 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
For the second time within a couple of months I get a strange problem
with google. Last month it just stopped by itself after a few days, now
I don't know.
- It starts with my firewall refusing access to:
http://tools.google.com/service/update2?
which is followed by a long string of (changing) characters.
- It tells me that the it is blocked by internal black list.
- It concerns the x86 program file Google\Update\GoogleUpdate.exe
- the user given is NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM
- Access to google is blocked.
- The people from the antivirus/firewall company I buy from had no clue
about what happened.
- no virus or other malware is active on my machine.
Any idea what this could be?
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/05/14 09:26, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> For the second time within a couple of months I get a strange problem
> with google. Last month it just stopped by itself after a few days, now
> I don't know.
>
> - It starts with my firewall refusing access to:
> http://tools.google.com/service/update2?
> which is followed by a long string of (changing) characters.
>
> - It tells me that the it is blocked by internal black list.
>
> - It concerns the x86 program file Google\Update\GoogleUpdate.exe
>
> - the user given is NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM
>
> - Access to google is blocked.
>
> - The people from the antivirus/firewall company I buy from had no clue
> about what happened.
>
> - no virus or other malware is active on my machine.
>
> Any idea what this could be?
>
> Thomas
Oh, bugger! Not good.
1. First see if you can access Google using one of these:
64.233.160.0 - 64.233.191.255
66.102.0.0 - 66.102.15.255
66.249.64.0 - 66.249.95.255
72.14.192.0 - 72.14.255.255
74.125.0.0 - 74.125.255.255
209.85.128.0 - 209.85.255.255
216.239.32.0 - 216.239.63.255
In general, one of these ranges should work. If you can access Google
this way, then:
2. Check your HOSTS file using Notepad.exe or some other plain text
editor. HOSTS has no extension and can be found in the
C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc folder. Don't forget to make hidden and
system files visible first.
If there is any line containing google.com, delete it and save.
Restart your machine and try to access Google in the normal manner.
Report back with the results
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29-5-2014 13:13, Doctor John wrote:
> Oh, bugger! Not good.
Indeed. Thanks John for attempting the rescue.
>
> 1. First see if you can access Google using one of these:
> 64.233.160.0 - 64.233.191.255
> 66.102.0.0 - 66.102.15.255
> 66.249.64.0 - 66.249.95.255
> 72.14.192.0 - 72.14.255.255
> 74.125.0.0 - 74.125.255.255
> 209.85.128.0 - 209.85.255.255
> 216.239.32.0 - 216.239.63.255
> In general, one of these ranges should work. If you can access Google
> this way, then:
None of the ranges connect to Google. :-(
>
> 2. Check your HOSTS file using Notepad.exe or some other plain text
> editor. HOSTS has no extension and can be found in the
> C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc folder. Don't forget to make hidden and
> system files visible first.
> If there is any line containing google.com, delete it and save.
> Restart your machine and try to access Google in the normal manner.
I checked nonetheless and found no mention of google.com in the hosts
file. Only general comments on use. To be complete, I checked the other
files in the folder and no google.com mentioned.
>
> Report back with the results
Well, here I am ;-)
Maybe of no importance: Win7, Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird. All using
latest updates etc as far as I know.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/05/14 12:46, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 29-5-2014 13:13, Doctor John wrote:
>> Oh, bugger! Not good.
>
> Indeed. Thanks John for attempting the rescue.
>
>>
>> 1. First see if you can access Google using one of these:
>> 64.233.160.0 - 64.233.191.255
>> 66.102.0.0 - 66.102.15.255
>> 66.249.64.0 - 66.249.95.255
>> 72.14.192.0 - 72.14.255.255
>> 74.125.0.0 - 74.125.255.255
>> 209.85.128.0 - 209.85.255.255
>> 216.239.32.0 - 216.239.63.255
>> In general, one of these ranges should work. If you can access Google
>> this way, then:
>
> None of the ranges connect to Google. :-(
>
>>
>> 2. Check your HOSTS file using Notepad.exe or some other plain text
>> editor. HOSTS has no extension and can be found in the
>> C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc folder. Don't forget to make hidden and
>> system files visible first.
>> If there is any line containing google.com, delete it and save.
>> Restart your machine and try to access Google in the normal manner.
>
> I checked nonetheless and found no mention of google.com in the hosts
> file. Only general comments on use. To be complete, I checked the other
> files in the folder and no google.com mentioned.
