Get rid of Win Messenger Service?

[Dan Calic]

Xref: kermit microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics:135828

Hi,
In an attempt to prevent getting SPAM from Windows Messenger Service on my
desktop I found the following article in Knowledge Base:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;302089

I followed the instructions.

Not only do the messeges keep appearing on my desktop, both Outlook and
Outlook Express now take a long time to load.

Any suggestions?

- Dan

XP Pro
OE 6.00.2800.1123
Out. 2002(10.4712.4219)SP-2
IE 6.0.2800.1106.XPSP2.030422-1633(SP-1)

[Balberith]

> Not only do the messeges keep appearing on my desktop, both Outlook and
> Outlook Express now take a long time to load.

There may have been some confusion here, if the SPAM messages you're talking
about are pop-ups which appear in the middle of your screen then you've
disabled the wrong Windows Messenger. To disable the one you need, do the
following:

Right-click on the 'My Computer' icon or menu option and choose 'Manage'
Hit the '+' next to 'Services and Applications' to expand that section
Click on 'Services'
Scroll down the list of Services in the right-hand side of the window and
double-click on 'Messenger'
Change the 'Startup Type' to 'Disabled' then hit the 'Stop' button
Hit 'OK' and the close the Computer Management window.
You're done.

Windows Messenger is the instant messaging internet application, which you
sign up for and which lives in the system tray in the bottom right-hand
corner of your screen.

The Messenger Service is a system component of windows, used for sending &
receiving simple alert messages and which has sadly been picked up on by
spammers.

--
Balberith
-
If you don't say what you mean,
Then how can you ever mean what you say?

[Dan Calic]

I followed your instructions. Hopefully this will do the trick. Thank you.

- Dan

"Balberith" > wrote in message
...
> > Not only do the messeges keep appearing on my desktop, both Outlook and
> > Outlook Express now take a long time to load.
>
> There may have been some confusion here, if the SPAM messages you're
talking
> about are pop-ups which appear in the middle of your screen then you've
> disabled the wrong Windows Messenger. To disable the one you need, do the
> following:
>
> Right-click on the 'My Computer' icon or menu option and choose 'Manage'
> Hit the '+' next to 'Services and Applications' to expand that section
> Click on 'Services'
> Scroll down the list of Services in the right-hand side of the window and
> double-click on 'Messenger'
> Change the 'Startup Type' to 'Disabled' then hit the 'Stop' button
> Hit 'OK' and the close the Computer Management window.
> You're done.
>
> Windows Messenger is the instant messaging internet application, which you
> sign up for and which lives in the system tray in the bottom right-hand
> corner of your screen.
>
> The Messenger Service is a system component of windows, used for sending &
> receiving simple alert messages and which has sadly been picked up on by
> spammers.
>
> --
> Balberith
> -
> If you don't say what you mean,
> Then how can you ever mean what you say?
>
>

[Dan Calic]

Both Outlook and OE still load very slowly though.
Any thoughts on getting them to load as they did prior to attempting to get
rid of Windows Messenger Service?

- Dan

"Balberith" > wrote in message
...
> > Not only do the messeges keep appearing on my desktop, both Outlook and
> > Outlook Express now take a long time to load.
>
> There may have been some confusion here, if the SPAM messages you're
talking
> about are pop-ups which appear in the middle of your screen then you've
> disabled the wrong Windows Messenger. To disable the one you need, do the
> following:
>
> Right-click on the 'My Computer' icon or menu option and choose 'Manage'
> Hit the '+' next to 'Services and Applications' to expand that section
> Click on 'Services'
> Scroll down the list of Services in the right-hand side of the window and
> double-click on 'Messenger'
> Change the 'Startup Type' to 'Disabled' then hit the 'Stop' button
> Hit 'OK' and the close the Computer Management window.
> You're done.
>
> Windows Messenger is the instant messaging internet application, which you
> sign up for and which lives in the system tray in the bottom right-hand
> corner of your screen.
>
> The Messenger Service is a system component of windows, used for sending &
> receiving simple alert messages and which has sadly been picked up on by
> spammers.
>
> --
> Balberith
> -
> If you don't say what you mean,
> Then how can you ever mean what you say?
>
>

[Walter Clayton]

Balberith gave you wrong advice. Turn the messenger service back on. To stop
the net send pop-ups simply enable XP's firewall or install a 3rd party
firewall.

As to your problem with OL and OE taking a while to start, simply reverse
what you did in the original KB you referenced.

--
Walter Clayton - MS MVP(WinXP)
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
http://www.dts-l.org


"Dan Calic" > wrote in message
news:Eec0b.183364$Ho3.25674@sccrnsc03...
> Both Outlook and OE still load very slowly though.
> Any thoughts on getting them to load as they did prior to attempting to
get
> rid of Windows Messenger Service?
>
> - Dan
>
> "Balberith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Not only do the messeges keep appearing on my desktop, both Outlook
and
> > > Outlook Express now take a long time to load.
> >
> > There may have been some confusion here, if the SPAM messages you're
> talking
> > about are pop-ups which appear in the middle of your screen then you've
> > disabled the wrong Windows Messenger. To disable the one you need, do
the
> > following:
> >
> > Right-click on the 'My Computer' icon or menu option and choose 'Manage'
> > Hit the '+' next to 'Services and Applications' to expand that section
> > Click on 'Services'
> > Scroll down the list of Services in the right-hand side of the window
and
> > double-click on 'Messenger'
> > Change the 'Startup Type' to 'Disabled' then hit the 'Stop' button
> > Hit 'OK' and the close the Computer Management window.
> > You're done.
> >
> > Windows Messenger is the instant messaging internet application, which
you
> > sign up for and which lives in the system tray in the bottom right-hand
> > corner of your screen.
> >
> > The Messenger Service is a system component of windows, used for sending
&
> > receiving simple alert messages and which has sadly been picked up on by
> > spammers.
> >
> > --
> > Balberith
> > -
> > If you don't say what you mean,
> > Then how can you ever mean what you say?
> >
> >
>
>

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

Does the title bar of these pop-ups read "Messenger Service?"

This particular "sales method" is strikingly similar to the
"protection" rackets offered to small businesses by organized
criminals. Yes, it's a scam; no reputable business would need to
resort to extortion. Particularly since they're trying to sell you a
type of protection that is already available to you free of charge.

