Avast WEBforum
Other => General Topics => Topic started by: polonus on October 19, 2005, 09:46:06 AM
-
Hello forum folk,
There are a lot of myths about hosts files and DNS caching. Read this to open a discussion: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/excerpt/winxphacks_chap1/index1.html?page=3. Some say working with hosts files and programs like hostess, or host manager is outdated security. Some check their host files against manipulating spyware, for instance Spybot S&D does. Who is right, and why?
Comments please,
polonus
-
The DNS Error Caching Tweak is effective but there is a much easier way to do it. Just use: TCP/IP Optimizer (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/OptimizeXP.html#Internet). It will adjust this setting for you.
Hosts files are completely unnecessary for performance or to block spyware. There is much more effective protection such as Spyware Blaster and simply installing SP2 if you have XP ect... DNS Caching will give you the best performance benefit automatically.
Spybot has a hosts file option but it is not installed by default and I wouldn't recommend doing it, the immunize feature is more effective.
-
Hi Mastertech,
Which is so for XP and XP Pro, but not for people running updated older versions like Win 98 SE unofficial updated version. Lots of people use these on older machines in the second and third world, and they want to be well protected as well.
Also some server types use hosts files. A story is right, completely right, and partly right. Why do people still make updates for hostfiles, why there are block files around, when there is no need for it or when it is outdated security?
greets,
polonus
-
Are you saying that Host Manager is not only outdated security but even a resource hogger?
I know that some redirections of Host Manager are checked by SpyBot and Ad-aware as being hijacks and they remove them but, if it is not that useful (secure and resource helper), why do some of us (users) say it's a good idea using a Host file manager?
I know Eddy is against of this 8)
-
Which is so for XP and XP Pro, but not for people running updated older versions like Win 98 SE unofficial updated version. Lots of people use these on older machines in the second and third world, and they want to be well protected as well.
Good question. The single biggest threat to just about every version of Windows is MSJVM. Everyone needs to uninstall MSJVM immediately and use Sun's Java instead. The reason people think they need a Hosts file is because they are not removing the biggest security hole in IE = MSJVM. For ActiveX protection use Spyware Blaster it works in all versions of Windows including 98, so does Spybot's immunize feature. For pop-up blocking on these machines use the Google Toolbar. Don't forget all the Windows Security updates and finally an AV like Avast! ;)
Also some server types use hosts files. A story is right, completely right, and partly right. Why do people still make updates for hostfiles, why there are block files around, when there is no need for it or when it is outdated security?
Hosts files have some rudimentary uses with setting up LANs. I don't know why so many people use and recommend Hosts files. Usually because they think they need them. Spyware Blaster provides "block protection" but it is much more effective to remove the security exploit to begin with, like uninstalling MSJVM!
Are you saying that Host Manager is not only outdated security but even a resource hogger?
Both, if you never get infected with any spyware why do you need a hosts file? That question answers itself.
-
Which is so for XP and XP Pro, but not for people running updated older versions like Win 98 SE unofficial updated version. Lots of people use these on older machines in the second and third world, and they want to be well protected as well.
Good question. The single biggest threat to just about every version of Windows is MSJVM. Everyone needs to uninstall MSJVM immediately and use Sun's Java instead. The reason people think they need a Hosts file is because they are not removing the biggest security hole in IE = MSJVM. For ActiveX protection use Spyware Blaster it works in all versions of Windows including 98, so does Spybot's immunize feature. For pop-up blocking on these machines use the Google Toolbar. Don't forget all the Windows Security updates and finally an AV like Avast! ;)
Also some server types use hosts files. A story is right, completely right, and partly right. Why do people still make updates for hostfiles, why there are block files around, when there is no need for it or when it is outdated security?
Hosts files have some rudimentary uses with setting up LANs. I don't know why so many people use and recommend Hosts files. Usually because they think they need them. Spyware Blaster provides "block protection" but it is much more effective to remove the security exploit to begin with, like uninstalling MSJVM!
Are you saying that Host Manager is not only outdated security but even a resource hogger?
Both, if you never get infected with any spyware why do you need a hosts file? That question answers itself.