>
>>
>> Report back with the results
>
> Well, here I am ;-)
> Maybe of no importance: Win7, Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird. All using
> latest updates etc as far as I know.
>
> Thomas
>
Check your router. Without knowing its make, it's hard to give general
instructions but try to find a blocked sites list.
If you can't do that, can you borrow another machine which you can
connect through your router?
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 29/05/2014 10:26, Thomas de Groot nous fit lire :
> For the second time within a couple of months I get a strange problem
> with google. Last month it just stopped by itself after a few days, now
> I don't know.
>
> - It starts with my firewall refusing access to:
> http://tools.google.com/service/update2?
> which is followed by a long string of (changing) characters.
>
> - It tells me that the it is blocked by internal black list.
>
> - It concerns the x86 program file Google\Update\GoogleUpdate.exe
>
> - the user given is NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM
>
> - Access to google is blocked.
>
> - The people from the antivirus/firewall company I buy from had no clue
> about what happened.
>
> - no virus or other malware is active on my machine.
>
> Any idea what this could be?
>
> Thomas
Lot of programs from google come with a global updater (as soon as you
install one, it will be there). GoogleUpdate.exe is calling home... to
get update and maybe providing user-information...
(Indeed, even if you desinstall every google programs, the google
updater might remain until some later stage (week or month).)
The antivirus/firewall might have classified the "home" as unsafe
(especially if google is not that strict about respecting the right of
the users; and if the black list is filled by other users).
Is it really unsafe ?
Do you really want to trust Google about big data ?
--
IQ of crossposters with FU: 100 / (number of groups)
IQ of crossposters without FU: 100 / (1 + number of groups)
IQ of multiposters: 100 / ( (number of groups) * (number of groups))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29-5-2014 14:09, Doctor John wrote:
> Check your router. Without knowing its make, it's hard to give general
> instructions but try to find a blocked sites list.
> If you can't do that, can you borrow another machine which you can
> connect through your router?
>
I am going to investigate.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/05/14 13:19, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 29-5-2014 14:09, Doctor John wrote:
>
>> Check your router. Without knowing its make, it's hard to give general
>> instructions but try to find a blocked sites list.
>> If you can't do that, can you borrow another machine which you can
>> connect through your router?
>>
>
> I am going to investigate.
>
> Thomas
>
>
BTW If you want to, skype me using my firstname.surname
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/05/14 13:13, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>
> Is it really unsafe ?
> Do you really want to trust Google about big data ?
>
There is a fundamental problem with the 'net. If we leave it open then
we allow anyone (not just Google) to reap our data (encrypted or not).
If we restrict it, then we lose the interconnectivity that Tim
Berners-Lee and his predecessors envisaged.
As I see it, it's not a problem of trust but a problem of
self-censorship; if you don't want someone to access some data about
you, don't use the 'net to communicate it.
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2014-05-29 04:26, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
> For the second time within a couple of months I get a strange problem
> with google. Last month it just stopped by itself after a few days, now
> I don't know.
>
> - It starts with my firewall refusing access to:
> http://tools.google.com/service/update2?
> which is followed by a long string of (changing) characters.
>
> - It tells me that the it is blocked by internal black list.
>
Please post exact error message, even if it's in Dutch, Swahili or Klingon.
> - It concerns the x86 program file Google\Update\GoogleUpdate.exe
>
Find the file in question and check its digital signature (right-click
properties, etc, etc...)
Mine has a valid verisign certificate issued in 2008. If yours does
not, it was probably hijacked by some malware. Delete it from your system.
> - the user given is NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM
>
> - Access to google is blocked.
>
All access to google, or just access to the tools.google.com url?
> - The people from the antivirus/firewall company I buy from had no clue
> about what happened.
>
> - no virus or other malware is active on my machine.
>
> Any idea what this could be?
>
> Thomas
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 29/05/2014 15:26, Doctor John nous fit lire :
> On 29/05/14 13:13, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>>
>> Is it really unsafe ?
>> Do you really want to trust Google about big data ?
>>
>
> There is a fundamental problem with the 'net. If we leave it open then
> we allow anyone (not just Google) to reap our data (encrypted or not).
> If we restrict it, then we lose the interconnectivity that Tim
> Berners-Lee and his predecessors envisaged.
