Aegis

Whatever this "matrix" is, the matrix has to be stored somewhere in the system, most likely in a file. Whatever you decide to [not] call this file, in the end it will still be a database no matter how much you deny it. Now there's two things wrong with having a database: corruption\modification, and contradiction. Also, more advanced hackers know that it's as easy to simply modify the registry so as to have batch files have a new extension of say .baw. Then they rename their file and, voila, it runs! Using a database of good and bad files also doesn't work with CDs. Some CDs might contain malware, but others needed for programs. The only way you can get these files into your matrix is to ask the user to insert all of his/her CDs to be scanned. Let's see, "it is up to the user to know if any new executables are coming from legit source", but you also say "why waste time in trying to guess what is good or not". So the user gets to decide, but not guess. Since usually the user guesses when faced with a decision dialog, your statements do not make sense, hence another contradiction. If I understood you wrong, and the computer does this, then the computer has no way to know if you know these executables are being downloaded. So if you just optimize a code enough, you can get Doom 3 to run with zero processor usage? And of course it's possible to have your software run with low processor usage, on an Athlon FX-57. I only use IF so as to not assume anything is true, but to be open to all possibilities. If you do not use lists, databases, or signatures, then what is this "matrix"? Is it stored in memory? Hard-coded into the program executable? A checksum is also a SIGNATURE. Another contradiction there. Do you know all of the critical system files? If so, what are they? And from what I have read, I assume that this software is installed on a client and reports to a server? A well-hidden malicious software can disable the Internet connection, delete the original and replace the backup and WFP with a malicious copy, leaving you unable to report, unable to replace the bad copy with a good copy, and also corrupting your "database". I'd prefer a trial version. I also have removed Netmeeting a long time ago. And seeing how long and processor-intensive a filename search is, how much more so do you think a checksum scan will be? Prove this not by asking me to see a demo that I absolutely refuse to see, but by explaining to me how the code functions. You didn't mention anything about processor usage, so I'm guessing that there is a speed decrease? And read above sentence, I cannot and do not want to see a demo, but a trial version. What is the use of telling us about some software we cannot get? I know lots of snake oil products that say something is possible when it can't be done. Give me code proof. And my conclusion: You are not really what you claim you are. As an IT pro, you should be able to know that checksums are used to create a signature in AVs, that this matrix has to exist somewhere and if it does, as a database, that the use of this matrix makes it a database, that the matrix has an obvious flaw of not being able to detect CD files and of all the ways to bypass this matrix, that optimizing code does not take away from obviously processor-intensive tasks, and finally, all of the contradictions of yours. I have also read the whitepapers on the site, and find it nothing more than describing its product superiority, and gives no reasons whatsoever as to how it does something, the entire purpose of a whitepaper.

I've heard you can change it via WMI scripts.

http://www.winguides.com/registry/display.php/905/

2000/XP/2003 uses the same driver models, so drivers that work with 2000 usually work with 2003. Only problem is if you have XP or 2003 which has enhanced driver security and causes compatibility issues.

My belief is that xper won't hand out free subforums unless he sees many (100+) users interested in the project. From the looks of it, Windows XP POWER LiTE 1.74 doesn't do anything (including installing a new memory controller, that's part of the kernel and processor) except apply registry tweaks.

Backup your policies, then reset the policies with a command line tool.

The memory controller is the same for XP and 2003. The two OSes are based off of the same code; only the registry determines the difference between the OSes.

Set your XP partition active.

Command is netsh interface reset.

Download all of the hotfixes you need, then make a batch file to silently install it and distribute it to entire network.

By binary search, you mean identifying a file through comparing zeroes and ones. Nearly all files can still function correctly by changing a single byte, rendering your authenticaton useless. If you mean by identifying all binaries, it's just a matter of searching for the right extensions . Your system has no idea whether the executable is safe or not, unless you were to use heuristics or AI. AI has yet to develope to a usable state, and heuristics are not very reliable. The process would also be processor-hungry, regardless of how efficient the code is. If the system relies on a black/white-list, then it will be very burdensome for an administrator to add all executables he/she will ever use. This burden will be even greater for the average user, who installs programs on a regular basis. I'm also assuming this is all without user-intervention? If so, then a malicious user has only to modify a critical system executable and guess what happens? Such tasks as scanning the entire system for executables and searching through the files for specific instructions are not possible using such low resources. If you lower processor priority, then the user will notice a lag between opening a program and actually having it to run, since the software will require it to suffer a slow scan first. Not relying on built-in Windows functions means a larger install, less reliable code, and even more processor usage. How? Any marketer can claim something, but without information to back it up, it's literally useless. Without the system driver, you usually can't grant kernel access, aka monitoring the kernel. The above claims rely on monitoring the kernel, thus you're contradicting yourself. I'm sure it cannot go so low of a level as to prevent someone from booting up from a Windows XP CD to format the computer. No software is capable of it, so I hope to not hear claims that this software prevents formatting also .

I'm confused with what you're talking about exactly, but I hope this helps: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=23813.

I think that this "memory controller" project tweaks XP to behave similar to Server 2003, which isn't good, since 2003 is tweaked for server purposes.

I reinstall Windows when it slows down.

Copy the missing DLL files over from your complete OS to your Firefox folder. Hope you post a screenshot of your install after you get Firefox working .

The clock should be in timedate.cpl.

I was sure that Microsoft scrapped Windows Powered, which is Windows 2000 Embedded.

On June 30, 2005, the Windows 2000 product family (including Windows 2000 Server, Advanced Server, Datacenter Server, and Windows 2000 Professional) transitions from the Mainstream Support to Extended Support phase. This transition marks the progression of Windows 2000 through its product life cycle, originally announced in 2002. The Windows 2000 family entered the marketplace in February 2000 and remains a robust, mature product as it enters its 5-year Extended Support life-cycle phase. Article: Here

The shell I used was Task Manager. You can use it by copying over taskmgr.exe and vdmdbg.dll to your Windows folder. Then rename taskmgr.exe to explorer.exe. I don't really understand what you are saying about using litestep. How can you install litestep without an OS? There will still be a 180 day timebomb and you can still activate Windows.

Seems like a driver problem to me . Never heard of a corrupt pagefile before.

No, I mean actually removing the registry data from the corresponding system file.

Your registry tweak is only for turning off the annoying ballon from your task bar. You might be able to turn off the prompt through User Accounts.

Are you sure it's cmd.exe, not command.com?

Copy it manually.

We need an unofficial one because even with this new official rollup, Windows Update detects 11 Critical Updates and 4 Recommended Updates for Windows 2000. There are even more because after installing those and rebooting, it detects updates for those updates We also want to be able to slipstream things like Internet Explorer 6.0 SP1, DirectX 9.0, and a bunch of other stuff too. One way to do that is to "package" these components as "hotfixes" and then integrate them into an installation source tree. BTW I don't think Gurgelmeyer is claiming that Microsoft is the publisher of this Unofficial Rollup. He may be using a similar file-naming scheme, but it is definitely labelled URP (Unofficial Rollup Package) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> See the screenshot.