Unbelievable easy to understand and you Mastertech explained it in a wonderful and easiest possible way. Thanks for joining these forums pal, we sure need people like you in here ! What took you so long to come in here ? ;D ;D ;D
Also, I wanna point people's attention to this thread started by Mastertech:
http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=16975.0
Wonderful web site ! Great work Andrew ! ;)
-
The DNS Error Caching Tweak is effective but there is a much easier way to do it. Just use: TCP/IP Optimizer (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/OptimizeXP.html#Internet). It will adjust this setting for you.
Is this compatible with apps such as Web Shield?
I know Eddy is against of this 8)
I am not a tech literate but I like reading discussions (not "arguments," of course. ;)). Let's see. 8)
-
Wonderful web site ! Great work Andrew !
;D
Is this compatible with apps such as Web Shield?
Sure, the TCP/IP Optimizer merely adjust your TCP/IP network related settings to more optimal values. It has nothing to do with Web Shield. It also does not run in memory. You run the utility one time.
-
Exactly... change some settings inside the tcpip.sys and they stay permanent... of course until you decide to run that utility again and revert to some other or old settings...
-
Then, it is a setting utility or a tweak app, which only optimizes native function of Windows. Thanx for the explanation.
Unfortunately, the effect of prefetch function was not obvious on my system somehow but this one was a hit: it dramatically increased my connection speed. I thought it was quick enough but it seems that I hadn't got what I had paid for. Thanx for introducing this app. ;)
-
Try TreeWalk (http://ntcanuck.com) ;)
-
Additions of 'bad' sites to the hosts file is useful a) for blocking ads and b) for blocking sites which carry malware, thus alerting you to the fact that it's probably not a good idea to download a program from that site, or even visit it (if you could) if you browser and OS are not completely bang up to date. Without the hosts entry you could visit that site and download the adware or spyware program even with SP2 and the latest updates.
I think some sites that do not respect your privacy also get blocked.
It's another layer of protection. Is it really necessary? Who knows. I'll make that decision myself.
For some reason Spybot detects some entries as malware redirections, when in fact the 'bad' address is being redirected to 127.0.0.1, not a 'good' address to a 'bad' one: seems to be some CoolWebSearch entries that it picks up.
-
(Chuckles). A discussion is always fun as long as played gentlemanly. ;)
-
No it is not necessary. I've proven it, you will not get infected with Spyware without a Hosts file.
CWS cannot install if MSJVM is removed, try it and be spyware free.
-
I accept that point. Blocking CWS sites is redundant if you have patched the vulnerabilities or switched Java machine.
But without a hosts file you can go to evilsite.com and download and install vicioustrojan.exe. With the hosts file, you will not even get to the site. And of course, the site will probably be called lovelyfreedownloads.com and the file will be called wonderfulfreeaplication.exe.
If you download and install an adware, spyware or Trojan program, you will get infected, even with a spick-and-span-bright-as-a-new-pin OS.
-
But without a hosts file you can go to evilsite.com and download and install vicioustrojan.exe. With the hosts file, you will not even get to the site. And of course, the site will probably be called lovelyfreedownloads.com and the file will be called wonderfulfreeaplication.exe.
You can get this from visiting a website? Show me the link that allows this to autoinstall. That is what you want to stop. Autoinstalling Spyware.
If you download and install an adware, spyware or Trojan program, you will get infected, even with a spick-and-span-bright-as-a-new-pin OS.
You can always get infected with an application you download. This is impossible to block. Using a Hosts file to try and stop this is like spitting in the wind. Any spyware maker with half a brain will just register new IPs. There is nothing you can do about it. Any sort of security you think you have from this is completely false.
-
I'm not talking about autoinstall, I'm talking about a manual install, as in downloading a crack or a smiley-maker or a MSN add-on.
This is impossible to block. Using a Hosts file to try and stop this is like spitting in the wind. Any spyware maker with half a brain will just register new IPs. There is nothing you can do about it. Any sort of security you think you have from this is completely false.
Maybe. You can say this about AV's too.