> As I see it, it's not a problem of trust but a problem of
> self-censorship; if you don't want someone to access some data about
> you, don't use the 'net to communicate it.
I disagree. Open is not the problem, it's the solution.
Google is not open. My data are that: "Mine". Until i openly grant
someone access to my habit on my system, nobody should try to read it.
But that's not the approach of the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.
"Better apologize than ask permission" is a strong step to try and build
a project. But that's just plain wrong with privacy.
For once, I'm ok with the Dilbert solution (1998 May 07):
> http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1998-05-07/
I just have weak hands... and who could seize google's ankles ?
Later version...
> http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2004-05-31/
I want a life of sheep, but I won't make a treaty with wolves.
--
IQ of crossposters with FU: 100 / (number of groups)
IQ of crossposters without FU: 100 / (1 + number of groups)
IQ of multiposters: 100 / ( (number of groups) * (number of groups))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/05/14 15:02, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>
> I disagree. Open is not the problem, it's the solution.
> Google is not open. My data are that: "Mine". Until i openly grant
> someone access to my habit on my system, nobody should try to read it.
A moot point but I'm not arguing, yet ...
> But that's not the approach of the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.
Or do you mean every intelligence agency in the world? Putin has
admitted cyber-espionage, the Chinese - despite their denials - have
been caught red-handed etc etc. Quite honestly, I'd think little of the
security services of a country or company which was not trying.
> "Better apologize than ask permission" is a strong step to try and build
> a project. But that's just plain wrong with privacy.
>
Where's the difference?
> For once, I'm ok with the Dilbert solution (1998 May 07):
>> http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1998-05-07/
>
> I just have weak hands... and who could seize google's ankles ?
>
> Later version...
>> http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2004-05-31/
>
My favourite cartoon series :-) Thanks for making me smile
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 29/05/2014 16:20, Doctor John nous fit lire :
>> > "Better apologize than ask permission" is a strong step to try and build
>> > a project. But that's just plain wrong with privacy.
>> >
> Where's the difference?
>
Well, it's also plain wrong with rape. Or murder.
Of course, if we have no problem with "I apologize for the
mass-mutilation at the kindergarten, I thought that helping them all to
get ride of their left hand was nice thing to do in this world designed
with tools made for right hand.", what about these toes nobody seems to
need ?
--
IQ of crossposters with FU: 100 / (number of groups)
IQ of crossposters without FU: 100 / (1 + number of groups)
IQ of multiposters: 100 / ( (number of groups) * (number of groups))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/05/14 16:25, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Well, it's also plain wrong with rape. Or murder.
>
> Of course, if we have no problem with "I apologize for the
> mass-mutilation at the kindergarten, I thought that helping them all to
> get ride of their left hand was nice thing to do in this world designed
> with tools made for right hand.", what about these toes nobody seems to
> need ?
>
Hmm. We seem to have a disconnect in our assumptions. As far as I am
concerned, knowledge (information) is not property. However, life and
all things connected thereto are. I will not steal or otherwise
interfere with your property.
Can I be cognisant of information connected intrinsically with your
existence (eg your feelings on first realising that Amelie Hollande
rather liked you or the day you had your first orgasm)? No. I don't have
the back story of your upbringing and never will. Your back story is, in
part, your property.
Can I be cognisant of the fact that you posted a message to this
newsgroup? Yes and, unless you have an encryption method far superior to
those I know about, you can wave goodbye to your assumptions of privacy
of communication when using a publicly accessible medium.
I will defend unto death your right to exist, but I also defend my right
to detect possible threats to my existence.
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 29 May 2014 16:02:57 +0200, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Open is not the problem, it's the solution.
> Google is not open. My data are that: "Mine". Until i openly grant
> someone access to my habit on my system, nobody should try to read it.
Except that if you use Google, you're openly granting them access to your
data.
Google makes it possible to review the data they have about you as well,
through your account settings. But the basic premise is if you want to
keep something private, don't share it.
I use Google extensively, and I'm OK with them having the data on me they
have. I occasionally review that data, and if there's something that I
would rather they not have, I deal with it - but I'm under no illusions
about whether or not they may have retained a copy of it, even if I
removed it.
Just like Facebook.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 29/05/2014 17:52, Doctor John nous fit lire :
> On 29/05/14 16:25, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> Well, it's also plain wrong with rape. Or murder.
