|
Just to possibly avoid a reinstall, you might want to try Ad-Aware (http://www.webattack.com/get/adaware.shtml[^]) on the system first...
It is got to be one of the best cleaners out there...!
Peace!
-=- James (Sonork:100.21837)
[Tip for SUV winter driving survival: "Professional Driver on Closed Course" does not mean "your Dumb Ass on a Public Road"!]
[Get Delete FXP Files Now!]
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you James, I'll try this one out.
Regards,
Tiruvan
|
|
|
|
|
My windows 2K DCs have been unable to replicate for the last 4 months causing major headaches with printers not working and users not being able to access shares on a dc when logged in to another dc. Well after running dcdiag, setting entries in the DNS servers and reseting the machine passwords for all the dcs it still did not work until I just figured it out.
One of the dcs had a problem with the rpc server and logged it in the event log. I did not notice this because the problem mostly was denied access to the other dc...
Event ID 1656 - The Directory Service was unable to find any RPC protocol sequences installed on this computer, failing with error 1719. The Directory Service will be unable to respond to any RPC requests as long as this condition persists.
Here is the fix:
REGEDIT4
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Rpc\ClientProtocols]
"ncacn_np"="rpcrt4.dll"
"ncacn_ip_tcp"="rpcrt4.dll"
"ncadg_ip_udp"="rpcrt4.dll"
"ncacn_nb_tcp"="rpcrt4.dll"
"ncacn_http"="rpcrt4.dll"
Save this as a .reg file and opewn it with explorer.
A link suggested that this was caused by blaster which makes sense because we got both blaster and welcha at the hospital where I work...
John
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone know if/how I could synchronize tasks/calender between Outlook 2003 installed on my PC and Web Outlook on my schools Exchange 2003 server. I have to use both interfaces because of my school blocking SMTP for its own mail service  I can only check email from the web interface. Anyone have any ideas?
Matt Newman
If you chose to continue this discussion, I am fully prepared to make you my bitch. I invite you to ask around, and you'll find out that I'm quite capable of doing so - John Simmons on Trolls
|
|
|
|
|
Provide me with some information regarding how does JBoss works, what are its requirements, what r the jar files required,its environmen etc.
|
|
|
|
|
At the risk of stating the obvious, if you use Google or other search engine, that should provide you with more than enough information.
It works by providing an application server (i.e. a host environment and context) for one to execute java apps in. Others are available (although the names of ones we've tested against escape me). You shouldn't infer from these comments that I know what I'm talking about, I don't even code in Java.
Steve S
|
|
|
|
|
Hi every body,
I want the event(notification) of new window creation, so that I can
get the handle to that window, and do whatever things I want to do
with it.
I am able to get this event using sytem-wide CBT hook.
Why I dont Want to use CBT hook :: Because of sytem-wide hook I am
not able to get access to functions of components.(Methods of
Interface
like IHTMLDocument2::get_URL()) which are part of OLEACC.DLL because
of shareability problem. This shareability problem is because of
error 0x8001010D.
Documentation for this error says that it is because of when one
process is inplace active in another process's window, the system
queues of the two processes are synchronized as in 16-bit windows, so
the deadlock could occur. To prevent this, OLE stops synchronous OLE
calls from being made while the caller is the recipient of an input-
synchronized call.
System-wide CBT hook DLL which I created must be making the
proceess inplace active in another process's window to get its
messages.
So I want to get this event(CreateWindow) by some other way(other
than global hook). If there is some work around please help.
Avya.
|
|
|
|
|
I have an NT 4 server with several web clients hosted.
I use Internet Service Manager to configure their websites and FTP access.
My problem is that I am using differing FTP ports to configure multiple FTP sites
for my clients but I recently discovered that *ANY* login will work on any of the
sites if you just use different port numbers while connecting.
This is a terrible security risk.
I tried switching to using only 1 FTP account and allowing the login ID and password
to log them in, but they don't get sent to their home directory as specified in their
User Manager for Domains settings.