Most of my sense of security comes from a good firewall, and an up-to-date system. I don't like to download anything except from sources I know and trust.
But the hosts file does block ads well.
-
You can say the exact same thing about viruses, which is why antivirus companies detect the virus signature and not the source it was distributed from.
And if you want to block ads there are much better ways to do it.
-
It works for me. ;)
-
Do you have DNS caching turned off?
-
Additions of 'bad' sites to the hosts file is useful a) for blocking ads and b) for blocking sites which carry malware, thus alerting you to the fact that it's probably not a good idea to download a program from that site, or even visit it (if you could) if you browser and OS are not completely bang up to date. Without the hosts entry you could visit that site and download the adware or spyware program even with SP2 and the latest updates.
PeerGuardian won't do the same work?
Does anybody know how can I translate the www addresses from HostManager into IP addresses of PeerGuardian?
I mean, not one by one, but by a batch process.
For some reason Spybot detects some entries as malware redirections, when in fact the 'bad' address is being redirected to 127.0.0.1, not a 'good' address to a 'bad' one: seems to be some CoolWebSearch entries that it picks up.
That's the worst part of HostMan... you have to make a blacklist, unlock Hosts, etc. etc.
-
Do you have DNS caching turned off?
Is it good to do so? Just disable Windows service?
-
No it is not a good idea to do so which is why I asked, most people pushing hosts files recommend turning it off.
-
Most people pushing hosts files recommend turning it off.
Why? Just to avoid conflicts?
-
Performance reasons: MVPS Hosts (http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm)
Editors Note: in most cases a large HOSTS file (over 135 kb) tends to slow down the machine. This only occurs in W2000 and XP. Windows 98 and ME are not affected.
They then go on to recommend disabling the DNS Client, which is NOT recommended.
KB318803 (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;318803)
Note The overall performance of the client computer decreases and the network traffic for DNS queries increases if the DNS resolver cache is deactivated.
The DNS Client service optimizes the performance of DNS name resolution by storing previously resolved names in memory. If the DNS Client service is turned off, the computer can still resolve DNS names by using the network's DNS servers.
Disabling the client puts an unnecessary load on the network's DNS servers and reduces Internet performance. The only negative thing that can happen with DNS caching is when it stores unresolved addresses which can be fixed by using TCP/IP Optimizer.
-
Performance reasons
Thanks for all info.
Which can be fixed by using TCP/IP Optimizer.
I'll give it a try but seems it does the same as run "C:\Windows\system32\ipconfig.exe /flushdns"
-
I'll give it a try but seems it does the same as run "C:\Windows\system32\ipconfig.exe /flushdns"
No it is not the same. TCPIP Optimizer disables DNS caching from storing any unresolved DNS queries via registry entries. So you never have to flush it.
-
TCP/IP Optimizer is something like a CURE, and FlushDNS is just a temporary relief medication... ;D
-
Exactly,
DNS Error Caching (http://www.speedguide.net/tcpoptimizer.php#advanced_dns)
Windows has built-in DNS (Domain Name System) caching, which basically caches resolved hostnames for faster access and fewer DNS lookups. This is generally a great feature, with the only downside that failed DNS lookups get cached by default as well... When a DNS lookup fails (due to temporary DNS problems), Windows still caches the unsuccessful DNS query, and in turn fails to connect to a host regardless of the fact that the DNS server might be able to handle your lookup seconds later. One can manually flush failed DNS lookups by typing ipconfig /flushdns in Command prompt... Or you can simply set the 3 values in the Optimizer to "0", and it will set the relevant Registry settings.
Note: Seems Microsoft changed the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Dnscache\Parameters\NegativeCacheTime Registry entry in Windows 2000to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Dnscache\Parameters\MaxNegativeCacheTtl in Windows XP and 2003 server. We have updated this in the 2.02 version of the program.
Simply run TCP/IP Optimizer once and you will never have any failed lookups stored in the DNS cache again.
-
Mastertech my friend... another question tightly related to this topic...
We all know that tcpip.sys is a system file, and Windows protection feature will always alarm when we try to apply TCP/IP Slowdown fix... that's fine and that's how it suppose to be... we just need to ignore it and that's all.