>>
>> Of course, if we have no problem with "I apologize for the
>> mass-mutilation at the kindergarten, I thought that helping them all to
>> get ride of their left hand was nice thing to do in this world designed
>> with tools made for right hand.", what about these toes nobody seems to
>> need ?
>>
>
> Hmm. We seem to have a disconnect in our assumptions. As far as I am
> concerned, knowledge (information) is not property.
The DMCA (and the RIAA and similar) do not agree with you and had its
way to the law. Information is property, even if immaterial.
Same with patent (and patent-troll). That's the law, you can have it
changed but you have to live in its current version.
Have you no problem with that remote-camera in your dressing and your
bathroom ? We also connected your toilet. It's just information. (and we
sell it to your insurance company and tailor... your bank is also
interested in your health analysis from the pattern of the flush on the
toilet).
> However, life and
> all things connected thereto are. I will not steal or otherwise
> interfere with your property.
>
You cannot hold that promise, as even extracting oil & gas for your car
might affect my life.
>
> Can I be cognisant of the fact that you posted a message to this
> newsgroup? Yes and, unless you have an encryption method far superior to
> those I know about, you can wave goodbye to your assumptions of privacy
> of communication when using a publicly accessible medium.
Posting to a newsgroup is a public action, no privacy problem here. But
even the pattern of using a software is not that public. Therefore, I
expect my pattern to not be available to someone else. This is not your
to know, not without an opt-in from me.
You can have my pattern for posting, but should not have the one of my
reading. That's the boundary Google is crossing since a bit of time.
Pragmatism should be balanced with reflection at philosophic level. It
seems so far money is more than anything else, and I'm afraid the
Christians and maybe others have some quotes already about that being
not so good.
>
> I will defend unto death your right to exist, but I also defend my right
> to detect possible threats to my existence.
I remember a quote from a Benjamin about trading liberty and security. I
will always stand on the side of liberty, even if I'm ready to hit with
a nuke the one caught threatening my security. I do not have a
proportional response curve.
Show a knife, get nuked; In the meantime, you're welcome.
--
IQ of crossposters with FU: 100 / (number of groups)
IQ of crossposters without FU: 100 / (1 + number of groups)
IQ of multiposters: 100 / ( (number of groups) * (number of groups))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/05/14 19:01, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>
> The DMCA (and the RIAA and similar) do not agree with you and had its
> way to the law. Information is property, even if immaterial.
> Same with patent (and patent-troll). That's the law, you can have it
> changed but you have to live in its current version.
>
Sorry, I live in the UK. US legislation is not applicable here. Note
also that that within this legislation area there is no such thing as
software copyright.
> Have you no problem with that remote-camera in your dressing and your
> bathroom ? We also connected your toilet. It's just information. (and we
> sell it to your insurance company and tailor... your bank is also
> interested in your health analysis from the pattern of the flush on the
> toilet).
What? Get real not paranoid.
>
> You cannot hold that promise, as even extracting oil & gas for your car
> might affect my life.
>
Indeed. And your refusal to accept that research is not always bad may
affect my life. Your logic, not mine.
>
> Posting to a newsgroup is a public action, no privacy problem here. But
> even the pattern of using a software is not that public. Therefore, I
> expect my pattern to not be available to someone else. This is not your
> to know, not without an opt-in from me.
>
> You can have my pattern for posting, but should not have the one of my
> reading. That's the boundary Google is crossing since a bit of time.
>
For $YOURDEITY's sake, when reading a post on a newsgroup, an email or a
page on the intarwebs, you have sent a publicly readable request for
such information.
If a policeman notes that you consistently visit different banks and/or
loiter near ATMs, he cannot be criticised for suspecting that you may be
engaged in or planning to be engaged in illegal activity.
Ditto those who monitor the webs.
>>
>> I will defend unto death your right to exist, but I also defend my right
>> to detect possible threats to my existence.
>
> I remember a quote from a Benjamin about trading liberty and security. I
> will always stand on the side of liberty, even if I'm ready to hit with
> a nuke the one caught threatening my security. I do not have a
> proportional response curve.
> Show a knife, get nuked; In the meantime, you're welcome.
>
That is not what I said.
I will give my life to defend your existence. I will, however, continue
to watch you; if I detect a threat to me then I will seek to nullify it.
My actions will always stop short of ending your life.
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
To give my tu'pence worth.
I remember my old Grannie (long dead now) saying:
"Never write anything you don't want everyone to read."
