Windows XP SP2 TCP/IP "Patch"

By Frank
in Microsoft (Windows)

 Share

Recommended Posts

Rising Star

Mouton

Posted
Posted
If you can avoid getting viruses in the first place, you have every right to apply the patch.

585569237[/snapback]

Some guy, a human very probably, programmed the OS and applications you are using. In our lifetimes, I guess that will always continue to be true. Let's multiply that guy by a couple hundred to create an OS.

Being humans, we make errors. Even if there's 12 levels of quality check after the actual guy's work, some of which are done by humans too, errors can still find their way into the finished product.

I don't think anyone will actually argue with me that OS and other applications have bugs, shortcomings, failures, etc.

Since I'm sure you'll agree to that, I really don't see how you can say 'if you can avoid getting viruses'... There is no such thing. You'll never be able to be 100% sure your computer will always be virus-free. Even with the best security anyone can devise, there will always be a way around it.

That being the reality of today (and of probably the couple of decades to come), why help the potential virus you'd get ? Why not just wait at the red light like everyone else ?

Rising Star

Mouton

Posted
Posted
Exactly.

A better metaphore would be a "security guard" for your house that doesn't do anything while your house is being robbed and ransacked but is paid to just keep stepping in the way of the the crooks as they move onto other homes, making them take longer to get their but not apprehending thim. To make things worse the guard does this for everyone leaving your house, all the time.

Now who would think this is "good" security or even security at all?

585569705[/snapback]

Can any security guard stop all robbers from going in my house ?

If not, I'll get the best I can get.

That's what we could call an AV... Or anything that would achieve the same goal. Get the best you can. That's not the point. The point is, there is no available security guard that can gives me 100% results (= no robbers in my house).

If the security guard company gives me a free security guard (to use in complement of my security guard against robbers) whose only job will be to shoot at robbers who would come *out* of my house, I really don't see why I wouldn't agree...

Why remove a security measure that helps your neighbours and cost you very little (or nothing) ?

Collaborator

dyn

Posted
Posted (edited)
Exactly.

A better metaphore would be a "security guard" for your house that doesn't do anything while your house is being robbed and ransacked but is paid to just keep stepping in the way of the the crooks as they move onto other homes, making them take longer to get their but not apprehending thim. To make things worse the guard does this for everyone leaving your house, all the time.

Now who would think this is "good" security or even security at all?

585569705[/snapback]

That would be a worse metaphore, it only describes a firewall that doesn't work correctly.

The TCP/IP security has got not much to do with virusses. It's there to make sure a computer isn't swept away by a wave of data (DDOS).

It's more like a "guard" that is stopping 200 crooks from entering a house through 1 door at the same time. If you want to stop the crooks you need another type of guard, being a firewall. If you want to get rid of sick crooks (worm virusses) you need antivirus software.

The guard in question doesn't guard your own house, it guards everyone elses house by making sure you're not the one that is trying to flood someone elses home.

So it guards everyone elses home at your doorstep.

It's a bit hard to explain it correctly.

Edited by dyn
Grand Master

jamend

Posted
Posted
Some guy, a human very probably, programmed the OS and applications you are using. In our lifetimes, I guess that will always continue to be true. Let's multiply that guy by a couple hundred to create an OS.

Being humans, we make errors. Even if there's 12 levels of quality check after the actual guy's work, some of which are done by humans too, errors can still find their way into the finished product.

I don't think anyone will actually argue with me that OS and other applications have bugs, shortcomings, failures, etc.

Since I'm sure you'll agree to that, I really don't see how you can say 'if you can avoid getting viruses'... There is no such thing. You'll never be able to be 100% sure your computer will always be virus-free. Even with the best security anyone can devise, there will always be a way around it.

That being the reality of today (and of probably the couple of decades to come), why help the potential virus you'd get ? Why not just wait at the red light like everyone else ?

585570132[/snapback]

OK, name me a viruses that exploited a security vulnerability that was not patched when the virus started spreading...

Of course I can't be 100% sure that I'll never get a virus, but then again I can't be 100% sure that I'll never hit someone with my car, even when following all traffic laws. Are you suggesting I should just never drive?

Grand Master

Slimy

Posted
Posted

speed is a lot more important to me, common if i get attacked by a virus because of this patch or i get hacked, wtv, i can simply use a backup and get everything back, but the fact that I can download x times faster, will make all the difference for me, it's not like I have credit card numbers on my computer so I don't really care if a hacker hacks this computer, what are the chances one would want to? I'm not using a firewall for that exact reason, speed is much more important, and I've actually seen the speed difference, those that are using their computer knowledge to prove that it doesn't work are probably not considering an important factor, i can't tell you what it is, i'm no expert, but if the speeds are faster, the speeds are faster.

Grand Master

John Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
speed is a lot more important to me, common if i get attacked by a virus because of this patch or i get hacked, wtv, i can simply use a backup and get everything back, but the fact that I can download x times faster, will make all the difference for me, it's not like I have credit card numbers on my computer so I don't really care if a hacker hacks this computer, what are the chances one would want to? I'm not using a firewall for that exact reason, speed is much more important, and I've actually seen the speed difference, those that are using their computer knowledge to prove that it doesn't work are probably not considering an important factor, i can't tell you what it is, i'm no expert, but if the speeds are faster, the speeds are faster.

585577415[/snapback]

That's why I get 3 megs / sec through a software and a hardware firewall :rolleyes:

Grand Master

Frank

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Are you suggesting I should just never drive?

