chilifrei64

I have MS Antispyware on 6 of my home PC's(I know... I am a geek) all attached to a domain.. I do not get this problem and I dont see why MS Antispyware would do this .. Do you have a screenshot of it doing this?

It seems that I to have run into the same problems and some of my clients as Martin did... I recommend doing the same.. Either dont display it in the browser or use 5.0 of 7.0

The only thing I can think of is this: Open the registry and find this key: HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Advanced Change or add the Value name: "DontPrettyPath", Data Type: REG_DWORD, Value: 1 to leave case as entered. Unsure as to if this works with Windows system files and folders.....

double post?

have you run chkdsk on the partition? Do you get the same resultes when you delete a file from the C or D drive?

find the utility called bootvis and run a trace to see what is taking so long.. Bootvis can be somewhat hard to find since it is a "No Longer Supported" piece of software from microsoft.. they have removed it from all their links on their site

notta problem.. glad i could help

I tried to run that route.. since the people are only temporary. They dont want to do this.. which I understand.. I mean... would you want a site to site vpn with a network you know nothing about.. I will be out at this location tomorrow so I will test the settings i mentioned the other day(as my syslog service stopped responding today so I have no feedback) Ill let you know what the status is.

leave as all unassigned(unless you feel the need to specify otherwise) and under the advanced portion. leave it at port 80 and leave the host header blank as for the permissions.. Select directoryt security and select authentication and access control. Verify that anonymous access is granted using the IUSE_Servername and the correct password.. (you should just have to check the box... i have never had to type anyting in) and then make sure NONE of the other boxes are checked on this page. Lemme know if this works???/

a good start would be to tell us what this progy is so we have something to work off of.

yep... any windows DHCP machine will allow you to do this.

not sure what you are trying to install, I would say your best bet is to post something in the UNATTENDED msfn forum where people who run unattended installs post there unattended problems and possibly have answers to unattended installation questions, rather than to post in an area that isn't specializing in unattended installations... Sorry not trying to be a smart a$$. I just figure you would probably get more help in the right area. http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showforum=70

yes. after re-enabeling the service it did eventually go back to the way it was after a few min. After re-enabling the service and doing other disconnect tests.. I am no longer having this problem. Everything has gone back to its original state. What happens if you enable this service? does your problem go away?

Well I just viewed my syslogd events and sure enough it is having port address translation. Which brings me another point.. IPSec and NAT/PAT have long standing issues and are highly incompatible. After doing some reading on the cisco website I have decided to add these commands isakmp enable outside isakmp nat-traversal 20 in doing this, the PIX told me I had to remove my: fixup protocol esp statement. I also removed my sysopt connection permit-ipsec as further reading on the command tells me that this command is used for terminating IPSec traffic at the PIX and not passing it through.. It was a shot in the dark anyways... I'll keep ya posted with the results

The problem with their VPN, atleast what I figure, is this Checkpoint uses UDP encapsulation and NAT Traversal. It doesnt give the remote client an IP address, it just sends the encapsulated packets to the VPN Gateway address If this doesnt make sense.. lemme explain it this way.. MS VPN -> you connect and you get like a RAS connection virtual adapter installed. and you get an ip address assigned to it. CheckPoint -> not so lucky.. it appears to just encapsulate and encrypt and sends the packet to the the public side of the vpn server. So when it sends it back my firewall is blocking (as it should) these return packets because I dont know what it is coming back on.

glad to hear the problem got solved

Jerk..LOL.... i just tried waht you said.. now mine is doing the same thing. AND NOW IT WONT GO AWAY!!!!. Ill let you know if i figure it out.. Yes i re-enabled the service and I am still having a problem. you are right... that is pretty annoying.. So it is definately that service that is causing the problem

net time /setsntp:x.x.x.x

for these things to show up... even though DNS is running and working.. the network places list is populated from LanManager Browser announcements (Broadcasts). If the 2 domains are on different subnets.. they most likely wont be seen in my network places

good suggestion.. ill bet this helped solve the problem.. The problem is he shouldnt have to do this.. A few things you might want to try is to under your TCP/IP Properties under advanced button -> Wins tab.. the default is normally "Use settings from DHCP Server" try assigning that automatically to Enable NetBios over TCP/IP also you might want to try to uncheck the "register this connection in DNS" on the DNS tab. lemme know how those work for ya...

yes I am looking at the same screen also, however it doesnt look like it is giving you the option I am refering to.. Checking basic authentication will give you the option but then passwords are sent in clear text, you would have to run SSL which would just add a layer of complexity. One thing I was just playing with is like say for Exchange OWA. If you have the settings that we just configured, if you access it via http://URL.com/exchange it will prompt me for a password, but if I access it via http://hostname/exchange it will pass my credentials.... If this doesnt work I may just install VS.. you got me thinking about it now.

unless you want to be vulnerable to exploits, I would install it. It, in my opinion, has been proven to be a good service pack.

is the machine you are trying to access showing up any failure in the security log. if so(they should be) what are they saying. Taking the obvious out of the way.. they are a part of the same workgroup right.