This type of spam has become quite common over the past few
months, and unintentionally serves as a valid security "alert." It
demonstrates that you haven't been taking sufficient precautions while
connected to the Internet. Your data probably hasn't been compromised
by these specific advertisements, but if you're open to this exploit,
you may well be open to other threats. Install and use a decent,
properly configured firewall. (Disabling the messenger service, as
some people recommend, only hides the symptom, and does nothing to
secure your machine.) And ignoring or just "putting up with" these
messages and the problem they represent is particularly foolish.

Messenger Service of Windows
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;en-us;168893

Messenger Service Window That Contains an Internet Advertisement
Appears
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=330904

Stopping Advertisements with Messenger Service Titles
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/using/howto/communicate/stopspam.asp

Blocking Ads, Parasites, and Hijackers with a Hosts File
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

Oh, and be especially wary of people who advise you to do nothing
more than disable the messenger service. Disabling the messenger
service is a "head in the sand" approach to computer security.

The real problem is _not_ the messenger service pop-ups; they're
actually providing a useful service by acting as a security alert. The
true problem is the unsecured computer, and you've been
advised to merely turn off the warnings. How is this helpful?

Equivalent Scenario 1: Somewhere in a house, a small fire starts,
and sets off the smoke alarm. You, not immediately seeing any
fire/smoke, complain about the noise of the smoke detector, and are
advised to remove the smoke detector's battery and go back to sleep.

Equivalent Scenario 2: You over-exert your shoulder at work or
play, causing bursitis. After weeks of annoying and sometimes
excruciating pain whenever you try to reach over your head, you go to
a doctor and say, while demonstrating the motion, "Doc, it hurts when
I do this." The doctor, being as helpful as some of your respondents,
replies, "Well, don't do that."

I'm beginning to think that the people deliberately posting such
bad advice are hacker-wannabes who have no true interest in helping
you secure your system, but would rather give you a false sense of
security while ensuring that your computer is still open to
exploitation.



Bruce Chambers

--
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH


"Dan Calic" > wrote in message
. net...
> Hi,
> In an attempt to prevent getting SPAM from Windows Messenger Service
on my
> desktop I found the following article in Knowledge Base:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;302089
>
> I followed the instructions.
>
> Not only do the messeges keep appearing on my desktop, both Outlook
and
> Outlook Express now take a long time to load.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> - Dan
>
> XP Pro
> OE 6.00.2800.1123
> Out. 2002(10.4712.4219)SP-2
> IE 6.0.2800.1106.XPSP2.030422-1633(SP-1)
>
>
>

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

Please stop posting potentially harmful advice. What are you, a
hacker-wannabe? Why else would you be deliberately posting bad
advice? Are you trying to give people a false sense of security by
having them turn off what are, in effect, valid security warnings,
while still leaving their PCs open to potential exploitation?

Disabling the messenger service is a "head in the sand" approach
to computer security.

The real problem is _not_ the messenger service pop-ups; they're
actually providing a useful service by acting as a security alert. The
true problem is the unsecured computer, and you're only
advice, however well-intended, was to turn off the warnings. How is
this helpful?

Equivalent Scenario: You over-exert your shoulder at work or
play, causing bursitis. After weeks of annoying and sometimes
excruciating pain whenever you try to reach over your head, you go to
a doctor and say, while demonstrating the motion, "Doc, it hurts when
I do this." The doctor, being as helpful as you are, replies, "Well,
don't do that."

The only true way to secure the PC, short of disconnecting it from
the Internet, is to install and *properly* configure a firewall; just
installing one and letting it's default settings handle things is no
good. Unfortunately, this does require one to learn a little bit more
about using a computer than used to be necessary.


Bruce Chambers

--
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH


"Balberith" > wrote in message
...
> > Not only do the messeges keep appearing on my desktop, both
Outlook and
> > Outlook Express now take a long time to load.
>
> There may have been some confusion here, if the SPAM messages you're
talking
> about are pop-ups which appear in the middle of your screen then
you've
> disabled the wrong Windows Messenger. To disable the one you need,
do the
> following:
>
> Right-click on the 'My Computer' icon or menu option and choose
'Manage'
> Hit the '+' next to 'Services and Applications' to expand that
section
> Click on 'Services'
> Scroll down the list of Services in the right-hand side of the
window and
> double-click on 'Messenger'
> Change the 'Startup Type' to 'Disabled' then hit the 'Stop' button
> Hit 'OK' and the close the Computer Management window.
> You're done.
>
> Windows Messenger is the instant messaging internet application,
which you
> sign up for and which lives in the system tray in the bottom
right-hand
> corner of your screen.
>
> The Messenger Service is a system component of windows, used for
sending &
> receiving simple alert messages and which has sadly been picked up
on by
> spammers.
>
> --
> Balberith
> -
> If you don't say what you mean,
> Then how can you ever mean what you say?
>
>

[Balberith]

> Please stop posting potentially harmful advice.

1 - Recommending installing/enabling a Firewall is obviously good advice and
should have been included in my post. I apologise that it was not. It's sad
that everyone these days needs to run a Firewall if they're going to be
hooked up directly to the Internet, but it is true.

2 - Scaremongering about 'harmful advice' from 'hacker wannabes' is
unproductive. The extra advice given to this user should be invaluable in
protecting their machine, but suggesting that the work carried out thus far
is harmful and has been suggested by someone who only wishes to hack them is
untrue and will only cause undue worry.

--
Balberith
-
If you don't say what you mean,
Then how can you ever mean what you say?

[Kevin Davis³]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 22:36:34 -0400, "Walter Clayton"
> wrote:

>Balberith gave you wrong advice. Turn the messenger service back on. To stop
>the net send pop-ups simply enable XP's firewall or install a 3rd party
>firewall.
>
>As to your problem with OL and OE taking a while to start, simply reverse
>what you did in the original KB you referenced.

It isn't necessarily a good idea to turn the messenger service back
on. He should find out if he needs it or not before he does.



---------------------------------------
What could possibly go wrong?

[Kevin Davis³]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:51:34 -0600, "Bruce Chambers"
> wrote:

> Disabling the messenger service is a "head in the sand" approach
>to computer security.
>

Installing only a firewall to stop pop-up messages is a "putting all
your eggs in one basket" approach to computer security.

If the user is a home user there is a distinct possibility, maybe even
a likelihood that not only do they not use the messenger service, but
don't even know it exists. However, there are some popular consumer
anti-virus products that use them like Norton's. The user should find
out if they need the service and shut it off if not needed as well as
installing and configuring a firewall. If there is any doubt, it is
probably best to leave it on, but certainly don't rely only on a
software firewall to protect you.

Software firewalls like most software, have been susceptable to
vulnerabilities. Good security advice would have them install an
inexpensive hardware SOHO router/"firewall" (like a linksys or
netgear), a personal software firewall, *and* disable the messenger
service (if not needed).

