jaclaz

Yep, which may also mean that what was recovered by the diskinternals run is simply "garbage" (or it may mean that having running the diskinternals tool on the original disk made it unreadable, due to overheating, simple wear and what not. Try fully recovering (from the ones obtained by using the diskinternals tool) a few files that do have some metadata including filename. MS Word .doc files - as an example - do store inside the file the name under which they were last saved, see: http://www.forensicfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/t=9729/ It is also possible that DatarescueDD has some issues with the disk controller or with the environment you are running it in. A "second opinion" (and a third, fourth, etc.) with other imaging tools is then needed. You can also try to "image in sections" attempting both "forward" and "reverse" direction, see: http://reboot.pro/topic/15040-data-recovery-off-clicking-disk/ http://reboot.pro/topic/15040-data-recovery-off-clicking-disk/?p=133567 jaclaz

This is one of the advantages of Italian. A car is related to the concept of mobilità=mobility. A house is related to the the concept of immobiliare=real estate. Cars are made to move, houses are made to stay where they are . Relative accessories tend to be the same. JFYI, a very common issue since the advent of SATA disks is that their senseless (theoretically 50 insertions worth ) connector will often disconnect when moving. The issue is so serious that most OEM's have one way or the other to "fix" the connector to allow safely shipping to the end customer. For the record, old ISA cards had a very similar tendency. jaclaz

Well, you need another (much, much bigger) supply of patience. If the drive "clicks" it means that it went beserk (as it's most common now) because of some "serious" error. Attempting direct recovery from that device (i.e. as opposed to "from a copy/image") is a big risk and often, even if the "fix" worked the disk is NOT in a good state and access to it may be painfully slow and/or the presence of "bad sectors" or mis-mapping may be the cause of the slowness. As said he advice is to image the disk (slowly or as slowly as the disk requires) and then work (quickly) on the image. Well this is an assumption (in this case not supported by any evidence), if just the MBR and/or Partition table were corrupted, you would have no clicks and TESTDISK would have taken no more than a few minutes (unless a deep search would have become necessary). jaclaz

Check (have never tried it on an EXT3) DMDE: http://softdm.com/ for FAT/NTFS I find it an excellent tool (though not the easiest/most intuitive one around). In any case BEFORE any attempt you should IMAGE the disk "as is" (possibly twice) with dd or similar. If you search a bit in this same subforum you will easily find related thread talking of ddrescue/dd_rescue (Linux) or DataRescue DD (Windows). Once you have the image(s) besides DMDE you may want to try directly TESTDISK, if it is a "simple" partition issue it will likely solve it, otherwise you are back to use "file based" recovery (that most probably - just like PHOTOREC) will have filenames lost . There are post-processing tools for PHOTOREC output that help identify/verify (at least) the filetype and thus give the "right " extension, but the filename will be still lost. If you are familiar with Linux there may be other tools for fixing/repairing an EXT 2 or 3 filesystem. You also may want to have a go with this one (this should be the "simpler" to use - if the kind of damage is not too seious): http://www.diskinternals.com/linux-recovery/ jaclaz

JFYI, you may want to take note of the seven letter word, starting with "P" that submix8c sports in his profile (just on the right of "Group:", in dark red ) jaclaz

If I may, this: is not very "logical" . I mean, is the question: Or is it: If the second, then: http://cnt.lakefolks.com/ http://www.portablefreeware.com/?id=1327 might do. Or am I missing something? jaclaz

Not only this is "obvious" but i is EXACTLY the reason WHY nowadays things come most often as "a bundle". Take my mobile phone bill as an example. I have (and rest assured it is the "best" - i.e. "cheaper" - possible "contract" available here given my needs) for a "flat monthly fee": 180 min conversation 500 sms 100 mms 2 Gb (or more, cannot remember right now) download 2 phone numbers (wife+office) unlimited conversation Typically I use 70% or 80% of the "third party conversations", 10% at the most SMS, 0% MMS and maybe 5% of the internet connection. I would gladly change this to a non-flat, IF there was something cheaper with no sms or mms nor fixed-amount of included Internet connection where I could have still the two unlimited phone numbers for a "base fee" and a decent fee for each sms and "third party conversation". Too bad that such tariffs/contracts do not exist (and this is by design). It's just like gambling (the casino will win), the telephone company pays (dearly) experts that look at the "effective" use of the phone by their customers and "design" bundles in such a way that the phone company will get more money in exchange of "nothing" (services NOT provided as they are not actually used/required by the customer). In a time where any non-moron user would like to pay whatever goods or service per item, every company is going for "bundles". I would like to take my car to the workshop and pay for the work that is actually needed (and done) on my car, but I am offered a "bundle" for three years of maintenance included in the price of the car. I would like to have just 5 or 6 (these are the ones I actually watch) Satellite TV channels, but I have to subscribe to a "bundle" with 20 of them, 10 of which I NEVER watch (and I would gladly pay per view in the rare cases where I want to watch something on the remaining 4 or 5). I want to book a hotel to stay in on a trip, but what I am offered is a "bundle" with a flight and with "all inclusive" arrangement (while I want to have just breakfast and be free to lunch and dine where I choose to). And NO, I don't want the "typical local dinner and music dance show" which is also included in the packet. This is another way to subtract knowledge to the public, by proposing "bundles" the value of the single items composing them is hidden (and eventually lost). In italian there is (rectius was) a science called "merceologia" that translates to English as "study of commodities" that has been effectively killed over the years by industry (basically removing the knowledge on how to make - or repair * yourself something that the industries produce) With Windows you have (though flawed) still some means of establishing how much is the value (cost) of the software and how much it is that of the hardware, but what about the good Apple guys? How much of the awful amount of money they ask (and BTW obtain) for a device such as the iPad is for the hardware and how much is for the iOS bundled with it? jaclaz