Yeah.. here it is.. this is a pretty simple config so there isnt much to fish through Items in bold are what I have tried that have failed. PIX Version 6.3(4) interface ethernet0 auto interface ethernet1 100full nameif ethernet0 outside security0 nameif ethernet1 inside security100 enable password xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx encrypted passwd xxxxxxxxxxxxxx encrypted hostname XXXXX domain-name XXXXXX.local fixup protocol dns maximum-length 512 fixup protocol esp-ike fixup protocol ftp 21 fixup protocol h323 h225 1720 fixup protocol h323 ras 1718-1719 fixup protocol http 80 fixup protocol pptp 1723 fixup protocol rsh 514 fixup protocol rtsp 554 fixup protocol sip 5060 fixup protocol sip udp 5060 fixup protocol skinny 2000 fixup protocol smtp 25 fixup protocol sqlnet 1521 fixup protocol tftp 69 no names access-list 100 permit icmp any any access-list 100 permit icmp any any echo access-list 100 permit icmp any any echo-reply access-list 100 permit icmp any any unreachable access-list 100 permit tcp any interface outside eq smtp access-list 100 permit tcp any interface outside eq www access-list 100 permit tcp any interface outside eq 3389 access-list 100 permit ip any host x.x.x.x access-list 100 permit ip any host x.x.x.x pager lines 24 logging on logging trap warnings logging host inside x.x.x.x mtu outside 1500 mtu inside 1500 ip address outside x.x.190.250 255.255.255.192 ip address inside x.x.0.250 255.255.0.0 ip audit info action alarm ip audit attack action alarm arp timeout 14400 global (outside) 1 interface nat (inside) 1 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 0 0 static (inside,outside) tcp interface www x.x.0.1 www netmask 255.255.255.2550 0 static (inside,outside) tcp interface smtp x.x.0.1 smtp netmask 255.255.255.255 0 0 static (inside,outside) tcp interface 3389 x.x.0.1 3389 netmask 255.255.255.255 0 0 static (inside,outside) x.x.190.248 x.x.9.1 netmask 255.255.255.255 0 0 access-group 100 in interface outside route outside 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 x.x.190.193 1 timeout xlate 3:00:00 timeout conn 1:00:00 half-closed 0:10:00 udp 0:02:00 rpc 0:10:00 h225 1:00:00 timeout h323 0:05:00 mgcp 0:05:00 sip 0:30:00 sip_media 0:02:00 timeout uauth 0:05:00 absolute aaa-server TACACS+ protocol tacacs+ aaa-server TACACS+ max-failed-attempts 3 aaa-server TACACS+ deadtime 10 aaa-server RADIUS protocol radius aaa-server RADIUS max-failed-attempts 3 aaa-server RADIUS deadtime 10 aaa-server LOCAL protocol local http server enable no snmp-server location no snmp-server contact snmp-server community public no snmp-server enable traps floodguard enable sysopt connection permit-ipsec telnet timeout 5 ssh timeout 5 console timeout 0 terminal width 80 Cryptochecksum:6f4490e1c6670166e4eada7a02ce83ee : end

now it all depends on what the terminal server is used for.. you can do it a couple of different ways Open AD users and computers -> navigate to the user -> right click -> properties -> Enviroment Tab -> check the box that says Start the following at logon.. It doesnt say it there.. but once the user closes that program, it will log off the session The other way you can do it is start -> run -> tscc.msc -> connections -> Right click on connections -> create new connection -> go through the wizard (do this while NO USERS ARE LOGGED ON) they will get disconnected if you do once you go through the wizard. right click on the new connection and go to the enviroment tab and choosed Start the following program when the user logs on. and type on your program. you are going to want to put security filtering on this connection otherwise if you try to log on to it as an administrator you wont be able to get to the desktop, it will load the program instead I had to do this for a Pocket PC based inventory system that logged on via TS. I didnt want them to close down the session cause it would stay logged on for a while and would eat up resources. This fixed it becasue once they hit exit it would log out the user. Let me know if that works..