She was right. As long as human nature is human nature, someone will
have something to hide and someone will want to know it.
Open source is a wonderful idea for a perfect world. I commend it. But
until we develop telepathy. Forget it. There will always be someone
trying to screw you over.
It distresses me the way people display their lives on "Social Media"
what ever the feck that means.
As John Brunner, wrote: "The Sheep Look Up"
Phew! I got that off my chest. :-D
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/05/14 23:38, Stephen wrote:
> To give my tu'pence worth.
>
Your tu'pence is worth twice that.
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I disagree. Open is not the problem, it's the solution.
> Google is not open. My data are that: "Mine". Until i openly grant
> someone access to my habit on my system, nobody should try to read it.
Even in all companies and governments acted in a legally and morally
correct way, there will *always* be criminals that don't - either
directly or indirectly through other companies/governments. You should
therefore assume that any data you have on a machine connected to the
internet *could* be read by anyone. That is why it is not recommended to
store passwords in a plain text file on your computer.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29-5-2014 15:38, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2014-05-29 04:26, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
>> For the second time within a couple of months I get a strange problem
>> with google. Last month it just stopped by itself after a few days, now
>> I don't know.
>>
>> - It starts with my firewall refusing access to:
>> http://tools.google.com/service/update2?
>> which is followed by a long string of (changing) characters.
>>
>> - It tells me that the it is blocked by internal black list.
>>
>
> Please post exact error message, even if it's in Dutch, Swahili or Klingon.
It says this:
30-5-2014 9:10:23
http://tools.google.com/service/update2?w=6:OB0uOgy6aOiP05eNOkxg0Gm7_R7kgeODhPDFhAaRltfunxs0_0rKhfA4L-M3jT0Y2jYobBuNPd20b7RbKqNZ9RFZXsviIt0YlWSQ4ElJ785idYyaM2hkVE9B1_Vb4dsT8kTsO6eB-Qi-LLD6DbnQKXRPycbUFtF1atiNJlu7-lzHJy_gUPOt1W9xGWV9KieBmTptKbLCq0oY9Dm1vOIl_nj4cJRSNtSOgb46iy1Y-G0gvHu3hZ7JNqcgFeiZznXH-wM-vMzGDZPcxqMPixjTe_VG3yqDUWpSzo_h1lVdrDgY2_JxPRT8a4Kn3aXVwOU9GX8pQ9sDBEBkPP7VOPzUWw
Geblokkeerd door interne zwarte lijst C:\Program Files
(x86)\Google\Update\GoogleUpdate.exe NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM
>
>> - It concerns the x86 program file Google\Update\GoogleUpdate.exe
>>
>
> Find the file in question and check its digital signature (right-click
> properties, etc, etc...)
>
> Mine has a valid verisign certificate issued in 2008. If yours does
> not, it was probably hijacked by some malware. Delete it from your system.
It has a verisign certificate valid from 2007 to 2010.
>
>> - the user given is NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM
>>
>> - Access to google is blocked.
>>
>
> All access to google, or just access to the tools.google.com url?
When trying to open a google window, nothing happens and Firefox tells
me it cannot make a connection.
Direct access to tools.google.com is refused as shown here:
28-5-2014 16:28:25 http://tools.google.com Geblokkeerd door interne
zwarte lijst C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe
Thomas-HP\Thomas
@ DrJohn: [quote]Check your router. Without knowing its make, it's hard
to give general instructions but try to find a blocked sites list.
If you can't do that, can you borrow another machine which you can
connect through your router?[/quote]
I have controlled my modem/router (Eminent EM456x;
www.eminent-online.com) which seems all right. URL Filter lists are
empty and/or disabled.
Thoughts up till now:
IT seems to me that either google is blocked at the firewall but I have
yet been able to find where the mentioned 'black list' is hidden, or
firefox is blocking google.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'eset quarantine 28-5-2014.xcf.dat' (612 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29-5-2014 14:09, Doctor John wrote:
> Check your router. Without knowing its make, it's hard to give general
> instructions but try to find a blocked sites list.
> If you can't do that, can you borrow another machine which you can
> connect through your router?
John, I put my answer to this at the end of my reply to François Labreque.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 30.05.2014 09:41, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 29-5-2014 15:38, Francois Labreque wrote:
>> Le 2014-05-29 04:26, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
>>> For the second time within a couple of months I get a strange problem
>>> with google. Last month it just stopped by itself after a few days, now
>>> I don't know.