To be truly as secure as reasonably possible, a mutli-layered defense
is required. Additional actions such as applying critical OS
udates/patches, unbinding NetBeui from TCP\IP, and disabling NetBIOS
over TCP\IP is also highly recommended. An excellent place to start
learning about the various things you can do to secure yourself is

http://www.sans.org/rr/catindex.php?cat_id=26

Turning off the messenger service provides the user with 2 benefits.
First, it will provide a more secure system in that the user will not
be susceptible to any vulnerabilities that may exist in the messenger
service today or that may be found in the future.

A great example is sendmail. It is (or at least was) installed and
running on Linux systems as a daemon by default and had been regarded
as very secure. Recently they found a serious vulnerability that had
been there for over 15 years. Who knows how long the hackers knew
about it? How many people left themselves vulnerable by leaving that
ervice on and didn't need it?. Relying on one and only one line of
defense (a software firewall) is foolish. You should harden your
system as well as install a firewall. Doing one does not mean that
you shouldn't do the other.

Second, it will return some system resources that were being used by a
service that was useless to the user.

In the case that the user is a corporate user and the messenger
service is being used, then it should not be disabled. However, if
you advise him to install a firewall on his own you could be advising
them to do something that could cause their termination. Many
businesses deal very harshly with this type of behavior. If the user
is a corporate user, they should alert their System Admin of these
pop-ups getting through so they can block the traffic at their border
routers/firewalls and solicit their advice as to what they can do, if
anything, as a corporate user to avoid receiving the pop-ups.


---------------------------------------
What could possibly go wrong?

[Walter Clayton]

Are you sure? ;-)

Messenger service is harmless. There's also a lot of stuff dependant on it.
The "sage" wisdom to arbitrarily disable it is what is questionable.

Enable or install a firewall and the net send pop-up messages are a thing of
the past without disabling anything dependant on the service.

--
Walter Clayton - MS MVP(WinXP)
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
http://www.dts-l.org


"Kevin Davis³" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 22:36:34 -0400, "Walter Clayton"
> > wrote:
>
> >Balberith gave you wrong advice. Turn the messenger service back on. To
stop
> >the net send pop-ups simply enable XP's firewall or install a 3rd party
> >firewall.
> >
> >As to your problem with OL and OE taking a while to start, simply reverse
> >what you did in the original KB you referenced.
>
> It isn't necessarily a good idea to turn the messenger service back
> on. He should find out if he needs it or not before he does.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> What could possibly go wrong?

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

You're welcome.

Bruce Chambers

--
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH


"Dan Calic" > wrote in message
. net...
> The title bar reads "Messenger Service."
>
> Thanks for your suggestions, and opinions.
>
> - Dan
>

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

And where did I even suggest that a firewall is the _only_
component of computer security?

Bruce Chambers

--
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH


"Kevin Davis³" > wrote in message
...
>
> Installing only a firewall to stop pop-up messages is a "putting all
> your eggs in one basket" approach to computer security.
>

[Kevin Davis³]

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 22:53:17 -0400, "Walter Clayton"
> wrote:

>Are you sure? ;-)
>
>Messenger service is harmless. There's also a lot of stuff dependant on it.
>The "sage" wisdom to arbitrarily disable it is what is questionable.
>
>Enable or install a firewall and the net send pop-up messages are a thing of
>the past without disabling anything dependant on the service.

Did I say "arbitrarily disable it". I said nowhere near that. I said
he needs to find out if he needs it. Big difference. Please provide
a list of "a lot of stuff" that's dependent on it that would matter to
a home user. I am aware of some AV software and a few chat programs,
but where is the plethora of other stuff?



---------------------------------------
What could possibly go wrong?

[Kevin Davis³]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 07:08:31 -0600, "Bruce Chambers"
> wrote:

>Greetings --
>
> And where did I even suggest that a firewall is the _only_
>component of computer security?
>

And I quote:

"The only true way to secure the PC, short of disconnecting it from
the Internet, is to install and *properly* configure a firewall"

You said the only true way to secure your PC is to install and
configure a firewall. You mention nothing else, thus you imply that
is the only component of security. Bare minimum you are constructing
statements that are misleading.



---------------------------------------
What could possibly go wrong?

[PCyr]

lol! You got him!

--
Check out http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com for amazing tweaks and fixes

Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Twitt is a
self-appointed, self-righteous, ruthless, bitchy net-cop too!)

Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
Change the obvious to the obvious.
------------------
"Kevin Davis³" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 07:08:31 -0600, "Bruce Chambers"
> > wrote:
>
> >Greetings --
> >
> > And where did I even suggest that a firewall is the _only_
> >component of computer security?
> >
>
> And I quote:
>
> "The only true way to secure the PC, short of disconnecting it from
> the Internet, is to install and *properly* configure a firewall"
>
> You said the only true way to secure your PC is to install and
> configure a firewall. You mention nothing else, thus you imply that
> is the only component of security. Bare minimum you are constructing
> statements that are misleading.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> What could possibly go wrong?

[Walter Clayton]

Since I've been deep into this issue in a private NG allow me to turn the
tables. BTW: I never said there was a plethora of consequences in this
instance. I said " a lot" which I should have qualified with "depending on
circumstances". ;-)

Yes, technically all unused and unnecessary services and functions should
be disabled. No ifs, and or buts about it. Any one that has an inkling of
knowledge with regard computer security will do just that. In fact, there's
quite a few services that, depending on circumstances, can be safely
disabled. I even know some folks that disable DCOM without negatively
impacting mission critical functions.

Now, for your challenge. Explain how to determine if a service is necessary
or not to the computer illiterate without putting them into a no boot
situation in terms they can understand and follow. Also, keep in mind that
the dependency may not be discovered for several days or even weeks since
what is displayed in the dependency tab on the services snap in is not all
inclusive. Keep in mind as well the cascading effect. A prime example of the
latter is a rumor that one of the OEMs, who shall remain anonymous, has been
instructing their clients to disable RPC prior to installing the MS03-26
patch. I'll leave to your imagination the consequences of that
recommendation.

Simply put, the messenger service is innocuous and easy to wall off by
implementing some relatively simple security measures that generally do not
put the platform at major risk and accomplish a lot more. Like walling off
other potential, as yet undiscovered issues.