But... but what if some huge Windows patch or updates are applied after TCP/IP slowdown fix is already applied ? Will Windows update replace tcpip.sys with the original (unpatched) one ?
I'm asking because I know that when you do similar things with some system files that holds icons inside themselves, they will be replaced immediatelly after some update is downloaded and installed. I actually never saw that, but I've read some lines on some newsgroups, and people were trying to replace original XP icons with Vista icons using some system file replacer-patcher or something...
Regards !
-
Any Windows Update can replace the TCPIP.sys file with a different version if Microsoft decides it is necessary for that update. It can either replace it with the original or an updated version.
The Event ID Patcher for TCP/IP will work around this if you ignore the warning during patching. Normally however Windows File Protection will put the file back immediately after you replace it. There are ways to disable this protection but it is definitely not recommended for obvious reasons. To check to see if the TCPIP.sys file has been replaced simply rerun the Event ID Patcher and check the limit, if it is at what you changed it to then there is no need to repatch. I frequently check this after any new updates and post a warning accordingly.
With the default file protection in place you simply cannot replace a system file by copying over it. It will always be reverted. You either have to disable the protection or use a third party utility to force it.
-
To each their own in regards to hosts files.
Bottomline is it is effective. And is effective regardless of browser or email client.
-
Any Windows Update can replace the TCPIP.sys file with a different version if Microsoft decides it is necessary for that update. It can either replace it with the original or an updated version.
The Event ID Patcher for TCP/IP will work around this if you ignore the warning during patching. Normally however Windows File Protection will put the file back immediately after you replace it. There are ways to disable this protection but it is definitely not recommended for obvious reasons. To check to see if the TCPIP.sys file has been replaced simply rerun the Event ID Patcher and check the limit, if it is at what you changed it to then there is no need to repatch. I frequently check this after any new updates and post a warning accordingly.
With the default file protection in place you simply cannot replace a system file by copying over it. It will always be reverted. You either have to disable the protection or use a third party utility to force it.
Exactly, and this is what you get when you re-run TCP/IP slowdown fix once it's already been applied:
(http://img488.imageshack.us/img488/2585/untitled29tv.jpg)
Disabling default file protection is definitelly not good thing to do... that's why we have all those wonderful auto-patching utilities just like TCP/IP slowdon fix for tcpip.sys or for example, UXTHEMEpatcher for uxtheme.dll (for additional Windows Visual Styles and themes)
Cheers !
-
Hi thread posters,
Sometimes the site is not accessible, so when DNS is not cached, the site cannot be reached the next time it is again accessible. In that case go to Start Execute -cmd and give in: ipconfig/flushdns.
I can see the dangers in a hosts file that is not checked (checksum) or has no back-up, when it is altered deliberately by viruses or to redirect to phishing sites.
Some like FWF here still see the good ad-blocking function of a hosts file. If not a lot of people used it for this purpose, why there are sites listing ad- and malware sites like:
http://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/. For me the nitty gritty starts when this list has to be updated and worked on regularly because some adservers and sites to block change addresses.
But there are more stones to strike a bird and this is a beautiful script in conjunction with the hostsfile, use the Dan Pollock script to replace ads to nothingness, save it as jar file into Chrome in Firefox. I see the ad vaporize allmost at once.
greets,
polonus
-
Polonus did you read this whole thread?
Sometimes the site is not accessible, so when DNS is not cached, the site cannot be reached the next time it is again accessible. In that case go to Start Execute -cmd and give in: ipconfig/flushdns.
You don't have to do this if you disable DNS from caching failed look ups to begin with. And Tech already mentioned this.
There are much better ways to block ads without the DNS slowing Hosts File.
-
Hi Mastertech,
What happens if people remove the MSJVM completely with this removal tool to be found here:
http://www.majorgeeks.com/download4158.html?. It is not generally supported by MS, only for admins etc. because the changes for XP are irreversible. How does that effect your OS and other programs? What are the dangers? Can this also be done for older platforms as well like in Windows 98SE?. And what replacement do you have, also what are the consequences of such a choice? Can you explain on this please.