>>>
>>> - It starts with my firewall refusing access to:
>>> http://tools.google.com/service/update2?
>>> which is followed by a long string of (changing) characters.
>>>
>>> - It tells me that the it is blocked by internal black list.
>>>
>>
>> Please post exact error message, even if it's in Dutch, Swahili or
>> Klingon.
>
> It says this:
> 30-5-2014 9:10:23
>
http://tools.google.com/service/update2?w=6:OB0uOgy6aOiP05eNOkxg0Gm7_R7kgeODhPDFhAaRltfunxs0_0rKhfA4L-M3jT0Y2jYobBuNPd20b7RbKqNZ9RFZXsviIt0YlWSQ4ElJ785idYyaM2hkVE9B1_Vb4dsT8kTsO6eB-Qi-LLD6DbnQKXRPycbUFtF1atiNJlu7-lzHJy_gUPOt1W9xGWV9KieBmTptKbLCq0oY9Dm1vOIl_nj4cJRSNtSOgb46iy1Y-G0gvHu3hZ7JNqcgFeiZznXH-wM-vMzGDZPcxqMPixjTe_VG3yqDUWpSzo_h1lVdrDgY2_JxPRT8a4Kn3aXVwOU9GX8pQ9sDBEBkPP7VOPzUWw
> Geblokkeerd door interne zwarte lijst C:\Program Files
> (x86)\Google\Update\GoogleUpdate.exe NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM
What exactly is "it"?
>>> - It concerns the x86 program file Google\Update\GoogleUpdate.exe
>>
>> Find the file in question and check its digital signature (right-click
>> properties, etc, etc...)
>>
>> Mine has a valid verisign certificate issued in 2008. If yours does
>> not, it was probably hijacked by some malware. Delete it from your
>> system.
>
> It has a verisign certificate valid from 2007 to 2010.
Then technically it does not have a valid certificate, as it has expired.
> IT seems to me that either google is blocked at the firewall but I have
> yet been able to find where the mentioned 'black list' is hidden, or
> firefox is blocking google.
I'd guess it's the former. Remedy of course strongly depends on what
firewall you are using.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-5-2014 12:57, clipka wrote:
> What exactly is "it"?
The log of filtered websites in the antivirus/firewall system.
> Then technically it does not have a valid certificate, as it has expired.
I suppose so. Interestingly, I bought the PC and installed Firefox - and
thus google - in 2011.
> I'd guess it's the former. Remedy of course strongly depends on what
> firewall you are using.
>
Yes, and I am going to try something which was suggested by the ESET
forum concerning google chrome (ESET being the antivirus/firewall
company, last year tested as best in NL)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 30.05.2014 12:57, schrieb clipka:
>> IT seems to me that either google is blocked at the firewall but I have
>> yet been able to find where the mentioned 'black list' is hidden, or
>> firefox is blocking google.
>
> I'd guess it's the former. Remedy of course strongly depends on what
> firewall you are using.
Sorry, didn't notice the attached image until after the post.
It might be related to an ESET feature called "temporary IP address
blacklist", which can be viewed (and hopefully edited) in the "setup"
section of ESET ("view temporary IP address blacklist" in the English
edition).
(No, I have no experience whatsoever with ESET; I just did a bit of
googling.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-5-2014 13:22, clipka wrote:
> It might be related to an ESET feature called "temporary IP address
> blacklist", which can be viewed (and hopefully edited) in the "setup"
> section of ESET ("view temporary IP address blacklist" in the English
> edition).
I thought so too but alas, the blacklist is empty!
So I tried to /exclude/ the google updater from filtering ( as suggested
by the forum: no change.
I am a bit out of ideas at the moment... :-(
>
> (No, I have no experience whatsoever with ESET; I just did a bit of
> googling.)
>
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 30.05.2014 14:30, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 30-5-2014 13:22, clipka wrote:
>> It might be related to an ESET feature called "temporary IP address
>> blacklist", which can be viewed (and hopefully edited) in the "setup"
>> section of ESET ("view temporary IP address blacklist" in the English
>> edition).
>
> I thought so too but alas, the blacklist is empty!
>
> So I tried to /exclude/ the google updater from filtering ( as suggested
> by the forum: no change.