Your turn. :-)

--
Walter Clayton - MS MVP(WinXP)
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
http://www.dts-l.org


"Kevin Davis³" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 22:53:17 -0400, "Walter Clayton"
> > wrote:
>
> >Are you sure? ;-)
> >
> >Messenger service is harmless. There's also a lot of stuff dependant on
it.
> >The "sage" wisdom to arbitrarily disable it is what is questionable.
> >
> >Enable or install a firewall and the net send pop-up messages are a thing
of
> >the past without disabling anything dependant on the service.
>
> Did I say "arbitrarily disable it". I said nowhere near that. I said
> he needs to find out if he needs it. Big difference. Please provide
> a list of "a lot of stuff" that's dependent on it that would matter to
> a home user. I am aware of some AV software and a few chat programs,
> but where is the plethora of other stuff?
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> What could possibly go wrong?

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

I think it's a bit of a stretch, but I'll concede that the
statement could be interpreted that way, if taken out of the context
of the original subject matter (to wit, a PC's being exploited via
open ports). I'll amend future posts accordingly.

Bruce Chambers

--
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH


"Kevin Davis³" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> And I quote:
>
> "The only true way to secure the PC, short of disconnecting it from
> the Internet, is to install and *properly* configure a firewall"
>
> You said the only true way to secure your PC is to install and
> configure a firewall. You mention nothing else, thus you imply that
> is the only component of security. Bare minimum you are
constructing
> statements that are misleading.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> What could possibly go wrong?

[PCyr]

Nevermind, just read his post. He makes a good point.

--
Check out http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com for amazing tweaks and fixes

Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Twitt is a
self-appointed, self-righteous, ruthless, bitchy net-cop too!)

Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
Change the obvious to the obvious.
------------------
"PCyr" > wrote in message
...
> lol! You got him!
>
> --
> Check out http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com for amazing tweaks and fixes
>
> Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Twitt is a
> self-appointed, self-righteous, ruthless, bitchy net-cop too!)
>
> Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
> Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
> Change the obvious to the obvious.
> ------------------
> "Kevin Davis³" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 07:08:31 -0600, "Bruce Chambers"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >Greetings --
> > >
> > > And where did I even suggest that a firewall is the _only_
> > >component of computer security?
> > >
> >
> > And I quote:
> >
> > "The only true way to secure the PC, short of disconnecting it from
> > the Internet, is to install and *properly* configure a firewall"
> >
> > You said the only true way to secure your PC is to install and
> > configure a firewall. You mention nothing else, thus you imply that
> > is the only component of security. Bare minimum you are constructing
> > statements that are misleading.
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------
> > What could possibly go wrong?
>
>

[Kevin Davis³]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 22:06:47 -0400, "Walter Clayton"
> wrote:


>Now, for your challenge. Explain how to determine if a service is necessary
>or not to the computer illiterate without putting them into a no boot
>situation in terms they can understand and follow. Also, keep in mind that
>the dependency may not be discovered for several days or even weeks since
>what is displayed in the dependency tab on the services snap in is not all
>inclusive. Keep in mind as well the cascading effect. A prime example of the
>latter is a rumor that one of the OEMs, who shall remain anonymous, has been
>instructing their clients to disable RPC prior to installing the MS03-26
>patch. I'll leave to your imagination the consequences of that
>recommendation.
>
>Simply put, the messenger service is innocuous and easy to wall off by
>implementing some relatively simple security measures that generally do not
>put the platform at major risk and accomplish a lot more. Like walling off
>other potential, as yet undiscovered issues.
>
>Your turn. :-)


For starters, I would direct them to this web site

http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm

and tell them to read it very carefully. If they are not adept enough
to get the basic gist of the site, then they should just leave stuff
alone. This would include most computer illiterate types. I would
really not want a true computer illiterate messing around with such
things. However, just by the fact that someone has asked about how to
deal with their messenger problem, certainly does not qualify them as
computer illiterate.

Now I'm not saying that there is a fool-proof method in going about
this but web sites like the above certainly go a long ways in
assisting. Generally speaking, I think that it is a little unusual to
be able to get into an actual no-boot situation but I certainly would
not say it could not happen. The referenced web site is good in that
it lays out what the default settings are in case you really get hosed
up and need to get back to square one. In any case, I would advise a
conservative approach in using this information. If you're not pretty
confident about disabling a service, leave it alone. But if you do
have that confidence, by all means turn it off. That's really all I
meant to say.

---------------------------------------
What could possibly go wrong?

[Kevin Davis³]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 20:19:21 -0600, "Bruce Chambers"
> wrote:

>Greetings --
>
> I think it's a bit of a stretch, but I'll concede that the
>statement could be interpreted that way, if taken out of the context
>of the original subject matter (to wit, a PC's being exploited via
>open ports). I'll amend future posts accordingly.
>
>Bruce Chambers

I don't think it's a stretch. The context of open ports have no
exclusive hold on a software firewall. Open port issues are also
properly dealt with by using a router, patching the OS, properly
configuring your services, etc. For instance the proper way to deal
with securing your Linux system against sendmail (port 25 being open)
exploits would be patch sendmail or stop sendmail running as a daemon
if you don't need it and certainly install/configure
netfilter/ipchains/iptables. Note that only one of these actions
involve a software firewall and this specific example is related to
open ports.

However, I do greatly appreciate your attention and consideration on
this matter.

Thanks again.

---------------------------------------
What could possibly go wrong?

[Walter Clayton]

Wrong with regard Blackviper. He's dangerous and doesn't provide any
information on *how* to recover from the inevitable screw up. Neither does
he bother with explaining the cascading effect or potential long term issues
that can arise. As well, he doesn't even list or bother with mentioning all
the visible dependencies or consequences. He simply washes his hands of all
responsibility.

The name of the site is apt. It's poisonous and will bite anyone less than
clueful..

Personally I tell everyone less than expert to avoid that site like the
plague. And the expert people know better.

