orchid XP v8:
>>>> Try Microsoft Security Essentials. It's really good.
>>> It has "Microsoft" in the name. Why would it be good?
>>
>> Because it's written by the same people whose OS you're trying to
>> protect is?
>
> Heheh. These are the people who thought "hey, let's make it so that
> every home user has full admin rights by default". Yes, I'm sure they
> know a thing or two about security. ;-)
Um...
Wrong perspective. Development was actually from CP/M's "access control?
just lock the f*** room door" concept to there.
Oh, and didn't they go for "hey, let's make it so that every home user
does /not/ have full admin rights by default" when they introduced
Vista? Might be wrong here, but didn't both software and users kinda go
amok back then?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
