jaclaz

Excel 2010 ? I thought you were about Office 2013 (and a broken one ) . This is related to Excel 2013: http://peltiertech.com/WordPress/intelligent-excel-2013-xy-charts/ But the principles are the same. A series suitable for an XY "scatter" chart needs to be made out of both X and Y values. Normally you have a "same" interval for the X values and one interval of Y values for each series, but nothing prevents you for having "single" X and Y intervals for each one of the series. jaclaz

OK: http://internetsiao.com/mini-remote-controlled-moving-toilet-bowl/ http://www.fastcompany.com/3007149/fast-feed/japanese-company-unveils-remote-controlled-toilet Let's say that I wouldn't consider "good taste" among the qualities of some Japanese toy/gadget designers. jaclaz

@mike13 There are several "methods" through which a "recovery partition" can be implemented. The most common one is a "disk image"->basically a "snapshot" is taken in factory on a "given machine", and when you initiate the recovery the whole disk is overwritten with the content of the image. If this is the case, there is no need to partition, format or wipe, once the recovery image has been restored the whole disk is EXACTLY like it was at the time the PC was first switched on the first time. In some cases the recovery partition may instead contain a sort of "unattended install", i.e. something that once run will re-install without user intervention the OS. If this is the case every file that is part of the OS install will be overwritten by the "original", but files belonging to anything else may be left on the hard disk. In some (few cases) the user can even choose to perform the first (what -X- defined "destructive") or the latter (what -X- defined as "non-destructive"). There may be even "intermediate" approaches, just as an example a "smart" sort of installer that only re-formats the system volume if the filesystem is found to be invalid (but leaves it "as is" if CHKDSK or the like finds not any error) or something that (say) leaves data in the "C:\Documents and settings\<username>" (or whatever "user" folder) untouched. Without knowing the make/model of the actual PC or - better - the contents of the "recovery partition" it is hard to say which "type" of recovery the manufacturer has implemented and thus the effects it produces. jaclaz

¡ʇı llɐʇsuı puɐ ʇuoɟ pǝʇɹǝʌuı uɐ ʎnq oslɐ plnoɥs ǝɥs/ǝɥ ʍoɥ ɹǝqɯǝɯǝɹ jaclaz

Use an "F6 floppy" No it doesn't need anymore to be a floppy, it can well be a USB stick - or a second cd/dvd: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/272320-32-loading-drivers-installing-windows and no, you do not actually press F6 anymore , you click on "Load Driver" at the screen where you choose the destination drive for the install. BUT, the issue here may be a misleading error, see: http://en.kioskea.net/forum/affich-185843-windows-7-install-cannot-find-dvd-driver It seems like the Windows 7 built-in drivers can have some issues (on particular motherboard) and still the WIndows 7 pretends to have the right drivers and that the (right) ones you provide are "not compatible". jaclaz

There is nothing bad in a "peer-to-peer" forum, as a matter of fact all forums - exception made for those created to support a specific product/tool where it may happen that someone actually officially "in the knows" posts answers/advices - are peer-to-peer, the issue may be - as always - with the actual peers taking part to the discussion topics . jaclaz

Hello . Why do you think that at the beginning of each forum there are a few topics "pinned"? Have you checked the "pinned" topics in this forum (yes the same where you started this thread)?: http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/167-unattended-windows-7server-2008r2/ Would tools like: 7Customizer http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/139077-7customizer-a-windows-7-customization-and-deployment-tool/ RT Seven Lite http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/142382-rt-seven-lite-rc-build-170-and-beta-build-260/ do nicely? Hint: Yes jaclaz

Not only it makes NO sense whatsoever to wipe a hard disk (if not in the single case where you are going to sell or dispose of the hard disk, for privacy reasons), it will take HOURS and it will needlessly stress a hard disk, and generate a lot of heat that, particularly in the case of a laptop, may be complex to dissipate/reduce properly. In any case "Wipe Drive Pro" (not that product particularly, that one like any of the tens of senselessly complex software solutions) is, more than "fluff", "pure Bull§hit™" (and you actually pay money for it ). There is NO NEED whatever for "military grade", "several passes", "passes with random data" and all the FUD that has been spread around since the (in)famous Peter Guttmann's paper (and it's worldwide misinterpretation). JFYI: http://www.forensicfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/t=10808/ If you really-really want to ( unneededly ) "wipe" that disk, apply a single pass of 00's to the actual volume or \\.\LogicalDrive (i.e. format the volume under Vista or later WITHOUT the /q switch) and be done with it. jaclaz