--
Walter Clayton - MS MVP(WinXP)
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
http://www.dts-l.org


"Kevin Davis³" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 22:06:47 -0400, "Walter Clayton"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >Now, for your challenge. Explain how to determine if a service is
necessary
> >or not to the computer illiterate without putting them into a no boot
> >situation in terms they can understand and follow. Also, keep in mind
that
> >the dependency may not be discovered for several days or even weeks since
> >what is displayed in the dependency tab on the services snap in is not
all
> >inclusive. Keep in mind as well the cascading effect. A prime example of
the
> >latter is a rumor that one of the OEMs, who shall remain anonymous, has
been
> >instructing their clients to disable RPC prior to installing the MS03-26
> >patch. I'll leave to your imagination the consequences of that
> >recommendation.
> >
> >Simply put, the messenger service is innocuous and easy to wall off by
> >implementing some relatively simple security measures that generally do
not
> >put the platform at major risk and accomplish a lot more. Like walling
off
> >other potential, as yet undiscovered issues.
> >
> >Your turn. :-)
>
>
> For starters, I would direct them to this web site
>
> http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm
>
> and tell them to read it very carefully. If they are not adept enough
> to get the basic gist of the site, then they should just leave stuff
> alone. This would include most computer illiterate types. I would
> really not want a true computer illiterate messing around with such
> things. However, just by the fact that someone has asked about how to
> deal with their messenger problem, certainly does not qualify them as
> computer illiterate.
>
> Now I'm not saying that there is a fool-proof method in going about
> this but web sites like the above certainly go a long ways in
> assisting. Generally speaking, I think that it is a little unusual to
> be able to get into an actual no-boot situation but I certainly would
> not say it could not happen. The referenced web site is good in that
> it lays out what the default settings are in case you really get hosed
> up and need to get back to square one. In any case, I would advise a
> conservative approach in using this information. If you're not pretty
> confident about disabling a service, leave it alone. But if you do
> have that confidence, by all means turn it off. That's really all I
> meant to say.
>
> ---------------------------------------
> What could possibly go wrong?

[mitundergrad]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 00:07:21 GMT, Kevin Davis³
> wrote:

>>Enable or install a firewall and the net send pop-up messages are a thing of
>>the past without disabling anything dependant on the service.

>Did I say "arbitrarily disable it". I said nowhere near that. I said
>he needs to find out if he needs it. Big difference. Please provide
>a list of "a lot of stuff" that's dependent on it that would matter to
>a home user. I am aware of some AV software and a few chat programs,
>but where is the plethora of other stuff?

Everyone needs the messenger service. This allows pop ups from anti
virus programs, software firewalls and a host of other applications.
Blocking ports 135 UDP incoming and 4444 TCP/IP incoming will stop
those nasty IP Harvester popups and still leave the system operational
for application popup warnings.

A software firewall that allows rule creation (Kerio to name one) will
block these ports as will a hardware router.

To close, EVERYONE should NOT disable the messenger service. MS
Messenger is a different story.

[Kevin Davis³]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 21:56:57 -0400, "Walter Clayton"
> wrote:

>Wrong with regard Blackviper.

I disagree. I've had no problems with his information or his web
site.



---------------------------------------
What could possibly go wrong?

[Kevin Davis³]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 17:40:11 GMT, mitundergrad
> wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 00:07:21 GMT, Kevin Davis³
> wrote:
>
>>>Enable or install a firewall and the net send pop-up messages are a thing of
>>>the past without disabling anything dependant on the service.
>
>>Did I say "arbitrarily disable it". I said nowhere near that. I said
>>he needs to find out if he needs it. Big difference. Please provide
>>a list of "a lot of stuff" that's dependent on it that would matter to
>>a home user. I am aware of some AV software and a few chat programs,
>>but where is the plethora of other stuff?
>
>Everyone needs the messenger service.

Incorrect.

>This allows pop ups from anti virus programs,

This is true for Symantec AV. Which other ones use it? Cite
references please.

>software firewalls

Which ones? I've no problem running Outpost, Kerio, and ZoneAlarm

>and a host of other applications.

Please list.


>Blocking ports 135 UDP incoming and 4444 TCP/IP incoming will stop
>those nasty IP Harvester popups and still leave the system operational
>for application popup warnings.

That fact is not in dispute.

>
>A software firewall that allows rule creation (Kerio to name one) will
>block these ports as will a hardware router.

Again, that fact is not in dispute.

>
>To close, EVERYONE should NOT disable the messenger service. MS
>Messenger is a different story.
>

Wrong. I have the messenger service disabled and have absolutely no
problems.


---------------------------------------
What could possibly go wrong?

[Kevin Davis³]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 21:56:57 -0400, "Walter Clayton"
> wrote:

>He's dangerous and doesn't provide any
>information on *how* to recover from the inevitable screw up.

He provides instructions on how to create multiple profiles to boot
to, recommending creating a "safe" profile to boot to. Booting with
the safe profile would obviously recover.

>Neither does he bother with explaining the cascading effect or potential long term issues
>that can arise.

He doesn't seem to spell that out specifically, no.


>As well, he doesn't even list or bother with mentioning all
>the visible dependencies or consequences.

The table he provides does list service dependencies. Covering all
possible consequences is not a really reasonble thing to expect.
However, I don't completely disagree with you on some of your
criticisms. I do wish that he would orgranize the information a
little cleaner and include more explanation/cautionary statements.

>He simply washes his hands of all responsibility.

Kind of like how Microsoft does when you agree to their EULA? Come,
now that is quite a hysterical remark and to some degree makes me
think that you simply have some sort of agenda against the guy other
than from simple technical reasons. Him disclaiming himself from
someone trashing their system and legally blaming it on his web site
is not an unreasonable thing to expect.

I do think that anyone other than an intermediate level user should
avoid this. I'm not sure that I would go so far to insist that expert
level knowledge is required. And as I stated before definitely no
newbies.

Can you identify any blatantly incorrect information he provides on
the web site that is "dangerous"?



---------------------------------------
What could possibly go wrong?

[Walter Clayton]

You actually tried any of his recovery recommendations? They rarely work in
reality especially once you've "screwed the pooch".

Simply put, if you can't boot into safe mode or use LKGC you're hosed. And
LKGC is problematic. Out of laziness I used it to recover from beta video
driver issues on my laptop. The results weren't and aren't pretty and I'm
still recovering and finding problems a week later. Frankly, I'm still doing
damage assessment now that I'm aware there was more stuff unwound that
should have been which is rather surprising. As for reinstall, you can
believe that it's a last ditch option and one that is now even less
appealing than it was before SP1 was released (although one I'm seriously
considering in order to put my laptop back into a sane state). Two major
issues in that regard. First OEMs rarely give their customers media that can
be used to reinstall; generally it's restore media. Even then, SP1 hasn't
been slipstreamed into most media and given that modern hardware requires
SP1, it can be problematic installing RTM XP followed by installing a 130M
SP1 download followed by 37-40M (as of this post) of post SP1 patches.
Reinstall to recover as a result of disabling the wrong services is a very
ugly process. However RC is a possibility, but again, OEMs are problematic
in this regard since you can't boot an OEM CD into RC in the vast majority
of instances. And that's aside from the RTM and SP1 issues with RC.

Do some more research. But I'll even turn the tables on you even more so.
Sit your mother or father in front of BlackViper, step out of the room give
them carte blanc on the machine and see if you can salvage the results if
they actually follow through on the recommendations assuming they can even
follow the recommendations.

