jaclaz

The only device with around 64 Gb size, are seemingly \\.\PhysicalDrive1)=61918150656 and \\.\PhysicalDrive5)=62898831360. Idea : disconnect the stick. run TESTDISK again see which device is not anymore there in the log.Or read the log: Since: disk_get_size_win32 IOCTL_DISK_GET_LENGTH_INFO(\\.\PhysicalDrive1)=61918150656=disk_get_size_win32 IOCTL_DISK_GET_LENGTH_INFO(/dev/sdb)=61918150656=Disk /dev/sdb - 61 GB / 57 GiB - CHS 7527 255 63, sector size=512 - Verbatim STORE N GO, S/N:0C79077420C0, FW:PMAP jaclaz

Not really hidden info: http://www.epicbrowser.com/FAQ.html jaclaz

Well, it's all about "juice". If the hardware has a zillion Gb of RAM and a super-hyper processor, the clogging that any of those masses of bloat will cause will be not much noticeable. If the hardware is on the "low spec" side, it will slow down to a crawl with pretty much any antivirus. The whole point is "real time" antvirus vs. scan on demand. With real time antivirus more or less any single byte that - for any reason - goes through the machine is "intercepted" (or "filtered") and analyzed by the real time antivirus engine/service. Imagine that you are reading an "unknown" book to a child, to prevent that he/she gets to hear something inappropriate you have to read yourself the sentence or page before starting to read it aloud, there is obvioulsy a "performance drop" . Of the "scan only" ClamWim is as good as any for "basic" protection, but most of the other freebies mentioned can have the "real time" engine switched off. http://www.clamwin.com/ Bitdefender should be one of the "lower impact" ones (or it was last time I had a chance to install/use it). Among the "Commercial" ones, ESET should be also one with a relatively small impact. jaclaz

JFYI, amont the 2K Resource Kit tools, NETSVC and SVCLIST are IMHO a bit simpler: http://ss64.com/nt/netsvc.html http://ss64.com/nt/sclist.html Just in case: http://www.petri.co.il/download_free_reskit_tools.htm jaclaz

Well, we have no more any charleston, nor Josephine Baker, and much less need for moonshine, though. jaclaz

There must be a communication problem. I will try to re-word my previous post. The site you linked to uses a language called PHP to transform dynamic links into static links. The link on this page, click on the below string, it will bring you there: http://www.bwgen.com/presets/desc953.htm Shows the text (blue and underlined) "Download preset: ultimate_relaxing.bwg". If you right click on it and open the link in a new browser tab, you will see how it will open on an error page and the address of it is: http://www.bwgen.com/action/dl.php?f=ultimate_relaxing.bwg This happens because *somehow* the PHP engine does not translate the above "dynamic" link into a proper "static" one. The correct static link for that file is: http://www.bwgen.com/presets/ultimate_relaxing.bwg (if you click on the above you will actually download the file ultimate_relaxing.bwg ) So, if you type in your browser address bar (or use copy and paste to obtain the same result: <site address> + <directory where files are stored> + <name of the actual file> you get to download the file. Other example: site address = http://www.bwgen.com directory where files are stored = /presets/ From the page titled "Raven's_Primal_Overtones" http://www.bwgen.com/presets/desc949.htm name of the actual file = s_Primal_Overtones.bwg Link to download: http://www.bwgen.com/presets/s_Primal_Overtones.bwg I hope now it is clear. jaclaz

For once in my life, I will support MagicAndre1981 (and his good opinion on Vista ), possibly only to undermine some of Kelsenellenelvian certainties. Let's use some logic. Windows NT 4.00 is NT 4.0 ---------------------------------------- Windows 2000 is NT 5.0 Windows XP is NT 5.1 Server 2003 (or XP 64 bit) is 5.2 ----------------------------------------- Windows Vista is NT 6.0 Windows 7 is NT 6.1 Windows 8 is NT 6.2 ------------------------------------------ (I inserted a few separating lines to highlight the points I'll try to make ) Windows 7 is nothing but a "service pack" to Windows Vista, or if you prefer an evolution, with very little (if any at all) "dramatic" changes over Vista. Vista when it came out was the worse OS I have ever seen, but as MagicAndre1981 often points out, once it got it's SP1 and a few updates it became as good as it could be. If you strip Windows 7 of the added bells and whistles, and of a very few added little features, you find underneath it a Vista alright. The real mistakes IMHO MS made were two: to publish Vista at a time when it was NOT mature enough to have it deployed by the various OEM's on underpowered hardware (and inducing people to install it on existing underpowered hardware)On proper hardware, and properly updated/configured, VIsta is not at all that bad, and it is not like 7 "shines" in comparison. @Kel In other words, if you start to think at Windows 7 as Vista SP3 you will have IMHO a more correct point of view on the matter. jaclaz