This is also a terrible risk because they all end up at the root directory of the hard drive!
How do I set up the FTP accounts so that when a user logs in with FTP they are moved to their home directory?
This is really important because I have stopped all FTP service to my system and sent 35 clients an email explaining that I am doing "system upgrades"
Ideally, I will have 1 FTP site with no anonymous access. I want the users NT account specified home directory to be the directory they are placed in as the root of their FTP login.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks - I'll check these out. But are you saying that Windows NT server 4 and Information server have no way of mapping client logins to their home directories?
This just seems like an incredible hole in its functionality.
Since it uses their NT account for login validation, why can't it just place them in their home directory? You would think that all of those geniuses at Redmond would have considered this.....
|
|
|
|
|
I've never seen it. 
Serv-U allows you to do things when files get uploaded/downloaded etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the pointer. I've downloaded the eval version and will test it this week.
I am still trying to come to grips with the fact that MS didn't build this in to their products....... (shuffles down the hallway - head hung low, mumbling to self)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. I tested the eval version and liked it a lot. I've disabled the MS FTP service and purchased a license for Serv-U. Good tip!
|
|
|
|
|
Couldn't you just disable anonymous FTP access and then in the user profile manager, set their home directory under their account settings?
I'm speaking completely off the top of my head, since I have never done it, but that would seem like a logical place to start...
[edit]Never mind. I just re-read your post.[/edit] 
|
|
|
|
|
Miszou wrote:
Couldn't you just disable anonymous FTP access and then in the user profile manager, set their home directory under their account settings?
I've done that. For a given FTP port number there seems to be only 1 home directory - the directory you configure in the Internet Services Manager. It uses NT account info to validate logins, but it ignores the clients home directory as configured in User Manager for Domains and instead dumps everybody who logs in into the single home directory for that FTP port.
I worked around this by using different ports and setting up several FTP sites. But the passwords work no matter what port number you enter. So you have the problem where someone could easily start guessing port numbers and ending up in other peoples folders.
I am just amazed that MS didn't think about this.
I guess they just assumed everyone in the entire friggin world would be using MS networking.
|
|
|
|
|
I can configure User Profile and Desktop setting for INDIVIDUAL USER as follows:
>mmc
>Add Snap in
>Active Directory Users and Computer OR local users and groups
>Select a PARTICULAR user from the available account/user list
>Properties
>Profile tab
>User Profile
>Profile Path
How can I configure the user profile for a "WINDOWS USER GROUP" instead?
Thanks.
Norman Fung
|
|
|
|
|
Groups don't have profiles, only users do.
Some of the settings you want to make may be possible through Group Policy - run gpedit.msc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have a requirement to install a network in a building that is shared by two small companies. Each company will require access to the internet via a single T1 connection.
What is the best way to arrange such a network, so that the 2 companies are unaware of each others existence on the network? I would like to have the clients authenticated on a Windows NT domain, although this is not essential. Can I have 2 domains on the same network? Or should I just use workgroups instead?
More information: Each company will need to host its own web site on its own server. We are buying all new computers and software, so any Windows based OS is a viable option at the moment...
Thanks for your help!
|
|
|
|
|
Miszou wrote:
Can I have 2 domains on the same network?
Sure! But you should split your network id into two separate subnets. A decent router on the T1 line will be necessary, and each company should have its own server to handle DNS and DHCP on its particular subnet. Post a bit more info here, like the number of hosts in each company, the network IP assignments you have, and the distribution of servers available, and I'll bet you'll get much better answers.
"Another day done - All targets met; all systems fully operational; all customers satisfied; all staff keen and well motivated; all pigs fed and ready to fly" - Jennie A.
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, here's the deal:
My company (4 people) is moving into some spare offices of a friend of my boss. As part of the deal for getting the new offices quite cheap, we have agreed to update his network and get him online with all new hardware/software etc. He won't have that much internet traffic, but we need the T1, so it makes sense for him to use it too, since we will be in the same building and can split the cost 50/50...