Then a second point, why people put special hosts lists still on the net? Why anti-spyware programs still propagate the use? Is your story exclusively for the Win2xxx and the Win XP (Pro) etc users? What comes after MSJV is no longer supported, that is after 2007? Will MS look for a foreseeable future where Java and Javascript's role is taken over by other instant script languages?
greets,
polonus
-
Polonus read this: Optimize XP - Spyware Protection (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/OptimizeXP.html#Spyware)
What happens if people remove the MSJVM completely with this removal tool to be found here:
http://www.majorgeeks.com/download4158.html?. It is not generally supported by MS, only for admins etc. because the changes for XP are irreversible.
What happens? You don't get infected with autoinstalling spyware. The tool is necessary however you have to also run the registry fix otherwise it will not be properly removed. You can use the tool on any version of windows. FYI Windows XP SP1a and SP2 remove MSJVM by default. As for it being irreversible, it is as far as MSJVM goes, but you don't want or need it so this is a good thing.
How does that effect your OS and other programs?
It doesn't, just install Sun's Java instead.
What are the dangers?
None.
Can this also be done for older platforms as well like in Windows 98SE?
Not only can it be done it is mandatory. This is the single biggest exploit that no one fixes.
. And what replacement do you have, also what are the consequences of such a choice? Can you explain on this please.
Java is made by Sun get the latest version from Sun. People think Microsoft made MSJVM, no they licensed it, it is really Java v1.1.4 where Sun is up to v1.5.0_05. Consequences are you do not get infected with autoinstalling spyware anymore.
Then a second point, why people put special hosts lists still on the net?
Because they think they need them.
Why anti-spyware programs still propagate the use?
Which ones? Spybot comes with a very limited one as an "extra" option that is not by default enabled. They rarely update it and don't recommend using it.
Is your story exclusively for the Win2xxx and the Win XP (Pro) etc users? What comes after MSJV is no longer supported, that is after 2007? Will MS look for a foreseeable future where Java and Javascript's role is taken over by other instant script languages?
This effects all versions of Windows. Microsoft was sued by Sun for violating their licensing agreement and don't really care about Java support. The latest version of Java is free to download and install for all Windows users Win98SE and newer. If you have an older OS you can dig up an older version of Java but no one should be running anything older then that and realistically if you are running Windows you should only be using 2000 or XP.
MSJVM serves no purpose but to leave large security exploits on your machine.
-
Also some may be wondering if anything is dependant on MSJVM. As you would suspect some Microsoft products are but this is due to the products dependance on Internet Explorer, simply upgrading to IE v6 fixes the problem.
MSJVM dependancies (http://download.microsoft.com/download/7/f/e/7fe1c12a-a04c-45a6-aef5-209b94a246e9/msjvm_list.pdf)
-
Some other products are also dependent, Mastertech. Encyclopedia Britannica for one. (An older version, obviously, 2002, I think.)
Edit: 2000, in fact. Edit of Edit: No, it really was 2002.
-
I'm not sure about that, I would have to test it. I suspect that MSJVM was not removed properly or the problematic registry key still existed. Java is Java.
-
The program depends on MS Java. There may be others. This needs to be borne in mind if using the MS Java removal tool.
Edit: EB is listed on the MS website as one of the programs which doesn't work under SP2, no doubt because SP2 removes MSVJM as you say. The program prompts for its installation CD and then tries to install MSJVM if opened on a SP2 system.
What are the dangers?
None.
Not quite. Some older programs may stop working. An update may cure the problem. (I wasn't too bothered about losing EB: It came free with the computer.)
This is why MS took it [the removal tool] off their site and you have to go to Major Geeks to get it.
The security argument for removing is compelling as you say, Mastertech, but MS itself does advise caution in the 'transitioning' process:
Which computer programs use the MSJVM?
A number of products use the MSJVM in custom Java applications for clients or servers, as well as Java applets. These may be business-to-business or business-to-consumer applications and Web sites. They depend on the MSJVM to be installed in order to work properly. Java applets start automatically and may perform a variety of functions, ranging from simple loan calculators or stock quote tickers to more complex functionality for the services the Web site provides. MSJVM-dependent software may originate with:
* Microsoft. A list of tested Microsoft MSJVM-dependent applications is available.