>
> I am a bit out of ideas at the moment... :-(
Well, you'd think that /somebody/ at ESET should know what this
"internal blacklist" is, so I'd probably try to bother them again.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-5-2014 14:38, clipka wrote:
> Well, you'd think that /somebody/ at ESET should know what this
> "internal blacklist" is, so I'd probably try to bother them again.
>
Which I am certainly going to do!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
By the way, there was a wrong attachment with this post but never mind.
Apparently from that one even (automatically) junked e-mails containing
shit can leave a trace...
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2014-05-29 17:28, Doctor John a écrit :
> On 29/05/14 19:01, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>>
>> The DMCA (and the RIAA and similar) do not agree with you and had its
>> way to the law. Information is property, even if immaterial.
>> Same with patent (and patent-troll). That's the law, you can have it
>> changed but you have to live in its current version.
>>
>
> Sorry, I live in the UK. US legislation is not applicable here. Note
> also that that within this legislation area there is no such thing as
> software copyright.
>
>> Have you no problem with that remote-camera in your dressing and your
>> bathroom ? We also connected your toilet. It's just information. (and we
>> sell it to your insurance company and tailor... your bank is also
>> interested in your health analysis from the pattern of the flush on the
>> toilet).
>
> What? Get real not paranoid.
Big Data is here, and will only get worse.
Smart thermostats that detect when you walk in a room and automatically
turn up the heat or AC? You betcha they keep stats and upload them to
the Mothership. Now these are using wifi to talk to one another, and
since the GoogleMobile conveniently recorded the SSID of all the wifi
networks it saw, it know exactly where in the world this person is, and
now it knows their personal habits: when they wake up, at what time
they leave the house, when they come back, at what time they go in the
kitchen, where they spend their evening, at what time they go to bed.
Andy used to be a single who spent most evenings in his bedroom
(probably playing computer games), but now on Fridays, he comes home
form work and spends a long time in the bathroom, then leaves and comes
back late and goes straight to bed, and spends his saturday afternoons
in the kitchen, and evenings in the living room. Combine this with the
fact that his Netflix queue preference has moved from historical WWII
movies to romcoms, you only need a little analytics engine to start
making correlations and soon enough, you'll be able to figure out that
he's got a new girlfriend, so you can start showing him jewelry ads...
Insurance companies are pushing to install black boxes in their
customers' cars to record their driving habits and reward good drivers
with lower premiums. While they say they're not GPS-equipped, they do
come with accelerometers in order to see if you drive like a maniac or
not, and since insurance companies have to know where you live, using
only acceleration data, and GIS data they can figure out which roads you
take to work everyday, where you go for entertainment or shopping. Oh!
By the way, Officer Smith just subpoenaed this information as part of
his investigation into your ex-girlfriend's disappearance.
Some utility companies have started installing smartmeters that can
charge different rates based on the time of day, and also record your
electricity usage. Thes utility companies are trying to to push to have
the means to selectively turn off appliances during high demand hours.
Kid just threw up on the dining room table, 1 hour before the In-Laws
arrived for Mother's day brunch and you want to wash it? "HAL! Open the
washing machine door!
- I'm sorry Dave! I'm afraid I can't do that."
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2014-05-29 18:38, Stephen a écrit :
> To give my tu'pence worth.
>
>
> I remember my old Grannie (long dead now) saying:
> "Never write anything you don't want everyone to read."
> She was right. As long as human nature is human nature, someone will
> have something to hide and someone will want to know it.
> Open source is a wonderful idea for a perfect world. I commend it. But
> until we develop telepathy. Forget it. There will always be someone
> trying to screw you over.
> It distresses me the way people display their lives on "Social Media"
> what ever the feck that means.
> As John Brunner, wrote: "The Sheep Look Up"
>
> Phew! I got that off my chest. :-D
>
In the early 90s, when the internet was barely an infant, in my
university's computer lab, there was a big sign on the wall that said
something like:
"Don't say anything on newsgroups or IRC that you aren't willing to
repeat in front of a judge, with your family in the audience!"
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30/05/2014 15:28, Francois Labreque wrote:
> In the early 90s, when the internet was barely an infant, in my
> university's computer lab, there was a big sign on the wall that said
> something like:
>
> "Don't say anything on newsgroups or IRC that you aren't willing to
> repeat in front of a judge, with your family in the audience!"
>
It should be in every classroom and workplace.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
