jaclaz

3.5 out of 12, insufficient, Mr.President. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/01/rating-obamas-nsa-reform-plan-eff-scorecard-explained jaclaz

Well, if you are going for the latest, then get the latest (or make a build yourself from the latest source). 1.11.4 is something like 2008, wget is at 1.15 now (dated TODAY), but there is a pre-made MInGW1.14 Win32 build here: https://code.google.com/p/osspack32/downloads/detail?name=wget-1.14.exe&can=2&q= jaclaz

For the sake of experimenting (as it will be most probably slower) use Qemu (I suggest together with Qemu Manager) instead. http://reboot.pro/topic/18163-memdisk-limit-creating-bootable-dos-image/?p=167861 http://web.archive.org/web/20120506095037/http://www.davereyn.co.uk/qem/setupqemuk70.exe Qemu can emulate different CPU's and has more "standard" (simulated) hardware than other VM's (please read as "needing no particular driver"). jaclaz

If it was actually "the same as before" it was NOT either BSY or LBA0. Check in the BIOS ( NOT in the booted Windows). Is it seen as having zero capacity? If no see below, if yes it means that the de-bricking was not successful and you shoudl try again. Is it detected? If yes then your procedure worked and the disk is not anymore belongng to this thread, if it is not detected it means that the de-bricking was not successful and you shoudl try again. If the disk is NOT LBA0 and NOT BSY, then: Read (attentively) the post just before yours. Start a NEW thread, you need to recover the partitoning/volume(s). jaclaz

Actually (personal opinion) I do like the new design (of the tools) the new packaging is hideous, but who cares? The real problem is with the changing of & with +. Do a quick test, ask 10 people at random to write an ampersand on a piece of paper. I would be surprised if you get more than 6 written correctly. Humanity is doomed. jaclaz

If it is seen in BIOS, AND NOT seen as 0 in size, THEN it does NOT belong anymore to this thread. In some cases there is a need to fix the partitioning (and in some of these this is possible), but it is not connected with the unbricking. You should start a NEW thread detailing the issue (never seen/heard of a "CRC error" BTW). Here is an example similar one: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/145574-seagate-750gb-one-partition-is-raw-after-bsy-fix/ to give you an idea of the procedure. jaclaz

Good . As the usual disclaimer, using UPX is something to be thought upon as while it actually shrinks filesize it usually increases the amount of RAM needed to run it. jaclaz

Just in case the relevant page is on Wayback Machine alright : https://web.archive.org/web/20090303163607/http://andrew-turnbull.net/tech/windows95.html jaclaz

It is not about "clean" (or "safe") vs. "dirty" (or dangerous, most current antivirus will (senselessly) tag as "malicious" *any* UPX packed file (like the one you posted a link to). That file is actually 162,816 bytes in size once unUPXed, still a smallish one , but not as much as a miracle as it seemed before (current minGW compiled Wget.exe is 194,048 bytes) jaclaz

Yes. http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/questions-with-yes-or-no-answers.html BUT: http://reboot.pro/topic/8944-boot-any-iso-image-or-boot-all-iso-images/ jaclaz

You don't really *need* a WDS or MDT, everything can be done using as "server" a "normal" PC, you can use - as examples - Serva: http://www.vercot.com/~serva/ (which has a built-in TFTP+BINL server) or TFTP32: http://tftpd32.jounin.net/ http://reboot.pro/forum/58-tftpd32/ and PXE boot the target, installing to it the Windows. jaclaz

Waiter, come taste the soup .... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094898/quotes?item=qt1099763 jaclaz

Still, as discussed here (unrelated but similar): http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/170819-websites-automatically-blocking-and-banning-windows-95-users/ a permanent ban, based on IP, is not IMHO a good idea, a week, or 1 month one seems more logical to me. jaclaz

Don't forget that it should also make some coffee while you wait for the install .... Come on, "can be installed anywhere", "both 32 and 64" bit", all updates", "all HW"! You are describing the "ultimate universal (and pandimensional) image", I presume it should be also able to switch automagically between "attended" and "fully unattended". Maybe you should start with smaller expectations (while still keeping your eyes to the stars ) jaclaz