Again, there is a two fold issue. One lies in the area off dependencies. And
that's an extremely volatile situation and one that is impossible to answer
directly. I can not tell anyone in advance what 3rd party application is
dependant on any service and I can guarantee that those dependencies do not
consistently show up on the dependency tab in the services snap in. The
other area is with regard actually determining what is necessary and what
not. The descriptions, even the MS supplied ones which are paraphrased on
BlackViper's site, make sense only to those that are extremely familiar with
OS internals. And at that BlackViper does not understand OS internals. This
is evidenced by his fascination with the memory foot print of each module.
Reality is that the memory foot print of anything in a VM environment is
irrelevant as long as the paging system hasn't been artificially
constrained.

As for lack of MS support; tricky question. OEMs are solely responsible for
support on their hardware. However, MS will do quite a bit for retail
distros. In fact they take it rather personally.

But anything specific on his site? Can't say since I don't know any
platforms other than mine and frankly I have no need or reason to disable
any MS service Then again I can't (and won't) since I have clients that run
in default configurations that I support. I try to know issues and deadly
advice in advance so that I can steer the paying as well as the non-paying
on the correct direction.

And now I'm going to throw the curve ball. Yes, there are services that are
unneeded on any platform. The challenge is to produce a method of
determining what is and isn't necessary without hosing the user because the
last thing they think of is full state backup until they reboot into lala
land.


--
Walter Clayton - MS MVP(WinXP)
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
http://www.dts-l.org


"Kevin Davis³" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 21:56:57 -0400, "Walter Clayton"
> > wrote:
>
> >He's dangerous and doesn't provide any
> >information on *how* to recover from the inevitable screw up.
>
> He provides instructions on how to create multiple profiles to boot
> to, recommending creating a "safe" profile to boot to. Booting with
> the safe profile would obviously recover.
>
> >Neither does he bother with explaining the cascading effect or potential
long term issues
> >that can arise.
>
> He doesn't seem to spell that out specifically, no.
>
>
> >As well, he doesn't even list or bother with mentioning all
> >the visible dependencies or consequences.
>
> The table he provides does list service dependencies. Covering all
> possible consequences is not a really reasonble thing to expect.
> However, I don't completely disagree with you on some of your
> criticisms. I do wish that he would orgranize the information a
> little cleaner and include more explanation/cautionary statements.
>
> >He simply washes his hands of all responsibility.
>
> Kind of like how Microsoft does when you agree to their EULA? Come,
> now that is quite a hysterical remark and to some degree makes me
> think that you simply have some sort of agenda against the guy other
> than from simple technical reasons. Him disclaiming himself from
> someone trashing their system and legally blaming it on his web site
> is not an unreasonable thing to expect.
>
> I do think that anyone other than an intermediate level user should
> avoid this. I'm not sure that I would go so far to insist that expert
> level knowledge is required. And as I stated before definitely no
> newbies.
>
> Can you identify any blatantly incorrect information he provides on
> the web site that is "dangerous"?
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> What could possibly go wrong?

[Walter Clayton]

Not strictly true. Most of the functionality you reference is with regard
enterprise networks. The real issue however is that a home targeted
application may choose to use the service in which case you're correct.

Basically, most home users, as of today, can get away with disabling
messenger service. But that's today. It can change tomorrow. The real issue
is the ostrich philosophy with regard disabling the messenger service.

--
Walter Clayton - MS MVP(WinXP)
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
http://www.dts-l.org


"mitundergrad" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 00:07:21 GMT, Kevin Davis³
> > wrote:
>
> >>Enable or install a firewall and the net send pop-up messages are a
thing of
> >>the past without disabling anything dependant on the service.
>
> >Did I say "arbitrarily disable it". I said nowhere near that. I said
> >he needs to find out if he needs it. Big difference. Please provide
> >a list of "a lot of stuff" that's dependent on it that would matter to
> >a home user. I am aware of some AV software and a few chat programs,
> >but where is the plethora of other stuff?
>
> Everyone needs the messenger service. This allows pop ups from anti
> virus programs, software firewalls and a host of other applications.
> Blocking ports 135 UDP incoming and 4444 TCP/IP incoming will stop
> those nasty IP Harvester popups and still leave the system operational
> for application popup warnings.
>
> A software firewall that allows rule creation (Kerio to name one) will
> block these ports as will a hardware router.
>
> To close, EVERYONE should NOT disable the messenger service. MS
> Messenger is a different story.
>

[PCyr]

I wouldn't say all home users can get away with it. But more than most,
probably almost all.

--
Check out http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com for amazing tweaks and fixes

Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Twitt is a
self-appointed, self-righteous, ruthless, bitchy net-cop too!)

Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
Change the obvious to the obvious.
------------------
"Walter Clayton" > wrote in message
...
> Not strictly true. Most of the functionality you reference is with regard
> enterprise networks. The real issue however is that a home targeted
> application may choose to use the service in which case you're correct.
>
> Basically, most home users, as of today, can get away with disabling
> messenger service. But that's today. It can change tomorrow. The real
issue
> is the ostrich philosophy with regard disabling the messenger service.
>
> --
> Walter Clayton - MS MVP(WinXP)
> Associate Expert
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
> Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
> http://www.dts-l.org
>
>
> "mitundergrad" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 00:07:21 GMT, Kevin Davis³
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >>Enable or install a firewall and the net send pop-up messages are a
> thing of
> > >>the past without disabling anything dependant on the service.
> >
> > >Did I say "arbitrarily disable it". I said nowhere near that. I said
> > >he needs to find out if he needs it. Big difference. Please provide
> > >a list of "a lot of stuff" that's dependent on it that would matter to
> > >a home user. I am aware of some AV software and a few chat programs,
> > >but where is the plethora of other stuff?
> >
> > Everyone needs the messenger service. This allows pop ups from anti
> > virus programs, software firewalls and a host of other applications.
> > Blocking ports 135 UDP incoming and 4444 TCP/IP incoming will stop
> > those nasty IP Harvester popups and still leave the system operational
> > for application popup warnings.
> >
> > A software firewall that allows rule creation (Kerio to name one) will
> > block these ports as will a hardware router.
> >
> > To close, EVERYONE should NOT disable the messenger service. MS
> > Messenger is a different story.
> >
>

[Kevin Davis³]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 00:21:25 -0400, "Walter Clayton"
> wrote:

>You actually tried any of his recovery recommendations? They rarely work in
>reality especially once you've "screwed the pooch".

