Messages

326

Mouser's Zone / Re: Any new ideas for small utilities?

« on: April 17, 2005, 08:24 AM »

Do you really need an application that let startup applications load depending on CPU load?  It probably isn't going to make startup occur faster; if anything, it will take longer, because you're forcing it to be spread out over a longer period of time.  Don't you just want it to be done with, so you can start using your system?

327

Living Room / Re: Who are you & what do you do?

« on: April 17, 2005, 02:31 AM »

Hey, I didn't post that here!  Mouser, you forgot to change the subject line. 

328

Living Room / Re: BIO

« on: April 17, 2005, 02:00 AM »

 
OPEN UP YOUR WORLD TO ME





Ah, emm.  Just wanted to freak you out ever so slightly! 
 

329

General Software Discussion / Re: DirMS and Buzzsaw

« on: April 17, 2005, 01:47 AM »

Buzzsaw works almost the same way as mst Defrag.

-Zero3K (April 16, 2005, 11:29 AM)

And I'm sure it has some advantages, too.  One thing about mst Defrag is that while it's pretty much install-and-forget, there is no way to exclude anything.

I went to the Buzzsaw home page a week or so ago (before reading about it here), and was so confused by all the titles, versions, licenses, and horrendous web page layout that I simply gave up.

330

Living Room / Re: Should I increase avatar size? Poll.

« on: April 17, 2005, 01:31 AM »

Avatars are actually useful and handy, because they make it much easier to tell, even with peripheral vision, whose post you're looking at.  But they don't need to be anywhere near 130x65 to be effective to that end.  I run 1920x1200 resolution, and the current size is perfectly adequate for me.  I don't like obnoxious graphics distracting me.

331

DesktopCoral / Re: Usefullness

« on: April 17, 2005, 01:15 AM »

I actually did mean the options form, not the main form (TMainForm class).

And for some reason, I was thinking I could put the corral coral over the shortcuts...  Duh...  It just pushes the shortcuts aside, which is not a shock now that I'm partially awake.

332

DesktopCoral / Re: Usefullness

« on: April 17, 2005, 01:09 AM »

The options and the main form.  It can probably be made to work, but it's tough figuring out how...  I'm really sorry.

333

DesktopCoral / Re: Usefullness

« on: April 17, 2005, 01:05 AM »

I can't use DesktopCoral due to the DPI issue.  Don't sweat it if I'm the only pain-in-the-ass running these specs.    (Seriously)

334

Best Website Change Monitoring Tool / Re: Website Change Monitoring Review/Award - WebsiteWatcher

« on: April 17, 2005, 01:02 AM »

I've been using WSW for quite awhile, and it has saved tons of time.  I love it when I ask someone (such as a developer) about a new version they've posted, and they ask me, "How did you find out about it so quickly?"

The one thing that drives me nuts about WSW is the fact that if you monitor for certain text in a web page, you'll not only get a change alert when the text is added, but also if that text disappears from the page.  Martin has already told me that he plans on making it possible to filter out this kind of change detection in a future version.

335

DesktopCoral / Re: Usefullness

« on: April 17, 2005, 12:55 AM »

I may be able to use DesktopCoral for my desktop shortcuts...  I have a 25" monitor, and I have over 90 shortcuts on the left side, taking up only about 1/5 of the width.

My only question at this point is why the name is "DesktopCoral".  Did you mean "DesktopCorral"?

336

ProcessTamer / Re: Anyone else with this issue?

« on: April 16, 2005, 11:41 PM »

I figured out what is wrong, thanks to Sysinternals Filemon.  The problem has to do with the quotation mark issue that I mentioned before in passing, though I didn't know this would happen.

When I have this as the path for the "Optional 3rd party tool":

C:\Program Files\Process Explorer\procexp.exe /p:n

And then click the browse button, ProcessTamerConfigurator.exe does a query on the full contents of the text box, and gets a "path not found" error.  It's getting an error because it's trying to resolve the path and the command line parameter, not just the path.  If I put this in the "Optional 3rd party tool" text box:

C:\Program Files\Process Explorer\procexp.exe

The browse button works fine (that is, the Open dialog appears correctly).

337

ProcessTamer / Re: Some other apps related to process tamer

« on: April 16, 2005, 06:59 PM »

$30 for PriorityMaster?  Does it make coffee and do some really, really personal favors, too?

338

ProcessTamer / Process Tamer at 120 DPI

« on: April 16, 2005, 03:24 PM »

I just updated to Process Tamer 2.00.15, and its configuration window looks quite a bit better than before.  Not 100%, but much better.  Thanks!