Review the application list (149 KB Portable Document file)
* Third parties. Most independent software vendors (ISVs) with MSJVM-dependent applications provide dependency and upgrade information on their Web sites.
* Internally developed applications. Businesses may also have custom programs developed internally or by a software vendor or consultant that may have dependencies on the MSJVM. Check with your developer, consultant, or software vendor to identify any dependencies on the MSJVM.
How can I determine my dependencies on the MSJVM?
Microsoft is providing customers with developer and IT pro versions of the MSJVM Transition Guide, which provides a comprehensive starting point for analyzing MSJVM dependencies. The MSJVM Diagnostic Tool is designed to help businesses with complex IT infrastructures easily run dependency analyses. It checks for the use and dependencies of programs and Web sites and issues a customized report that identifies such dependencies.
* Get the transition guide for developers (389 KB Portable Document file)
* Get the MSJVM Diagnostic Tool
Businesses may also have custom or internally-developed programs that may have MSJVM dependencies. If your business relies on such programs, you should check with your developer, consultant, or software vendor to identify MSJVM dependencies, and to learn about the steps you should take to minimize those dependencies and the potential impact on your business.
To help you assess your dependencies, answer the following questions:
Are you using a version of Windows that predates Windows XP SP1a?
If so, you probably have MSJVM installed on your computer.
Are you using other Microsoft software, such as Microsoft Works or Microsoft Publisher?
If so, you should review the list of tested Microsoft software for possible MSJVM dependencies.
* Review the list of dependent applications (149 KB Portable Document file)
The applications list includes options for removing dependencies. For additional guidance, see the MSJVM Support page.
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/java/faq.asp
-
First of all the list of dependant applications Microsoft lists clearly shows the far majority of dependants use IE, which in v5 required MSJVM, this is not the case with v6. I suspect this is the problem with EB but I have no reason to check. I honestly don't care. Any Java dependant application should be Java compliant, if it is not then you should contact the manufacturer of the application for a fix. MSJVM is NOT Java compliant, which is why Sun sued them to begin with.
Regardless SP1a and SP2 remove MSJVM. Anybody who installs it on top of this clearly doesn't understand the security problems nor what it means to be Java compliant.
So I will repeat there are no Dangers of removing it.
See this is the problem. You don't grasp what is going on here. We have people recommending useless Hosts Files yet not plugging the most significant security whole for spyware? Ironic? ???
-
Why do you assume everybody is really stupid?
I had Encylopedia Britannica 2000 installed before SP2 came out in 2004 (Duh!)
I hadn't used the program for a year anyway, so I didn't mind uninstalling it.
For anybody with an older system, there there is a risk that some software will cease to function if MSJVM is removed.
That's why MS has the advice on their site.
Anybody with such a system can evaluate that advice and your own as they see fit.
Some may even notice some of the grey areas in life that seem to be oblivious to you, Mastertech.
-
What software? You say some, show me a list that includes no workaround. I have no way to test EB to see if it will work with Sun's Java properly installed. This is the problem you are making declarations as if some huge list of applications exists that breaks. This not even remotely true. So far you have mentioned one unconfirmed application, that doesn't even relate to "some".
Don't you understand how significant this is? You browse a website with Java enabled and malware will autoinstall itself, no warning, no nothing. Now I am starting to get a much clearer picture of this and why people think they need hosts files. Why fix the problem when you can prolong it.
-
I just realized something, where would all these online "security forums" be if no one had spyware on their computers? (not talking about Avast). I don't see a single one giving anyone good advice, except info that makes them dependant on coming back.
-
I wish you'd stop shouting, I'm not a child.
I fully understand how significant the problem is. That's why I ditched the program rather than reinstall MSJVM.
The problem with Encylopedia Britannica is not 'unconfirmed': it is listed on the MS website along with 'some' other programs.
You obviously have a vastly superior intellect to the rest of us, MasterTech, and it must be very frustrating for you that I choose to experiment with a hosts file.