Here IMHO it is not about "radical" positions (which are legitimate, just as opinions are) it is about opinions expressed as apodictical statements or - if you prefer - represented as the one and only truth (and about the assumption that someone that doesn't agree with you necessarily must be less educated, less knowledgeable and /or downright dumber than you are) The nice .pdf paper that I "revived" in order to help enzx bring forward the discussion is made along a three points template: here is what has been available till nowhere is what we have added to increase mitigationhere is why the steps we took should be effective.As said it is clear, simple (besides the nice graphics) but is saying nowhere that the result is working/effective and particularly it does not say how much that is effective (it does say how good are the good MS guys and to which extent and how hard they tried to add these mitigation factors, but little more than that). It simply cannot do that since it was published BEFORE Windows 8 was even released. A quantification is made in the (cited) statement by Chris Hallum, which - obvioulsy - is "commercial" fluff. If we are going to say that some "mitigation factors" were added: to Windows Vista when compared to Windows XPto Windows 7 when compared to Windows Vista to Windows 8 when compared to Windows 7we do not need to discuss the matter, as it is obvious. If we are going to say that an OS is more secure than another (or that one is less secure than another) we need some proof that besides and beyond theory, it is actually so. I will risk an electrical comparison, by means of three nice pictures (shamelessly taken from http://www.aspeterpan.com/survival/elett106.htm ): The circuit in last image is safer (in theory) because each plug is protected by a dedicated thermal magnetic breaker (of suitable class) AND the line is protected "as a whole" by the 25 A breaker. BUT some will argue that the circuit in the first image (with only one 16 A breaker) is (besides much cheaper) actually safer because if *anything* below the breaker "hits" 16 A, mains will be cut off, whilst in the last one if *anything* below the main breaker but above the various plug breakers hits 16 A mains will be not cut off (until it hits 25A of course). The debate is still open since what? 20 years? On the opportunity of making "few lines" with protection at the end of them or "many lines" with protection at the start of them. jaclaz

Maybe you could boot from a PE of some kind, and attempt the "full scan" on the "offline" filesystem/system (that could be able to remove the "bigger part"). Then boot "normally" and perform only a scan of Registry, RAM and "running files". I would personally - next thing - have a run with Combofix: http://www.combofix.org/ as it is usually oine fo the most effective tools for "bad things" that are "live". jaclaz

But he did describe where the password was: And he also reported how the Nirsoft tool "dialuppass" did reveal the password. Hence an educated guess would have been that it was a "dial up password dialog" or "connection dialog". A quick check on the page of the tool used successfully would have revealed: http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/dialupass2.html I do trust that piece of info, particularly since it is coming from someone that wrote a tool that can (and actually did in the specific case) reveal the password. My bad I should have specified It seemed to me like your otherwise interesting post might unwantingly induce the OP to go on a "wild goose chase", that password (besides being possibly also on the DSL modem) is definitely on the PC's hard disk (*somewhere*), and the OP expressed the wish to look for it there. Sorry for the misunderstanding. jaclaz

A few not-so-random (and I believe also not-so-known) articles more or less connected to the NSA, Big Brother, power grids, world domination and stuff: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/06/university-maryland-edward-snowden-nsa http://gawker.com/5686847/the-national-security-agency-trains-its-superspies-at-shady-diploma-mills http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/world/asia/21grid.html (if there is no escape from technology, maybe there is still hope because of the inadequacy of those that have access to that technology) Now, really OT, some insecurity news: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/26/scientist-banned-revealing-codes-cars http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2285482/luxury-car-hacking-findings-blocked-by-high-court Besides the (nice) work by Mr. Flavio Garcia and paper's co-authors Roel Verdult and Josep Balasch, the interesting part is the effectiveness of the (London) high court injunction in preventing the information to be available. I would say a great success of the Volkswagen Group legal team: jaclaz

Check the meaning of "integrate" (and compare it with "install" . Seriously , if the Windows Update service finds "about ten updates" still needed, it would logically mean that "all updates BUT those ten" went through and were integrated successfully. Most integrated updates will NOT be listed in "Installed programs" for the simple reason that they cannot be UNinstalled (as they were integrated), but a few may show up as well (since, even if integrated, they can be uninstalled). jaclaz

Not really. Related papers are what you may need to provide, together with your clear explanation on how the relevant parts of them apply to the topic at hand. It is kinda difficult for us hairy reasoners to understand how a paper stating how ASLR implementation on a Linux HTTP Server is to be considered ineffective as a form of increased security leads to attribute to the lack of it on a XP a decrease in it's security . Carpenter's example: Formal statement by the Carpenters' Guild Official Spokesperson (press release): jaclaz P.S.: I really-really shouldn't do this , but this Blackhat presentation paper: http://media.blackhat.com/bh-us-12/Briefings/M_Miller/BH_US_12_Miller_Exploit_Mitigation_Slides.pdf represents something that most members will be able to understand and supports your opinion , though the source is not as "independent" as it might be required by many MSFN members . The paper is simple, clear, has nice graphics (that even those that cannot read will surely appreciate) and contains most of the points you previously addressed (in what I consider vague and smart-alecky manners).