Yes and no (actually no). The actual point is not-so-slightly different. Noone and surely not the NSA actually cares about your fingerprints, BUT the real issue in traditional computer forensics has been that of "placing the suspect behind the keyboard". The use of fingerprint as authentication method (already used since years on high-end laptops and advertised as "enhanced security") nicely solves this problem. jaclaz

If I may, what you might be suffering (actually what your PSU might suffering - or both ) is aging. Seriously all PC PSU's are "switching" power supplies, they are not like good ol'power supplies with huge converters and a bunch of diodes/rectifiers and capacitors to convert to DC and smooth the output, they are - to all effects - a complex electronic circuit that is - generally speaking - subject to some "heavy duty cycles". It is not at all uncommon that a power supply with a few years of service appears to be working but when some additional load is needed "gets on it's knees". Though it is usually trivial to find which component is defective, it is normally not a good idea to repair them because new ones are relatively cheap and if you change a component on an old one you have no guarantee that another component is not already aged and going to fail soon. Also, besides the overall power, different PSU's have different power on each "rail" (a "server" PSU will have as an example, more power on the 12 V rail to power more disks) , so it is possible that - just as an example - your 400 W PSU was OK for everything but - say - the 12 V rail (and that one only) had not enough power for the CD/DVD and hard disk motors. jaclaz

It must have been a loong time ago that you were in college, like yesteryear. Sure a flash drive has several other parts besides the memory, but you can use a micro SD card reader (like some of the mentioned USB sticks actually are), this way the recordable media is "the same" (and detachable) as the one in your handy or camera. Laughing at 4 Gb is actually making me laugh, when they came out for the first time (like a year or so) a common USB stick was 64 to 128 Mb and a 512 Mb was "luxury". jaclaz

Well, the first thing that you should do is to make a "dd-like" or "forensic sound" image of the physicaldrive. You can use dd or ddrescue or dd_rescue in Linux or datarescue dd or dsfok under windows: http://www.datarescue.com/photorescue/v3/drdd.htm http://members.ozemail.com.au/~nulifetv/freezip/freeware/ to that effect. Once you have an image, ideally you make a copy of this image and start working on this latter. In any case, you can run again TESTDISK on the stick with the LOG option and post the log, That should be enough to understand at least what might have happened (there are a number of issue that might have happened, including hardware failure ). No offence intended, but you seem like not very "exact" in your report, and a TESTDISK log may provide the information that you either missed or mis-represented, in addition I would like you to post some "descriptions", like what exact make/model the stick is, how exactly it was partitioned (IF partitioned) which filesystem(s) were used, which kind of files you had on it that you value (as an example even without managing to recover the actual volume structure it may be possible to recover some files through direct carving with PHOTOREC or similar), etc. The more details you provide, the more likely it is that a suggestion would be appropriate. jaclaz

You might like it or not, but usually there is CTRL+SHIFT+U and then keeping pressed the CTRL+SHIFT digit the Unicode 4 character ordinal of the character. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_input jaclaz

Well you are assuming that ALL EFI/UEFI are the same (they are not). As a matter of fact there are now MORE different EFI/UEFI intefaces than stars in the sky. With BIOSes, there were three or four "providers" and each PC maker made mostly "little changes" with EFI/UEFI each motherboard manufacturer seems to have his own way (slightly or very) different from all the others. Which exact PC/Motherboard are you dealing with? jaclaz

Naah, not only it is the usual FUD, but taking a "plain" full, complete forensic image of the disk would take - say - at the most 4 hours and even if the GI guys made a chipoff or similar physical extraction of RAM and ROM/EPROM (why? ). Translation: They simply wanted to harass the user and/or it was so low priority that it went at the end of the backlog, or rectius, the PC was ready after a few hours but was sent back only when it was asked for. The green are facts, the red pure speculation: The guy asked it back after seven weeks, and got it back the day after. As a side note: Yeah, sure, you can trust on their word that the CIA guys (or NSA or the military or whomever) have fully obeyed and destroyed each and every file and each and every copy they made of them. If they do have a list of all Manning Support Network donors, surely it comes from some other source Now, if I had a PC of mine seized and then returned to me by the Feds (and if I was suspected to be involved in something like the Manning case) I would look for a keylogger placed in it while they had it in their possession, or - safer, wipe it and either destroy it or sell it on e-bay the very day after I got it back, but that's another story. jaclaz

