jaclaz

I cannot say specifically for that model, but usually if there is access to BIOS, there is also access to change the HD password. There are "generic" hash solvers for the main BIOS passwords, like: http://dogber1.blogspot.it/2009/05/table-of-reverse-engineered-bios.html http://www.bios-pw.org/ but again it depends on specific make/model. Some models may have an actual encryption on the hard disk, in which case it is possible that one can gain access to the hard disk, but loose all data. Not enough data to compute. jaclaz

Just for the record, the new 1.0.1 version is here: http://www.overclock.net/t/1477527/tool-to-preload-windows-cache/40#post_22029048 http://ubuntuone.com/0tLvGodGWPkxei15nSa7XN jaclaz

Sure, no *need*, but if one likes or wishes to be concerned, let him be so. Sent from my perfectly normal PC i386 using Opera 12.15 build 1748 (and bragging some more about it ). jaclaz

Well, seemingly the China government wish is to NOT buy Windows 8 for their own use. It's not like they are prohibiting anyone in China from having one, they have simply decided to not buy Windows 8 based PC's among Governement supplies. jaclaz

Why not? Sent from my perfectly normal PC i386 using Opera 12.15 build 1748 (and bragging a bit about it ). jaclaz

Well, you can use - instead of the *whatever* tool/method you used - one of the available tools to install Windows from USB or learn - by reading on the methods used by these or other manual methods - how to do that. ALL the info you might need is here: http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/157-install-windows-from-usb/ Have a look at the stickies then choose one tool/method. jaclaz

Small update. There are a set of programs here: https://web.archive.org/web/20130605132922/http://www34.brinkster.com/dizzyk/index.html https://web.archive.org/web/20130913081713/http://www34.brinkster.com/dizzyk/crc32.asp That allow, besides calculating the CRC32, to change it by inserting a number of bytes in the file. These programs are not good, because they use a sort of "brute force" and thus they are slowish. There are tens (if not hundreds) of pages on the internet of CRC32, which can be divided mainly in: useless (for practical uses) pompous and useless (for practical uses) only potentially useful #1 tend to be of the kind, "ok, let me explain how the CRC32 algorithm works", a few lines of mumble-jumble about the algorithm, and a few lines of source code (rarely "original" work). #2 tend to be of the kind, "ok, I am very smart, I will show off a bit telling you what I accomplished related to CRC32, but I won' t give you anything but some mathematical definitions, a few hints and absolutely nothing you can replicate at home without having first achieved a degree in Math and one in Programming" #3 tend to be, "ok here is the CRC32 algorithm, I use instead of method "mumble-jumble" method "some other mumble-jumble", followed by some lines of code, in a compiled language like Perl, Python or Java Luckily enough there are a few exceptions, I found the nice crcmanip / crc manipulator: http://myanimelist.net/forum/?topicid=495063 https://github.com/rr-/CRC-manipulator https://github.com/rr-/CRC-manipulator/releases Current: https://github.com/rr-/CRC-manipulator/releases/download/0.26/crcmanip-0.26.bin.zip which is (besides the stupid .NET based GUI) a simple, working command line program to insert (or replace) a "corrective" set of 4 bytes to have any files' CRC32 set to a given value, instantly. One of the tools (the command line only) that do deserve a place in the box. And this (IMHO extremely complex, but very, very nice ) CRC reveng thingie: http://reveng.sourceforge.net/ I am (and will presumably be for the next several days/weeks ) trying to understand it's use, but it is promising. I also found an interesting (though difficult to follow because of the way it is written) description of the manual way to calculate a CRC32, which I am pretty sure that once got rid of the ortography/spelling errors and slang, I may be able to understand and replicate: http://www.gamerzplanet.net/forums/gunz-hacks-bots-discussion/233326-release-tut-how-to-reverse-crc.html Now back to the MS AutoCRC, it is not yet clear at all how the tool (CDIMAGE or whatever) calculate the values of ExclCRC and AutoCRC. The actual CRC.EXE, given that: the "labels" ExclCRC and AutoCRC do exist at the end of the filethe "real" CRC32 of the file is 0xFFFFFFFFwill accept as VALID the file. Pretty lame, if you ask me, as a "verification method" . Example with a "handcrafted" file with BOTH ExclCRC and AutoCRC set to 0x0000000: Example with a "handcrafted" file with BOTH ExclCRT and AutoCRC set to 0xFFFFFF It is possible that the MS thingy uses a different polynomial from the "standard" 04c11db7 one, or a different check value, it seems like there are several CRC32 versions: http://reveng.sourceforge.net/crc-catalogue/17plus.htm Now, if I only could manage to understand the usage of CRC reveng .... jaclaz