Well, it did sound (and it still sounds) like an insult, but much worse than that, it is an unjustified assumption. You have NO idea who we are BUT you assume that we won' t be able to understand your arguments, and thus drop on us, from the top of your superior knowledge, the "verb". It may be different in the US, but at least here in Italy/Europe that kind of stance is considered seriously impolite. On the other hand you are not even consequential. If you believe we won't be able to follow your arguments because of our little brains and experience, we are simply not worth your time, it is a lost cause. You could shift your postings and arguments to an environment where - presumably - onlookers and members will be able to understand what you say - just as examples, more "focused on security" forums, like: http://forums.windowsecurity.com/ http://forum.pcsecurityworld.com/ http://www.topix.com/forum/tech/computer-security I personally appreciated very much your attempt to lower yourself at our "average Joe" level, making us aware of the risks of running XP because it is insecure, as said your opinion on the matter has been set on records, but we cannot go further than that. BTW, and strangely ON topic , interesting conclusions in the Stanford Uni paper you just posted a link to (about ASLR): http://www.stanford.edu/~blp/papers/asrandom.pdf but of course those tests were made on Linux systems, which are notoriously insecure, having been largely written, designed and mantained by someone who is not a security expert and against a software - Apache - which is not AFAIK the typical app that would be run on XP systems at home.... jaclaz

Sure, I understand that , and I do know about your accident that led to the broken google , so here are a couple definitions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluff http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fluff I have for you a nice article on .inf file syntax that is luckily at a level that both of us should be able to understand : http://www.wd-3.com/archive/InfFiles.htm jaclaz

buyerninety , do read the thread. The OP ALREADY FOUND what he was looking for : And shifted the question to: jaclaz

I did not present him as such, I merely cited him, Chris Hallum is also not - AFAIK - a security professional. However, most probably you are posting in the wrong place. It is possible that noone here will be able to understand the mindboggingly complexity of the technical papers that you fail to provide, but it is not nice of you highlighting this assumption of yours about the technical inadequacy of the members of this board every two or three posts. To recap: You expressed your opinion, which - as said - is much respected.You backed up your take on the subject (over and over) with reported opinions, "general consensus" and other meaningless (scientifically) "fluff", besides the fallacious argument "I am a security professional, hence I know the truth".You by now twice or thrice hinted - not so covertly - how this audience is not at a sufficient level of technical knowledge to understand the "real stuff".There is nothing more to say, your opinion on the higher level of security of both Windows 8 and Windows 8.1 over Windows XP has been duly set on records, you cannot provide further real material (as according to your opinion it won't be understood by the undereducated members of this board), there is no point in going on with this discussion. jaclaz

OR some Registry entries affecting the way the flight simulator runs.... jaclaz

Yeah, sure, the consensus of the people working in the security field is good enough proof. Go back in time. Around 1630. Ask all the Astronomers about the earth revolving around the sun.... And here is an opinion on security people: jaclaz

Yes, we only have the word of me, a security professional, and various other security professionals and hackers.Well, no. We have much less than that. We have your word, and you are merely claiming to be a security professional. And we have the reported (by you) opinion by various security professionals and hackers. BTW, being a security professional does not necessarily means that you are infallible. We are now evaluating a single (i.e. anecdotal) evidence (Charlotte's) against an apodictical one (yours). Neither are in any way worth anything when it comes to support a scientific theory, data may. Your opinion is much respected , but it remains an opinion. And no, a theory being "popular" does not particularly means it is true, JFYI: If you want some good reference about the matter, you can use this one: http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/windows-8-1-security-what-s-been-improved-1156705#null And of course, 8.1 is much more secure than Windows 8: I just got back my crystal ball from the tuning shop and I can see the similar statement that will be provided in the imminence of the release of Windows 9 :. But I can also see at fast forward Chris Hallum's nose growing in length. jaclaz

Seems like Season 4 Episode 79 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Stiles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_(season_4) http://24.wikia.com/wiki/Edgar_Stiles (I knew I has seen the first scene, but simply couldn't "place" it) The second one should be Season 5: http://24.wikia.com/wiki/Day_5:_5:00am-6:00am jaclaz

Then, you cannot cite 1,000 as source. You can cite at the most a dozen (+ a handful), and as said - once excluded the good guys or "ethical hackers" - I would not particularly trust the word of someone that "by trade" and for money deceives people compromising their PC's. Basing your statements on second-hand opinion expressed by a very limited number of unreliable people is not a particularly convincing way to support a thesis. Ah, well. I thought that a castle with one less door was more secure when it came at ways of access through doors... jaclaz

@Charlotte Source of those two last "movie" photos? (Which movie is it?) jaclaz

There is a "flaw" in the implementation of some Windows dialogs (of the kind that replace actual characters with "bullets", "dots" or "asterisks"), dialup dialog is one of them, the actual plain text password is only hidden, and can be "reverted" by simple programs (about that specific kind of password there are tens similar utilities around). Surely the password is stored *somewhere*, it may be "safe storage" (and there is a nirsoft thingy for that too) or somewhere else, cannot say. Also consider that more often than not an "average" user will re-use a password for more than a single specific access/dialog/use. This means that - example- if the password you found was "mickeymouse", if other tools find "a" password "mickeymouse" (or you find it by direct disk carving, etc.) that string may be connected to that dialog or "belong" to something else. jaclaz