>Simply put, if you can't boot into safe mode or use LKGC you're hosed. And
>LKGC is problematic. Out of laziness I used it to recover from beta video
>driver issues on my laptop. The results weren't and aren't pretty and I'm
>still recovering and finding problems a week later.

So you are saying I can't create a profile like he suggests, and have
one that has the default MS settings in it that I can fall back to for
booting if one of the other profiles that I create I dink around with
goes belly up?

>Do some more research. But I'll even turn the tables on you even more so.
>Sit your mother or father in front of BlackViper, step out of the room give
>them carte blanc on the machine and see if you can salvage the results if
>they actually follow through on the recommendations assuming they can even
>follow the recommendations.

You REALLY don't read my messages do you? Twice already I said that
this stuff is not for newbies. In fact, I specifically stated that a
beginner should just leave things alone. How many MORE times do I
have to say it?

>
>Again, there is a two fold issue. One lies in the area off dependencies. And
>that's an extremely volatile situation and one that is impossible to answer
>directly. I can not tell anyone in advance what 3rd party application is
>dependant on any service and I can guarantee that those dependencies do not
>consistently show up on the dependency tab in the services snap in. The
>other area is with regard actually determining what is necessary and what
>not. The descriptions, even the MS supplied ones which are paraphrased on
>BlackViper's site, make sense only to those that are extremely familiar with
>OS internals. And at that BlackViper does not understand OS internals. This
>is evidenced by his fascination with the memory foot print of each module.
>Reality is that the memory foot print of anything in a VM environment is
>irrelevant as long as the paging system hasn't been artificially
>constrained.

The vast majority of these types of issues would not cause the
computer to fail to boot. In most cases, it would case a third party
application not to function at 100% or maybe not at all. This is one
of the reasons I say this is not for beginners. It should be
attempted only by someone who can have some basic understanding what
they are doing and know that if they turn a service off it could cause
something else to fail. Thus they need to keep track of the changes
they made and do the changes incrementally. It's not rocket science
but well beyond the abilities of the beginner. If the default "Safe"
profile does in fact work as he suggests one can abandon the
experimental ones that cause problems.

>
>As for lack of MS support; tricky question. OEMs are solely responsible for
>support on their hardware. However, MS will do quite a bit for retail
>distros. In fact they take it rather personally.

I can name umpteen different software/hardware vendors that do this.
In fact, one might be hard pressed to find vendors that don't require
their users to agree to a EULA that completely removes any liability
whatsoever from them.

>
>But anything specific on his site? Can't say

Interesting.

>
>And now I'm going to throw the curve ball. Yes, there are services that are
>unneeded on any platform. The challenge is to produce a method of
>determining what is and isn't necessary without hosing the user because the
>last thing they think of is full state backup until they reboot into lala
>land.

Create a default profile with the standard MS settings before you
start. Create other profiles to experiment with. Don't touch the
default profile. If you get hosed, boot to that profile. Are you
sure this doesn't work?

---------------------------------------
What could possibly go wrong?

[Walter Clayton]

Your choice. If you believe what's on Blackviper's site, go for it.

And yes, I've read your disclaimer, but if you'll go back up thread and
notice that the quest was for a solution understandable to the computer
illiterate and your offering is one of the worst possible sites on the
internet.

Frankly Blackviper's site is dangerous even for the computer literate,
especially when they do not take full state stand alone backups.

Since you're defending the site, how about you put it to the test of fire
and report back As is, I'm dealing with some one else in a private
newsgroup that's hosed services although this time it was accidental as a
result of a system fault rather than intentionally mucking around. ;-)

One issue that is a lot of people still fail to grasp is that what's
displayed on the dependency tab is only an approximate guess at what's
dependant system wide. And yes, contrary to what Blackviper states,
disabling the wrong set of services will put the machine in a no-boot
situation. BTDTBTTS and had to resinstall as a consequence until I found the
alternatives. Unfortunately, the alternatives do not exist for most OEM
distros, especially for HE (lookup secedit for a hint).

Again, the quest is a solution for the computer illiterate which comprises
at least 95% of the users out there, including ones that post here. NOTE:
Before any one gets their dander up; being computer illiterate isn't a bad
thing, it just means that you have other things to with your life which is
oft times a good thing.

Keep in mind the only way to break on otherwise stable code base is to
change it, even if that change is to alter what is or is not executed.


--
Walter Clayton - MS MVP(WinXP)
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
http://www.dts-l.org


"Kevin Davis³" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 00:21:25 -0400, "Walter Clayton"
> > wrote:
>
> >You actually tried any of his recovery recommendations? They rarely work
in
> >reality especially once you've "screwed the pooch".
>
> >Simply put, if you can't boot into safe mode or use LKGC you're hosed.
And
> >LKGC is problematic. Out of laziness I used it to recover from beta video
> >driver issues on my laptop. The results weren't and aren't pretty and I'm
> >still recovering and finding problems a week later.
>
> So you are saying I can't create a profile like he suggests, and have
> one that has the default MS settings in it that I can fall back to for
> booting if one of the other profiles that I create I dink around with
> goes belly up?
>
> >Do some more research. But I'll even turn the tables on you even more so.
> >Sit your mother or father in front of BlackViper, step out of the room
give
> >them carte blanc on the machine and see if you can salvage the results if
> >they actually follow through on the recommendations assuming they can
even
> >follow the recommendations.
>
> You REALLY don't read my messages do you? Twice already I said that
> this stuff is not for newbies. In fact, I specifically stated that a
> beginner should just leave things alone. How many MORE times do I
> have to say it?
>
> >
> >Again, there is a two fold issue. One lies in the area off dependencies.
And
> >that's an extremely volatile situation and one that is impossible to
answer
> >directly. I can not tell anyone in advance what 3rd party application is
> >dependant on any service and I can guarantee that those dependencies do
not
> >consistently show up on the dependency tab in the services snap in. The
> >other area is with regard actually determining what is necessary and what
> >not. The descriptions, even the MS supplied ones which are paraphrased on
> >BlackViper's site, make sense only to those that are extremely familiar
with
> >OS internals. And at that BlackViper does not understand OS internals.
This
> >is evidenced by his fascination with the memory foot print of each
module.
> >Reality is that the memory foot print of anything in a VM environment is
> >irrelevant as long as the paging system hasn't been artificially
> >constrained.
>
> The vast majority of these types of issues would not cause the
> computer to fail to boot. In most cases, it would case a third party
> application not to function at 100% or maybe not at all. This is one
> of the reasons I say this is not for beginners. It should be
> attempted only by someone who can have some basic understanding what
> they are doing and know that if they turn a service off it could cause
> something else to fail. Thus they need to keep track of the changes
> they made and do the changes incrementally. It's not rocket science
> but well beyond the abilities of the beginner. If the default "Safe"
> profile does in fact work as he suggests one can abandon the
> experimental ones that cause problems.
>
> >
> >As for lack of MS support; tricky question. OEMs are solely responsible
for
> >support on their hardware. However, MS will do quite a bit for retail
> >distros. In fact they take it rather personally.
>
> I can name umpteen different software/hardware vendors that do this.
> In fact, one might be hard pressed to find vendors that don't require
> their users to agree to a EULA that completely removes any liability
> whatsoever from them.
>
> >
> >But anything specific on his site? Can't say
>
> Interesting.
>
> >
> >And now I'm going to throw the curve ball. Yes, there are services that
are
> >unneeded on any platform. The challenge is to produce a method of
> >determining what is and isn't necessary without hosing the user because
the
> >last thing they think of is full state backup until they reboot into lala
> >land.
>
> Create a default profile with the standard MS settings before you
> start. Create other profiles to experiment with. Don't touch the
> default profile. If you get hosed, boot to that profile. Are you
> sure this doesn't work?
>
> ---------------------------------------
> What could possibly go wrong?