You have not clear (or you do not like ) the spirit of the word "freedom" as Stallman uses it. Of course Stallman is a bit of extremist in his take on this, but he has some reasons. Freedom is not only the possibility of choosing an interface that suits your habits or workflow, it is also about the possibility to change (or find someone capable of changing) the way a program works, to add or remove a feature, etc. But I will give you a practical example. I have, since the good ol' DOS days a DOS program (sort of accounting/POS kind of program) DBASEIV/CLIPPER based. This is a Commercial program for which I paid since what? 1993 or so a yearly licensing and support fee to the software house. This particular piece of software is not "modern", is not "multitasking", it is not "elegant", BUT it does what is supposed to do it in a PERFECT way, with the HIGHEST possible level of comfort/easyness of use and it is §@ç#ing RELIABLE: I was extremely "lucky" (or "smart", you choose) to find it at the time and to choose that particular program among a number of similar ones and additionally was also very lucky that this small software house (because makes good programs and was well administered) is still around today. Since 1996 (or so) the same software house made the "Windows" version of this same software. It sucked in 1996. It sucked in 1997, It sucked in 1998. They rewrote it form scratch in 1999. It still sucked. They made over the long years since every kind of betterings, but while it has reached a reliability similar to (but not completely up to) the old DOS version, it still has IMHO many issues in everyday use. The old DOS version used (obviously) the keyboard ONLY. The new Windows version has a "mixed" interface, you need to use to input data both the keyboard and the mouse, which is awkward and that slows data input considerably. I have tried talking over and over with the good guys, but I was unable to convince them (actually I did manage to convince them about the issues, but seemingly the stupid CASE they use has some limitations, and some of the things I value cannot be done). Now, next year they will put the DOS version in the out-of-support phase. Over all these years the updates were things like "add this report", "change the way date field is printed", "add to the database a field for sorting by last operation on account", etc. Now, I have personnel that can input data on it in (really) no time, possibly blindfolded and if needed with an arm tied behind their back, while sleeping, I can manage it (in case of issues, backing up, restoring, fixing databases) with absolute easiness, Next year I will need to upgrade to it's stupid windows version (or find another program, possibly worse/less reliable), re-train personnel, upgrade my training to deal with it, change greatly the workflow to adapt it to the new stupid programs' one, which means hours and hours of time lost (and that will never be "compensated" since the new windows program is slower/more inconvenient). If this was a free program (free as in freedom, not free as in free beer), I could easily do myself (or find a programmer capable of doing them) the little changes that may be needed. Remember this program (the DOS one) is a stupid program, does stupid and stupidly simple things, but it does them as quickly and as conveniently and as reliably as possible, it is not -say - "Mathematica" or "AutoCAD 3d", it is a simple, stupid database, stupidly storing some data and producing stupid printouts and stupid reports of these stupid data. There were NO real changes in the data it stores, or in the actual outputs needed, it was designed to take care of the administrative part of a business that has substantially remained the same for hundreds or actually thousands of years, yet next year I will need to either change the workflow to adapt to one of the new stupid windows programs or re-write (or find someone capable to re-write) from scratch this piece of code. jaclaz