585573459[/snapback]

Nope, I am suggesting you should have car insurance.

This patch works for me, it sped up my downloads big time and I always got that error prior to the patch.  I always saw it in the Event Viewer in Admin Tools ;)

585585329[/snapback]

Did you ever look to see what was causing your error? What exactly were you downloading?

Grand Master

revvo

Posted
Posted

Here's how I see this whole shabang.

It's your system. You are the user. You should be aware of the consequences that you might be facing. If you get a virus or something malicious, then you deserve it no matter how you got it. You're responsible for your machine all the time so don't run around crying when your system is lagging cause of excess # of foreign established connections or worms spreading throughout your network.

You cannot not to be a computer savvy and still be safe from the online threats by relying on what others will do to you or your software.

Frankly I find these "solutions" ridiculious. You might think it has good intentions to limit connections but this should be something the user can tweak by himself. User could be a "geek" who knows what he/she's doing or a noob. Why should everyone be faced to use the same solution when clearly the amount of security and awareness varies from one to another? Well I guess that goes to show you what the average windows user is? Or am I wrong?

Contributor

alex3299

Posted
Posted (edited)

For example my ISP NewsGroups Admin is a dumb the guy configure a upload limit for a file at 5k and i have a 200k and he don?t put a limit to the connection the same user can do (or maybe the ISA Server on my WS2003 somehow transfrom the packet ACK "give me this to someone"), so to use all my band i have to make around 40 simultaneous connections, this also aply to the Download Maneger in some http and ftp servers, and no need to talk about the Scanners and some Games, and if you disable the Windows Firewall most programs just crash or don?t work at all____Patch the .sys file

Now to se the Connections just use the Old Friend DOS Prompt

netstat /? <--- Info about the Command

netstat /aobn <--- This should do the Job

Note:

My home system uptime is 1day and some hours and already make 9560 connections and have 421 erros and now i have 60 active connections,

Tip:

You can see this info on a MMC console with a ActiveX - System Monitor

Edited by alex3299
Apprentice

benyahuda0

Posted
Posted

There sure are a lot of opinions about this patch. I use it.

The main thing I want is speed and I am aware of 'perceived' speed vs 'real' speed.

I mainly use Limewire and my real speed over time was about 28K on a 3M connection. P*** Poor. I also used Bittorrent which was even worse in REAL speed. At times Bittorrent wouldn't even work. I applied this patch and tried several settings and now my Limewire consistantly d/l's @220K+ with the u/l usually above 60K. Before I tried this patch I never once saw my combined up/down break 70K. I have been using it for 3 months now with NO problems.

I understand everyone is allowed an opinion which is why I may have mine. I also realize that not everyone will experience the same results so I won't call any one stupid. All I can say is on my machine the patch works. And the results are real (graphed out, sorry I didn't save them or I would have posted them), not perceived. Reading a lot of the posts apparantly this shouldn't be, but it is and I'm happy with it.

When I can get what I'm looking for through 'legit' channels like my 64 bit XP directly from M$ I do so. But to get my copies of Longhorn I had to use other means. And the same goes for my copies of linux which are legit but their downloads were totally enhanced with this 'patch' or maybe it's an 'unpatch'. Don't really care as it works and as long as I am vigilant and pro-active on the virus-trojan-worm front this really shouldn't be anyone elses concern.

No disrespect is intended. Opinions may be like ***holes, everyone has one, but having one doesn't make anyone an ***hole. OK.

Grand Master

Frank

Posted
  • Author
Posted

There is no Microsoft "Fix" for this since Microsoft is the one who changed the way Windows XP handles UNANSWERED (this is the key work) connections. This is not a bug in the Windows XP OS. What program are you running when you get the error? Do you notice a speed difference in any of your programs?

First thing I would do is scan for Spyware and Viruses.

Download Spybot S&D, Adaware and Microsoft Anti-Spyware and update the patterns on all of these programs and run a full scan. A lot of people say "I already have them installed, and they don't find anything", well if this is the case make sure your pattern files are up to date AND you have the most recent version of both of these programs.

Also go to http://housecall.antivirus.com and run a scan EVEN IF you have a virus scan program installed.

Community Regular

Heather

Posted
Posted

I don't know what programme is causing the error. How do you find out?

I have scanned for a virus with different scanners a few times.

It just happens while I am surfing the net. I don't have much installed. AVG antivirus, windows firewall, and MSN Messenger, mailwasher and that is about it that is open.

Grand Master

Frank

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Have you ran a scan for spyware? Eventhough you have ran a scan with a few different virus scanning utilities I would still run a scan with Trend's free scanner @ http://housecall.antivirus.com.

What programs are you using when you get the error?

Community Regular

Heather

Posted
Posted

I just this minute edited my post with the programmes that are open lol.

It just happens while I am surfing the net. I don't have much installed. AVG antivirus, windows firewall, and MSN Messenger, mailwasher and that is about it that is open.

I have used housecall and it found nothing.

Grand Master

Frank

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
I just this minute edited my post with the programmes that are open lol.

It just happens while I am surfing the net. I don't have much installed. AVG antivirus, windows firewall, and MSN Messenger, mailwasher and that is about it that is open.

I have used housecall and it found nothing.

585648282[/snapback]

I don't see anything here that would cause the error. If you ran the scans like you claim and have no viruses, and this is all you have installed then I am baffled to what is causing your error.

Edited by bangbang023
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.