No, no the article is January 2014 alright, like this one I mentioned: http://www.zdnet.com/blackphone-a-smartphone-designed-to-stop-spying-eyes-7000025185/ The reference was to the "old" Silent Circle service, that was shut down because they were seemingly not prepared to manage the success it had (or because the NSA foced them to shut it. like in the Lavasoft case, this is not clear at all IMHO). The generic point is that when you want to sell a service (and in this case ALSO hardware) you must have "largish shoulders" and capability to manage an unexpected success in a dynamic, fastish way. Besides, the same people seemed on the "old" article: http://www.zdnet.com/the-truth-about-why-silent-circle-silenced-their-secure-email-service-7000019300/ worried about metadata besides actual content, and since with a phone you have to get a carrier anyway, the metadata will be accessible as well. Now, to see the thing the other way round, if something does not become "common" it is "distinctive". I mean if I were one of the good NSA guys, and I was trying to protect and serve, what I would do if there is some stale on the targeting directives? Hmmm, let's check all the people with an iPhone or a Nokia .... Hmmm, let's check all the people with a BlackPhone .... jaclaz

Naah, the notifications are fine, it is the NSA that intercepts the messages and redirects them elsewhere . @duffy98 http://www.zdnet.com/blackphone-a-smartphone-designed-to-stop-spying-eyes-7000025185/ Last time Silent Circle did something, it did not end too well . http://www.zdnet.com/the-truth-about-why-silent-circle-silenced-their-secure-email-service-7000019300/ jaclaz

I guess you will need to provide far more details on how you have the *whatever* you have setup, including actual OS and devices involved and actual IP/subnets involved, besides a "wider" description of your setup and actual needs, hopefully with those someone may be able to suggest you something. AFAIK a "computer name" is associated to one (and one only) IP. jaclaz

Well, from here, it is NOT blocked by the FBI (and I would presume that the FBI has more important things to do than blocking that site) http://xdot.tk/updates.html works fine for me, as well as the file: http://xdot.tk/files/UDC-01.14.14.zip jaclaz EDIT: removed links as they are obsolete

Running NSLOOKUP from "where"? Are BOTH the IP's on the target computer on the same subnet? Maybe what you want/need to do is more along the lines of a "remote" IPCONFIG /ALL : http://blogs.technet.com/b/brad_rutkowski/archive/2007/12/15/need-to-get-ipconfig-all-from-a-computer-remotely.aspx jaclaz

Surprisingly, the topic has been tackled on married the sea in September 2013 : jaclaz

For NO apparent reason , married to the sea! : jaclaz

The guy himself provides a more extended explanation here: http://www.spambotsecurity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2373 The word for today is "syncookies": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SYN_cookies Though I can understand how a Windows 95 user agent string may be nowadays be more likely connected to a bot of some kind than to a real user, using this only parameter to permanently block an IP makes clearly no sense whatsoever, at the most it could be used to "raise a flag" for monitoring the behaviour of that connection and ONLY when suspicious activity is actually detected, then block (and in any case TEMPORARILY and NEVER permanently) an IP. (if enough people using Dynamic IP actually connect to these stupid sites through a Windows 95 computer, before or later a whole ISP address range will be blocked ). jaclaz

That's why toll booth jumping has been invented, AFAIK : jaclaz

Well, 2/3 up to 4/5 of what is written on the mentioned page is "pure bull§hit ©", the amount of FUD or more simply idiocy is so relevant that it cannot but be MS sponsored scare tactics, it is not even worth the time highlighting how much do they have wrong in that page, which is mostly (if not entirely) undocumented hearsay, and the actual source is most probably not even Microsoft itself, but rather an article where a couple of analysts from Gartner and an "anonymous IT Manager" are the actual sources: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9241912/Microsoft_will_craft_XP_patches_after_April_14_but_not_for_you http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9237019/Microsoft_gooses_Windows_XP_s_custom_support_prices_as_deadline_nears? (which IMNSHO also cannot but be part of the same scare tactics campaign) jaclaz

Milking the cow till it's dead.... (in this case AFTER it's dead ) jaclaz