339

Mouser's Zone / Re: Any new ideas for small utilities?

« on: April 16, 2005, 03:17 PM »

I'd appreciate a utility that ... don't laugh ... sends fake searches to Google every 5 or 10 minutes or so.

OK, I'll explain: I'm not a real privacy paranoiac, but I'm not unconcerned, either.  I don't like the fact that Google could potentially track everything I search for, and associate it with my Gmail accounts, and whatever else.  (Please, I'm not looking for advice on how to use or not use cookies, or anything like that.)

So, my idea was to have some automated means of sending Google fake searches every once in awhile.  There would be a list of words that the script or program looked at, and it would randomly choose some, and send them to Google.  This cycle would repeat itself, with a pseudo-random search string being sent each time.  The result would be an erratic, essentially meaningless compilation of search history for "me".

For example, for a given day, Google would see something like this coming from my IP address, in the way of searches:

cooking pain "lava trouble"
driveway run ephemeral
leaky sustained
step +ladder accident
reboot wire hole "gracious can"

Which are real? 

340

ProcessTamer / Re: ProcessTamer 2.00.14

« on: April 16, 2005, 03:10 PM »

Would this also explain why my preconfigured applications aren't being set to the specified priority?  For example, my defragger's service is set to be changed to low priority, but it usually isn't...  I guess I'll upgrade and see. 

341

General Software Discussion / Re: DirMS and Buzzsaw

« on: April 16, 2005, 07:57 AM »

Yeah the docs are awful.  That, and it's far from ideal to have to configure it with manual registry editing.  I'd rewrite his manual for him, but he can't afford me. 

342

Official DonationCoder.com Reviews / Re: 30 day trial for VMware Workstation 5

« on: April 16, 2005, 07:01 AM »

I don't get it--I've tried [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], and a few others, and nothing seems to work.  Weird.  I guess I'll keep trying.  (Joking...)

This is what http://sneakemail.com was made for.

343

General Software Discussion / Re: the definitive minimal amount of programs for the greatest security?

« on: April 16, 2005, 02:10 AM »

Sorry, I have to disagree to an extent.  Maybe I worded it too harshly...  Sorry.  But a "good setup" for one person will be a terrible setup for another.  For example, I might recommend Jetico Personal Firewall and NOD32 to you, because they both have significant strengths, but may involve some complex configuration--but I'd never recommend either to my mother (I'd be over the following day, doing a reformat).  Instead, for her, it might be ZoneAlarm and Kaspersky Anti-Virus.  But...  Is her CPU up to the task?  More questions.

Sure, you can sit back and say "A good anti-virus and firewall makes a good setup", but that's pretty much a non-statement these days, just as twenty years ago we could've had a long discussion on the merits of wearing your seat belt while driving, but today, it pretty much goes without saying.

The OP said "how about trying to define the minimum number of programs that are required for a thoroughly secure system"...  If you want a number, I'll say, OK, how about 4?  Maybe 3.  No, definitely 5.  But what does "thoroughly secure" mean?  (To me, it means the system is unplugged.)

344

Official DonationCoder.com Reviews / Re: 30 day trial for VMware Workstation 5

« on: April 16, 2005, 02:06 AM »

you have to agree to receive email from other companies so be warned.

-nudone (April 10, 2005, 04:40 AM)

This is a ridiculous policy.  I'd be really angry if my email address weren't [email protected].

345

General Software Discussion / Re: [suggestion] ProcessGuard and RegDefend

« on: April 16, 2005, 02:01 AM »

Security software that causes stability or other problems has failed, just as locking your storefront door, and preventing customers to enter, has failed.  (Great security, though.)

346

Official DonationCoder.com Reviews / Re: This weeks review subject changed from Backup Tool to Best Virtual Machine Tool

« on: April 16, 2005, 01:56 AM »

So you're saying I need some sleep then, huh?  Duh......

347

General Software Discussion / Re: the definitive minimal amount of programs for the greatest security?

« on: April 16, 2005, 01:50 AM »

OK, I'll shed some light.  There is no One True Answer for security.  There is no One True Security Utility.

What you need depends on a lot of things.  Who uses your computer.  What you have on your computer.  How knowledgable you are.  How much money you have.  How willing and able you are to deal with software and environment configuration.  What you do with your computer.  How it is connected to the internet.  And so on and on and on...

Anyone giving a flat, specific, parrot-like answer to the question of "what do I need?" really doesn't understand security at all.  I'm sorry, but it's true.  If you don't even pause to ask some of the questions above, and more, how can you possibly provide a reasoned answer?