....or that you learn about how to do it.... I mean, it's not brain surgery, nor rocket science .... jaclaz

You were actually provided with some, but again having a software and learning HOW to use it, are two separate steps, the first one can be easily reached through "third party action" (the given suggestions) the latter only by your time and will (and curiosity). jaclaz

Or he could well have already have run it, but pretend he hasn't just for the fun of making the little bastards on the board upset about this jaclaz

Hmmm. What about camera equipped micro-drones? http://www.businessinsider.com/the-future-of-micro-drones-is-getting-pretty-scary-according-to-alan-lovejoy-2012-6 Just in case: jaclaz

Please read (attentively) my previous post. jaclaz

Yes, that is an accepted form, "Che la luce sia". (but only God can say something like that) The linguistic issue is about the use of the auxiliary verb to have (avere in italian). In English, you can say (even without being a deity or God ) something like: "I want to have this shirt washed" Which to me implies "I don't care in the least who exactly will wash/clean this, nor how exactly this cleaning is performed, I am charging you with this task, do whatever you see fit as long as the result is reached". The same form in Italian is possible, but it simply sounds "silly" or somehow unneededly "pompous" (and it sounds more like a "wish"): "Vorrei che questa camicia venisse lavata." The "direct order": "Have this shirt washed." is possible in English, but not in Italian, which can only be made in the direct form "Lava questa camicia" (which translates back to "Wash this shirt") that implies that you are charging directly the other person to actually do the thing (instead of seeing that it is done) . JFYI, and definitely OT: jaclaz

@Phaenius The "Make it so" is still a "normal" imperative, it's the form "have something done" that I sometimes miss (of course there are ways to convey the same, but they don't sound as effective and cannot be made in a short sentence). In Italian "Make it so" is translated effectively with "Lo faccia" or sometimes with "Proceda" (which are similar, respectively, to "Just do it" and "Proceed"). There is an anecdote in the life of a famous actor (I seem to remember it was Peter O'Toole) about when he did some tests to become officer in the army. Since he didn't want to actually be enrolled as an officer to a written test question that sounded something like: To which, he purposefully replied jokingly with: To his great surprise it was the right answer and he passed the test. jaclaz

You evidently greatly underestimate the price for giving away your moral integrity. jaclaz

Let's try with another analogy from another field. Why a large number of policemen/federal agents (which are issued a Beretta or a Glock 9 mm or a .357 or a .45 by their Administration) would live their lives carrying also a small .38" 2" revolver (or any other kind of smallish gun) on their right or left ankle? Let me think.... You normally have several ways: clone the system IF that goes bad re-install from the original install CD (if available) using EITHER the COA sticker (which surely you DON'T have) or with the key found by the keyfinder (and if with the latter most likely need NOT to reactivate online or by phone) IF that goes bad or the CD/iso is not available then re-deploy through the recovery CD (which is a "particular" kind of "clone") and need NOT to reactivate IF that goes bad re-install from *any* install CD (if available) using EITHER the COA sticker (which surely you DON'T have) or with the key found by the keyfinder (and most likely need to reactivate online or by phone) You are limiting yourself to one or two of them while you have (still) the possibility of having (IF needed) at least an additional "way out". jaclaz

Out of this article (nice preview of the "real thing") found through one of the above links : http://www.pcworld.com/article/2024690/microsoft-surface-pro-hands-on-impressions-from-ces.html I would like to highlight part of this sentence: We are talking of a "closed doors" preview offered at CES 2013 to a technical writer of one of the most influential PC magazines in the US, preview being patronized DIRECTLY by Microsoft, and the guys/gals there cannot answer to a "plain enough" technical question? There is no reference to that question being asked as a "test" with no possibility for the MS representatives there to "phone home" and get the answer, apparently besides not knowing straight away the answer to a "normal" question (VERY normal when you are offering a preview on a pen-based tablet) they seemingly did not have the capabilities (or the will) to get it from some of the engineers (that SHOULD know it). I would like to underline the fact that in this case it is not "third party" hardware .... Redmond, we have a problem. jaclaz