[Richter]

>Your choice. If you believe what's on Blackviper's site, go for it.

>And yes, I've read your disclaimer, but if you'll go back up thread and
>notice that the quest was for a solution understandable to the computer
>illiterate and your offering is one of the worst possible sites on the
>internet.

>Frankly Blackviper's site is dangerous even for the computer literate,
>especially when they do not take full state stand alone backups.

>Since you're defending the site, how about you put it to the test of fire
>and report back As is, I'm dealing with some one else in a private
>newsgroup that's hosed services although this time it was accidental as a
>result of a system fault rather than intentionally mucking around. ;-)


I am running his default "Safe" profile on my machine with no side effects.
Running XP home\750 AMD\320 MB memory.

Matt

[Alex Nichol]

Walter Clayton wrote:

>One issue that is a lot of people still fail to grasp is that what's
>displayed on the dependency tab is only an approximate guess at what's
>dependant system wide. And yes, contrary to what Blackviper states,
>disabling the wrong set of services will put the machine in a no-boot
>situation. BTDTBTTS and had to resinstall as a consequence until I found=
the
>alternatives. Unfortunately, the alternatives do not exist for most OEM
>distros, especially for HE (lookup secedit for a hint).


To put in 2 cents worth, I am very cautious about disabling services
that are there by default. There are a few that I consider can be
disabled without serious consequence (and the Messenger service and
Alerter on a machine that is not in a network are two of them). BUT, if
there is one that you are considering, start by setting the Startup
type to Manual. Then if there is a call on it, it will get started, and
show as such in the Services applet. If it does not get started, then
it is not consuming memory or cpu resources.


--=20
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K.

[Kevin Davis³]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 21:46:15 -0400, "Walter Clayton"
> wrote:

>Your choice. If you believe what's on Blackviper's site, go for it.
>
>And yes, I've read your disclaimer, but if you'll go back up thread and
>notice that the quest was for a solution understandable to the computer
>illiterate

So when right away in my first respnose to that request where I
conceded that this is *NOT* for the computer illiterate, why do you
keep pressing the issue? I passed on the site as a possible tool for
those other than computer illiterates. So shoot me.

> and your offering is one of the worst possible sites on the
>internet.

In your opinion, obviously. And you have your right to it, certainly.
As of yet you have provided no compelling evidence to me to convince
me of your opinion. You seem to keep coming back in the context of a
computer illiterate doing this stuff and not being able to boot (which
profiles allow you to avoid this problem) as proof how bad the site
is.

>Frankly Blackviper's site is dangerous even for the computer literate,
>especially when they do not take full state stand alone backups.

I disagree. Just make a default profile that has all the default
service settings. It takes all of 5 minutes. Leave it alone and
create other profiles to experiment with. Why don't you resond to
this? I've mentioned it several times now and you seem to be avoiding
discussing this. It is an easy solution to get back from where you
started from without having to restore the whole system. Just because
someone hosed up their system to the point where it wouldn't boot,
doesn't mean that it is universally dangerous for everyone.
Particularly when they are educated about how to make profiles and how
to easily get back to their original configuration.

>Since you're defending the site, how about you put it to the test of fire
>and report back As is, I'm dealing with some one else in a private
>newsgroup that's hosed services although this time it was accidental as a
>result of a system fault rather than intentionally mucking around. ;-)

Report back about what? Using his site to determine what services I
don't need running and disable them? Already done it on several boxes
and have had no problems whatsoever. There's your report.

BTW, there's another similar site I've used in the past to help me do
the same thing:

http://www.techspot.com/tweaks/win2k_services/index.shtml

I don't like it as well because it is not as comprehensive and does
not go over how to make profile to recover from bad settings. I'm
sure I've seen a few other sites just like these two. I'm sure you
consider them all "dangerous".

>One issue that is a lot of people still fail to grasp is that what's
>displayed on the dependency tab is only an approximate guess at what's
>dependant system wide. And yes, contrary to what Blackviper states,
>disabling the wrong set of services will put the machine in a no-boot
>situation. BTDTBTTS and had to resinstall as a consequence until I found the
>alternatives. Unfortunately, the alternatives do not exist for most OEM
>distros, especially for HE (lookup secedit for a hint).

I'm not sure I remember reading anything where the blackviper site
assures that you will be always able to boot after changes. I'm not
sure about that, I could be wrong. However, you seem to fail to grasp
the benefit of making profiles and having one that contains the
default settings that you leave alone. That gets you back immediately
without having to reinstall anything. He does recommend doing this.
However, I feel that his recommendation is not strong or obvious
enough. My criticism of the site is the presentation in some cases.

>Again, the quest is a solution for the computer illiterate which comprises
>at least 95% of the users out there, including ones that post here.

Can't help with that quest. As I have said for the fourth time now, I
would not recommend this for the newbie. In fact I'll repeat again
that I think the newbie should leave things alone. If you insist on
keeping this within the context of a newbie (which you seem intent on
doing), I don't think we really disagree on what should be done
(nothing) and the debate should end right now.

>NOTE:
>Before any one gets their dander up; being computer illiterate isn't a bad
>thing, it just means that you have other things to with your life which is
>oft times a good thing.

Agreed. Everyone is a newbie at some point and some people's
priorities and/or desires aren't to become a computer guru but just to
get it to do what they want. There's absolutely nothing wrong with
that.



---------------------------------------
What could possibly go wrong?