You have to weight accurately what your needs are, and what inconveniences the NAS/RAID "model" has when compared with a "plain" backup/mirroring strategy. If you are looking for redundance or "real" recovery possibility, you will be better off buying two or three additional disks (with an external case or an el-cheapo USB adapter) and make periodical (incremental) backups. The simplest approach is with two externa disk, you lable them Odd and Even and use it on the corresponding period you choose. Once every (you choose day , week, month, year ) you connect the external disk and do an incremental backup (or mirror new files) of the storage you have "online", then store the disk, NOT connected to mains or network or any PC until you use it next time, i.e. double the chosen period. Theoretically the two disks should also be stored separately, i.e. not in the same cabinet, not in the same room, possibly not even in the same building. RAID (which is BTW a very good approach) does NOT provide "real" recovery possibilities, it represent a very good way to have no hassles in case of "normal" issues and guarantee the minimal downtime. Yes, if a disk fails in a RAID5 it is considered "normal" <- this is exactly the case for which Raid 5 was designed. With plain 3 disks 5 Raid in case one disk fails, the data won't be available until you replace the failed disk with a new one and rebuild the array. With 4 disks Raid 5 (Raid 5 + spare) in case one disk fails, data will be available again as soon as you rebuild the array (and thus you have theoretically more time to procure a new spare disk). With Raid 6 (still 4 disks) the array can bear the failure of two disks, but data won't be avialable until you replace the two failed disks. Now the BAD news . There is a relatively newish, often underestimated issue/risk . To rebuild an array takes TIIME: http://storagegaga.com/4tb-disks-the-end-of-raid/ The mechanism to re-build an array needs that the remaining disks are "perfect", i.e. that they have not any "URE": This article, though a bit (okay, a lot ) too pessimistic/alarmistic IMHO, has anyway some good points: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/why-raid-5-stops-working-in-2009/162 see also this one, which is more "relaxed": http://www.standalone-sysadmin.com/blog/2012/08/i-come-not-to-praise-raid-5/ The idea is that the actual disks in a RAID must be "good drives", which seems a trueism/utterly obvious, but that needs to be stressed, if you choose to go that way. And, generally speaking, the smaller the disks are in capacity, and the less is the amount of data on them, the better (another seemingly obvious consideration). It's time to choose, but choose wisely: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097576/quotes?item=qt0357926 jaclaz

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/142365-about-cmds-start-wait-command/ And, for the record, always provide a "title" (empty would do) when using START /WAIT: http://ss64.com/nt/start.html jaclaz

For NO apparent reason jaclaz

And if I may, I find not particularly smart (notwithstanding how nice is XVI32 ) to run a GUI app in command line . GSAR should do nicely : http://home.online.no/~tjaberg/ needing not a temp file. Like: gsar -o -s:x0B:x01:x04:x89:x1D -r:x0B:x01:x10:x89:x1D update.exejaclaz

At first sight it's fine. Still at the scope of simplifying, you don't really-really need an IF/ELSE here: IF /i "%AVG:~,1%." == "Y." (echo Installing AVG%_Arch% & avg%_Arch% /UILevel=silent /InstallToolbar=0 /ChangeBrowserSearchProvider=0 /SelectedLanguage=1033 /InstallSidebar=0 /ParticipateProductImprovement=0 /DontRestart /KillProcessesIfNeeded) Else (echo AVG Installation Skipped):: TweaksPersonally I would use the simpler: IF /i "%AVG:~,1%." == "N." echo AVG Installation Skipped&GOTO :Tweaksecho Installing AVG%_Arch% & avg%_Arch% /UILevel=silent /InstallToolbar=0 /ChangeBrowserSearchProvider=0 /SelectedLanguage=1033 /InstallSidebar=0 /ParticipateProductImprovement=0 /DontRestart /KillProcessesIfNeeded:Tweaksbut it is only a matter of tastes/preferences, to actually skip code while printing to console that you are skipping some code . jaclaz

Naah , if and when jaclaz makes his move, you will have no chances anyway . But the previous post is to be intended simply as a stern look of disapproval: jaclaz

There is unfortunately no such thing as generic *some redundancy*, each "mode" has it's advantages and it's drawbacks. Either you have full (and possibly multiple) redundancy or you have not. This means "backup" more than any RAID setup. IMHO a line to be drawn between "online" full redundancy, which means more or less having two devices, separated, mirroring each other and "offline" full redundancy, which means more or less having one (or possibly two) backups of the data. Still IMHO, if you want online reliability (which is not redundance) you should choose RAID 5, or RAID 6, whilst possibly the most "convenient" one is RAID 5 +spare. Qnap "entry level" thingies can do all of them (with 4 disks), and they do have a good reputation, but they are not exactly "cheap". Those (as some of the competitors) offer a whole range of (BTW often very nice) services/connections/what not, which in a number of cases are simply unneeded, if you explain us what the intended use would be, maybe it would be possible to find simpler solutions. jaclaz