Yes and No. Meaning that a clone or "dd-like" or "forensic sound" image of an existing, activated install, once properly re-deployed to the "original" PC/system will need NO activation, nor a key, NO MATTER which kind of system is installed (bios-locked, OEM, Retail, Volume, upgrade, whatever). A clone ( or "dd-like" or "forensic sound" image) is "a clone" . not " a copy" and not "a backup", it is something that is so similar (actually identical) to the original that you will have NO WAY (nor Windows, nor anyone or anything else) to tell which is which. jaclaz

Good. Then we have a few days for "general chatting" in the meantime. Just for the record, this sentence is partially inaccurate: If you really had a lot of money, you would call someone who works for you and tell him/her: (BTW this kind of passive form of imperative is a nice feature of English, is not available in Italian in a comparable form) jaclaz

Hey guys, come on , take it easy.... I know that it is "very basic", but maybe the issue here is terminology. Let me have a try at it with a different comparison. @xmf Let's say that you go to your hardware store and buy a new set of locks for your house. By paying an extra and ordering them "custom" you can have the kind normally used in hotels or more generally commercial premises where each lock has two (or more) "level" keys. Very simplified you get 2 locks that BOTH open with your "master" key, and at the same time 2 set of keys, each one ONLY opening the corresponding lock. As an example you can keep the "master" in your keyring and open with it BOTH your front and back door, but give your kids only the key for the back door. OEM CD's (big OEM's with what submix8c calls ROYALTY key) work not entirely unlike such a kind of locks. When the system is first installed by the OEM, it is installed using it's "master" key. Then a sticker is applied to the actual piece of hardware with a speciifc "other" key (valid as well). The difference being that the "master" key (through methods that won't be discussed) will produce a pre-activated install, while the one on the sticker will require you to activate the XP, either online or in some cases through telephone. Is the above more clear now? jaclaz

WHICH approach? (THREE of them were listed) Yes, you already stated this, and still you fail to describe the kind of "security level" needed/required and the amount of money you (or your company) value this, as said there are Commercial solutions that use a running service to prevent access to USB thingies not "approved". I cannot see why. Having them in a domain may be an easier way to deploy/re-deploy or update a given solution, but right now you are missing this solution outright, and as said it seems like GPS (and consequently GPO as well) by itself is not "enough". jaclaz

Yep, that was with the intent of disambiguating, as often happens the MS guys are using the same term to completely different concepts. Additionally I presume you are not blocking "USB Removable" you are blocking ALL Mass Storage devices belonging to the "Removable class" (i.e.also Firewire). http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc772540(v=ws.10).aspx And by "exactly" I meant something like: http://gps.cloudapp.net/Default.aspx?PolicyID=2282#2281 IF the thing is done for some "serious" security reason, you might want/need to also look in the WPD classes. I don' t think that you can get a "by serial" limitation through GPO or Registry, see this: http://www.itexpertmag.com/security/danger-usb (AND relevant links in it) The "common" solution is a service running in the background, AFAIK, BUT you can use another approach, preventing installation of drivers: http://community.spiceworks.com/how_to/show/1488-lockdown-usb-to-specific-removable-usb-drives Basically you install all "authorized" devices, then you "lock" the install of any further device. (I have NO idea how much secure this approach is). Personally, I would TRY getting the Mass Production Tool for the "authorized" sticks and combine the solutions based on several ways: by Vid/PId <- this is the one that you reported as working but without the needed details by DeviceID <- with DeviceiD changed by the MPT, this is the approach with "Device ID" seen here: http://www.itexpertmag.com///images/stories/3308a/Step%20By%20Step%202/Shot%202.jpg by serial <- IF one of the above allows for specification of the serial by serial once installed the authorized ones <- this is the approach seen here: http://community.spiceworks.com/how_to/show/1488-lockdown-usb-to-specific-removable-usb-drives With the appropriate MPT you can customize Vid, PId, Device ID and serial, so that you create a "unique" set of "authorized" sticks. This way the "intruder" would probably need to bypass a couple of "layers" instead of just one. jaclaz

The USB specs do impose a serial on any USB mass storage device (controller) and actually I would say 99.99% sticks I have ever seen do sport - from factory - such a serial number. The Vid and Pid on the contrary, besides same "brand" has often and still are misused, some brand will have their own Vid, some will use the generic Vid of the maker of the controller. A number of "brands" will additionally use te same Pid for very different models. HOW exactly you have (currently) blocled *all* "removable" USB storage devices? What exactly do you mean by "Removable" devices (most if not all USB stick controllers are set in factory as Removable but the bit can be "flipped" and you can have for a very large number of models/brands/controllers a USB stick set as "Fixed" - just like a USB hard disk normally is). jaclaz

Someone needing a hug? jaclaz

Just in case: page__st__7 jaclaz