If someone asked, "How do I secure my building?"  wouldn't you ask things like "Is it a dwelling, or a storage space?"  "How is the building constructed?"  "What is inside it, and how valuable is it?"  "Where is the building located?"  "How much can you spend on security?"

...?

348

General Software Discussion / Re: the definitive minimal amount of programs for the greatest security?

« on: April 16, 2005, 01:47 AM »

You definitley need process guard.

The only programs I use to protect my system is Process Guard and Outpost Firewall and COMMON SENSE!! <--- this is important!

I do use TDS-3 as my trojan scanner. I will perform a scan once a week and maybe once in a year I will detect some trojan than got passed my defenses. TDS-3 is by far the best trojan scanner available... hands down.

As far as a virus scanner... I wouldn't use one. I don't use them because they hog resources and plus I don't really see the benefit of having one. Remember, as long as you have common sense, you don't need one.

-mob (April 09, 2005, 08:23 PM)

OK, I'm confused by your position.  You "definitely need process guard" because, ostensibly, you realize that you can come across malware.  But you say that you don't need anti-virus software, because you use common sense.  This brings to mind a few questions:

1.  Why does "common sense" remove the need for anti-virus software, but not ProcessGuard?

2.  Why does "common sense" remove the need for anti-virus software, but not anti-trojan software?  (Keeping in mind that there really is no such thing as literal "anti-virus software" anymore)

3.  How does "common sense" detect malware?
 

349

General Software Discussion / Re: [suggestion] ProcessGuard and RegDefend

« on: April 16, 2005, 01:38 AM »

I'd hold off on the "No PC should function without these two programs" recommendation for now.

ProcessGuard is a very powerful program. It works at the Kernel Level which means it has higher authority over virtually anything you run on your computer.

-mob (April 05, 2005, 05:13 PM)

All drivers work "at the kernel level".  ProcessGuard only has a real shot if it prevents malware from installing; not if that malware is already installed.  And the kicker is that the authors of ProcessGuard, DiamondCS, recommend disabling ProcessGuard during software installs.  This is ironic, since that's exactly when malware often creeps in.

So, OK, ignore that advice, and keep ProcessGuard enabled while installing software?  This can be a recipe for a headache, if ProcessGuard blocks a driver, service, or hook that your new software needs to have installed and working.  And the result of blocking it may be a botched install.  Usually, you can just re-run the installer, but sometimes you'll have a mess to clean up, or worse.

And the fact that you must allow some software to install drivers and/or service, or to use system hooks, means that it's a guessing game as to what you can trust.  Just try blocking all drivers, services, and system hooks sometime, and you will quickly see what I mean.

Even if you have a firewall and an antivirus installed and running, there are so many leaks and vulnerabilities that will render those security programs useless. You can see a list of the most common leaktests here: http://www.firewallleaktester.com

-mob (April 05, 2005, 05:13 PM)

My personal firewall software stops all known leak tests.  I'm not going to say what it is, because I don't want to engage in a back-and-forth about it.

There are tons of viruses/trojans/worms that will detect which firewall/antivirus software you are using and simply close them down or disable them and then run their malicious coding or connect to the internet. And your Antivirus/firewall can't do anything about it!

-mob (April 05, 2005, 05:13 PM)

Can you name any of them off the top of your head?  I can't, though I know they exist.  In any case, no malware is going to kill your firewall or anti-malware application if it is recognized and intercepted by the latter.  Please don't read into the word "if" in that sentence; I am not saying that security-software-terminating malware isn't a concern, but this is a mitigating factor worthy of note.

Your security software is just going to think you are shutting it down or disabling it.

-mob (April 05, 2005, 05:13 PM)

Only if (1) The malware isn't detected; and (2) Your security software has no self protection features of its own (most decent ones these days do).

To make the long story short, no process guard = no security.

-mob (April 05, 2005, 05:13 PM)

This is a gross misstatement of reality.  Security is a direction, not an end point.  Shades of grey, not black and white.  You're not "secure with ProcessGuard" and "totally insecure without ProcessGuard".

I'll close by pointing out that I (and others) have reported several bugs to DiamondCS that made it easily possible to totally bypass ProcessGuard.  I also pointed out a way to kill applications that ProcessGuard was supposedly "protecting".  I have no idea if all of those bugs have been fixed, as I grew tired of being their unwitting beta tester.
 

350

Official DonationCoder.com Reviews / Re: This weeks review subject changed from Backup Tool to Best Virtual Machine Tool

« on: April 16, 2005, 01:04 AM »

You're going to make me regret buying Microsoft Virtual PC, I just know it!