Both companies have a website that needs to be hosted (ours will require much more bandwidth - both upload and download, whereas his will be far less). My personal preference, since we are effectively reworking his existing system, is to "do it properly from the start" and buy half a dozen PC's with XP pro and get them authenticating on a Windows 2000 domain controller, which will also be his web server.
I would like to do the same for our own company (using our existing hardware), although we are looking to scale up by having several servers (Web/SQL/email), which can all be the same Win2k server for the moment as long as we can split them later, if necessary. We will also only require 5 or 6 workstations.
However, there is another school of thought that wants everything to be extremely simple. ie, set up everything as a peer-to-peer network with no domain controller (perhaps using workgroups to separate the 2 networks?) This belief is based on the fact that simple is better and we don't want to have to be responsible for maintaining the other guy's network and staff, since he is *ahem* "not a techical person".
One of the first problems that springs to mind is how to redirect 2 different port 80 requests to 2 different servers. The only experience I have really had with networking is my home project (NT Server + 4 Win2k clients + Win Xp wireless laptop all running through a $80 DLink wireless router). I know about domain controllers and that kind of thing, but how to get an elegant solution that will be easy to maintain for both companies - I'm a little out of my depth!
Thanks for your response, I hope this clarifies things a little...
|
|
|
|
|
Much clearer now! Given the difference in needs, you've got quite a deal going to split the T1 cost 50/50 - nice work!
Miszou wrote:
One of the first problems that springs to mind is how to redirect 2 different port 80 requests to 2 different servers.
Let's start here. Internet packets don't arrive willy-nilly looking for port 80. Each is tagged with a port number, an IP address, and a protocol. You don't have to worry about redirecting them, as each host on the network will have a different IP address. Only the server with the correct IP address will respond to a packet, and then only if it has a service listening on the same port and watching for the same protocol as matches that of the incoming packet. No worries there.
Your preferred approach - separate servers and domains - would be my choice, as well. I've worked with workgroups (though never two interconnected ones) and found them to be a pain to administer. Having a domain and a domain controller just makes life nicer, and admin costs are lower. A server for your needs ( and the other company's ) needn't be a large expense. My primary PC is a Win2K Server system, for reasons that made sense at the time, and it cost me less than $1800 to build from scratch including a 5-user OS.
Each office should be assigned a different IP address segment, and all the hosts in each connected to a hub or switch - those are cheap (< $100). Each hub is then connected to the router that handles the T1 connection. The router should be configured to sort out incoming packets from the Internet and send them to the proper hub. This is where I get fuzzy; I don't know for sure that your ISP will assign multiple addresses to you. Talking with them should clear that up, and router suppliers will be happy to assist you in configuring their products to accomplish what you need to do.
When you assign addresses leave yourself some wiggle room. I use the internal private range of 168.192.x.x generally, and most networking components I've used come preconfigured to work in that range. Assign one company to 168.192.0.0 and the other to 168.192.1.0 and you'll each have room for 254 hosts eventually. Have a plan, too, as you design it. I find it helpful to have a standard way of doing things that makes future changes easier. For example, assign individual PCs addresses beginning at .100, Servers at .010, and the router at .001. If you're planning on having network printers save a block for them, say .050 - .099. With such a scheme it's a lot easier later to locate remote resources when you have a problem.
I hope that's a little bit helpful. Have fun!
"Another day done - All targets met; all systems fully operational; all customers satisfied; all staff keen and well motivated; all pigs fed and ready to fly" - Jennie A.
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Wright wrote:
My primary PC is a Win2K Server system, for reasons that made sense at the time, and it cost me less than $1800 to build from scratch including a 5-user OS.
Cost ~AUD$2000 for Windows Server 2003 5 userpack a couple of months ago for a client. Sure would be nice to get things at US prices over here.