This, besides being senselessly offensive for the good Linux guys is such an apodictical statement that it IMNSHO effectively lowers the level of this thread well below the already extremely scarce level it reached. I will tag this post for future use as "uncalled for", "gratuitious", "unbecoming". I had greater expectations from you. jaclaz

It would be very uncommon, but of course everything is possible. jaclaz

While we are at it, I would cite, from the mouth of the wolf http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd448557(v=ws.10).aspx Not that the "other good guys" have a much different opinion : http://support.apple.com/kb/PH11198 though they are actually telling lies (or partial truths) : https://scottlinux.com/2012/04/19/os-x-firewall-not-stealth/ jaclaz

@puntoMX Sure . They are listed in order of "less tools/materials needed". For #1 you ONLY need the PC and the tools (if any are needed) to open the case. For #2 you need the above and a new/known to be working cable For #3 you need besides the above (possibly more) tools to remove the disk from the case For #4 you need another PC with a suitable bus (IDE or SATA) the tools to open that other case or a suitable USB adapter. For the added #5 you need still more tools (that nowadays mean normally a teeny-tiny Torx screwdriver, smaller than the ones that come in common "generic" kits), and, as you pointed out, it makes sense only if the disk is not spinning. In my experience a non-spinning disk will usually be anyway detected by BIOS, as well as one with (for whatever reasons) insulation between the PCB and either the heads or motor contacts, though with the "PCB generic name" or with a string of "garbage characters". jaclaz

Actually it is seemingly the SAME one that ALREADY went on here :: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/163539-are-ms-updates-for-xp-really-necessary/ The only "news" are seemingly that Kelsellenenvian has an "incredibly simplistic view" on the matter and that noone here is qualified to give security advice, and that the fact that we are giving it is dangerous. No doubts about the dangerousness of giving security advice , some doubts on how people become qualified for giving it compare with the reknown expert Armand Gracious http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/127283-experts-say/ , but the point is obviously that noone is actually doing anything more than expressing one's own opinions on the matter. jaclaz

Whenever something is beyond one's capabilities or knowledge , there is often anyway a solution, which is - obviously - cheating[1]! As a teaser , please find attached a copy of fdboot.img, the Freedos 1.0 boot floppy available at http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/distributions/1.0/fdboot.img transformed to have CRC32 of 0xFFFFFFFF and VALID using CRC.EXE. jaclaz [1] By definition in love and war (and MS computing) ALL is fair, or, if you prefer, "Improvise, Adapt, Overcome" fdbootCRCFF.7z

Additionally. What EXACT make/model is the PC? What EXACT make/model is the hard disk? jaclaz

NOT "similar", but you can get a 8.1 ISO through this: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-8/upgrade-product-key-only http://winsupersite.com/windows-8/windows-81-tip-download-windows-81-iso-windows-8-product-key The only issue AFAIK is that the stupid thingy will download the version that MS finds suitable for the connected machine, i.e. you won't get the x64 version if connected through a machine running 32 bit or viceversa. jaclaz

Why don't you try it yourself? It is a rather straightforward experiment. For your convenience, find in the attachment two very small files, "random filled", both having a CRC32 of 0xFFFFFFFF. jaclaz 2xFFFFFFFF.7z

Sure, if the idea is to recreate something you need to have the "original", and see which dates/times AND timezones were used originally. So, once you have the "original", it would be easier to make a copy of it than re-creatng it from scratch, hence the utter futility of the operation. But once you have "one" original, and put together a "building method", the amount of information needed to re-create "another" original (WHY? ) lessen dramatically. I mean, once you have a proper building method, even if you don' t know the actual timezone but you have (besides ALL the actual original files and the date attributed to them by the -t switch) the SHA1 or MD5 of the original, you only have to go through a finite number of iterations to get a valid SHA1/MD5 by changing the mentioned byte. jaclaz