Sure . I was talking of work, not play. In 1994 if not the very top, a near the top hard disk was 2.1 Gb (and SCSI), the average disk was 300 Mb to 1 Gb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hard_drive_capacity_over_time.png The Quantum Fireball was the first "common" disk with a capacity over 1 GB, if I recall correctly, and that was already 1995, and everyone, or almost anyone upgraded to Windows 95 and DOS 7.0. jaclaz

There are several programs that you can attempt using. A couple: Avidemux http://www.videohelp.com/tools/AviDemux Virtualdub: http://www.virtualdub.org/ you will need a plugin for ,mov: http://www.donsalva.com/2011/07/03/how-to-use-mkv-mp4-flv-mov-and-other-file-formats-with-virtualdub Or even Defraser: http://sourceforge.net/projects/defraser/ Which one (if any) might work "better" (or "at all" ) is not possible to say in advance, when you are trying to recover "complex formats" it is mostly a "hit and miss" game. Before that, I would anyway have a "second opinion" by using Photorec: http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/PhotoRec and a "third opinion" using DMDE: http://dmde.com/ to recover those .mov files, it is very possible that the result will be similar or identical to what you managed to get with Testdisk, but you never know. jaclaz

Allow me to doubt that about having "IDE compatibility mode" vs. AHCI. IF the disk does have NCQ, then the difference can be noticeable: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/126658-ahci-performance-question/ http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/120444-how-to-install-windows-from-usb-winsetupfromusb-with-gui/?p=884409 jaclaz

Naah, what is needed apparently is the use of the Windows "original" MBR CODE in order to have bitlocker and/or TCPA working, the "boot" partition has nothing to do with that. See: http://reboot.pro/topic/4476-mbr-and-os-independence/ and BACK to: http://www.multibooters.co.uk/mbr.html jaclaz

Well, THEN, the link to http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/156869-get-waik-tools-wo-downloading-the-huge-isos/ is enough. Come on ... . Anyway, those were just ideas , if it is possible to avoid the *need* of the otherwise excellent tool by JFX (please read as avoiding completely the use of MS tools from WAIK/ADK) it would be - as I see it - a step forward. jaclaz

@Chris JFYI, and of course if you are into experimenting, you can get rid of DISM too. There is a brand new wimlib that is working exceptionally well: http://reboot.pro/topic/18345-wimlib-with-imagex-implementation/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/wimlib (though at the moment it is not clear if it's -yet- compatible with latest 8.1 RTM that has seemingly changed *something* in the .wim ) jaclaz

Sure , check "essence" : http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/essence The comment was following of initial suggestion, only aimed to highlight how the *need* for .Net and/or .Net 4 was highly debatable. To continue on the same path - with - let this be clear - no offence whatever intended to the actual Author of the nice Granite tool :, this would more or less add a line to the batch using SECEDIT (or as you pointed out, some sequence of SETACL or similar tools): http://www.robvanderwoude.com/secedit.php There is nothing "bad" of course in using any language or environment but simple things should IMHO made as simply as possible (but not more), particularly if there is a scope into making the thingy "portable". jaclaz

If I may and JFYI, there is a "perfect" replacement for Robocopy in strarc (by the good Olof Lagerkvist): http://www.ltr-data.se/opencode.html/ http://www.ltr-data.se/files/strarc.txt jaclaz

Besides the fact that it can be cracked, the original idea is deeply flawed and the sheer numbers are pure bul*****. How long is the sequence of gestures? 3 <- please understand how the mere fact that it is "fixed length" of 3 is already an useful info for "cracking". How many different gestures can you make? According to the math, around 1050 . 1050^3=1,157,625,000 How long a password needs to be to reach the same complexity? ALL CAPS -> a 7 character password gives 8 time that 26^7=8,031,810,176 All alpha -> a 6 character password give 19 time that 52^6=19,770,609,664 Alphanumeric -> a 5 character password gives roughly the same 62^5=916,132,832 All printable -> a 5 character password gives 7 time that 95^5=7,737,809,375 Please notice the exclamation mark on the original article @Neowin: http://www.neowin.net/news/the-math-behind-windows-8039s-picture-passwords I mean, WOW! 1,155,509,083 passwords! We are free from all evil! jaclaz

So, basically, the essence of the program can be reproduced in two lines in batch: http://abhisheksur.wordpress.com/2007/05/17/protecting-a-folder-in-windows-xp/ jaclaz

Good, now it is much clearer, thanks . I would throw on the table - in passing by - the additional use of an invalid folder name , which may add some "protection" . http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/131103-win-ntbt-can-be-omitted/ http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/131103-win-ntbt-can-be-omitted/?p=842843 jaclaz