Roger Wright wrote:
Each office should be assigned a different IP address segment, and all the hosts in each connected to a hub or switch - those are cheap (< $100). Each hub is then connected to the router that handles the T1 connection. The router should be configured to sort out incoming packets from the Internet and send them to the proper hub. This is where I get fuzzy; I don't know for sure that your ISP will assign multiple addresses to you. Talking with them should clear that up, and router suppliers will be happy to assist you in configuring their products to accomplish what you need to do.
With the IP Address range being as flooded as it is at the moment I doubt they would get more than a couple. Have them set up on the external side of the router and then NAT or PAT working to get them talking through to the internal addesses.
Roger Wright wrote:
When you assign addresses leave yourself some wiggle room. I use the internal private range of 168.192.x.x generally, and most networking components I've used come preconfigured to work in that range. Assign one company to 168.192.0.0 and the other to 168.192.1.0 and you'll each have room for 254 hosts eventually. Have a plan, too, as you design it. I find it helpful to have a standard way of doing things that makes future changes easier. For example, assign individual PCs addresses beginning at .100, Servers at .010, and the router at .001. If you're planning on having network printers save a block for them, say .050 - .099. With such a scheme it's a lot easier later to locate remote resources when you have a problem.
Do you mean 192.168.0.x and 192.168.1.x?
Michael Martin
Australia
"I suspect I will be impressed though, I am easy."
- Paul Watson 21/09/2003
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Martin wrote:
AUD$2000 for Windows Server 2003 5 userpack
Ouch! I think I paid $739.;P
Michael Martin wrote:
I doubt they would get more than a couple.
You can get whatever you're willing to pay for, for 4 should be sufficient - 1 network, 1 broadcast, and 1 each per company.
Michael Martin wrote:
Do you mean 192.168.0.x and 192.168.1.x?
I don't know how they refer to such things there, but here I most often see this phrased as a reference to the network number. I like your notation best, and frequently use it, but it seems to rub some officious people the wrong way when I do. Go figure...
As long as you're here, Michael, have you ever run across the message "Unable to initialize Windows Sockets interface - error code 0" on a WinXP machine? This PC is infected by teenagers, and IE6 can no longer resolve any address. System Restore doesn't respond at all when I click Next, yet NAV scans report it free of viruses. I suspect a trojan installed via KaZaa (which I removed), or some kind of persistent spyware that NAV can't find.
"Another day done - All targets met; all systems fully operational; all customers satisfied; all staff keen and well motivated; all pigs fed and ready to fly" - Jennie A.
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Wright wrote:
You can get whatever you're willing to pay for, for 4 should be sufficient - 1 network, 1 broadcast, and 1 each per company.
From what I have been reading the number of available addresses out there is getting very low and that the official handling bodies are only handing what you can present a good case for as opposed to how much you can pay. The article could easily have had an agenda to say as much so I could be way off the mark.
Roger Wright wrote:
I don't know how they refer to such things there, but here I most often see this phrased as a reference to the network number. I like your notation best, and frequently use it, but it seems to rub some officious people the wrong way when I do. Go figure...
192.168.x.x is a Class C range that is set aside for internal use only, will not be forwarded to the internet. That is why I thought you had the first 2 number mixed when I saw it.
Roger Wright wrote:
As long as you're here, Michael, have you ever run across the message "Unable to initialize Windows Sockets interface - error code 0" on a WinXP machine? This PC is infected by teenagers, and IE6 can no longer resolve any address. System Restore doesn't respond at all when I click Next, yet NAV scans report it free of viruses. I suspect a trojan installed via KaZaa (which I removed), or some kind of persistent spyware that NAV can't find.
No I haven't, but I must say that I run Adaware[^] and Spybot Search & Destroy[^] on all machines that teenagers and KaZaA have had a chance to f*** up. If you can't get any access to the net from the infected machine you can get Adaware and it's newest reference file reflist.ref from the homepage on another machine and transport the files there via floppy, CD or whatever and still attack it with the latest definitions.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I suspect I will be impressed though, I am easy."
- Paul Watson 21/09/2003
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