Well tough tit.
-
The problem with Encylopedia Britannica is not 'unconfirmed': it is listed on the MS website along with 'some' other programs.
I found nothing of the sort.
Windows XP Application Compatibility Update (December 17, 2001) (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;313484)
Windows XP is designed to support additional programs after you install it. The Windows XP Application Compatibility Update is a package of software updates that addresses common program issues. These updates help Windows XP to support these programs or to avoid common issues that you may experience with these programs. Microsoft recommends that you download this compatibility update if you are having problems with any of the programs that this update is designed to support.
Here it lists EB 2002 but this has nothing to do with Java but XP in general and the fix is provided.
Programs that are known to experience a loss of functionality when they run on a Windows XP Service Pack 2-based computer. (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;884130)
This article contains a list of programs that are known to experience loss of functionality when they run on a Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2)-based computer. If you are using a program that appears on this list, contact the software vendor for more information. Microsoft is updating this list with new information as we receive it. Therefore, check this article frequently.
Here it lists: Encyclopedia Britannica 2000 Deluxe 1 Encyclopedia Britannica 32-bit and 64-bit (NX) http://www.encyclopediabritannica.com (http://www.encyclopediabritannica.com) Java rendering does not function after you install this program.
#1 this is NOT EB 2002 it is EB 2000 Deluxe. #2 it does not mention if installing Sun's Java fixes the problem. #3 This is the ONLY Java related issue on the list.
So again please provide proof of your claims. Because like I said it is perfectly safe to uninstall MSJVM.
As for the Hosts File as with other issues I have discussed you are more concerned with someone telling you something then looking at the facts.
-
You don't give up, do you?
If you are here to 'tell people something', then you are in the wrong place.
This is not a soapbox for you to expound your wisdom.
#1 this is NOT EB 2002 it is EB 2000 Deluxe. #2 it does not mention if installing Sun's Java fixes the problem. #3 This is the ONLY Java related issue on the list.
I'm really getting fed up of answering petty little points, but as you insist,
-please note my edit to the program version
-If you'd asked I could 've told you the answer
-so what? I just mentioned it as an example. I don't really care if it's the only application in the universe to be dependent on MSJVM.
I suspect there are more, especially in-house apps in the business world. There may even be people who are still running outdated systems and haven't addressed these issues yet- Some companies still use Windows 2000 because XP hasn't been fully evaluated.
Anybody updating an old system needs to exercise a tad of caution, as the MS site makes clear.
Look at any of my postings and see that I'm always going on about security vulnerabilities in Java engines, and the importance of switching to and updating Sun JRE.
I think you'll find similar advice from others here.
Some people have even been kind enough to let me know that they have found my advice useful. So you see, people do get the message if they want to hear.
I just realized something, where would all these online "security forums" be if no one had spyware on their computers? (not talking about Avast). I don't see a single one giving anyone good advice, except info that makes them dependant on coming back.
I find your tone patronising. You can't force advice down people's throats, just give good advice and let 'them' choose to take it if they want. And give 'them' a little more credit as well. We can't all be MasterTechs, and most of us don't even want to be,
-
I don't really care if it's the only application in the universe to be dependent on MSJVM.
You have NO proof it is dependant to begin with. You have no proof there are other applications out there that are.
I suspect there are more, especially in-house apps in the business world. There may even be people who are still running outdated systems and haven't addressed these issues yet- Some companies still use Windows 2000 because XP hasn't been fully evaluated.
So far you have given massive assumptions when you can't prove your points. The evidence speaks differently. I support thousands of customers and end users and have no had a single remote incident related to doing this properly. Not to mention SP1a and SP2 do this for you! I find no proof on Microsofts whole website. Other then you need to make sure you are running IE 6 and install Sun's Java.
I suspect there are more, especially in-house apps in the business world. There may even be people who are still running outdated systems and haven't addressed these issues yet- Some companies still use Windows 2000 because XP hasn't been fully evaluated.
So, on 2000 it is just as important to uninstall it and is even more important to remove it since no Service Packs do this for you.
Anybody updating an old system needs to exercise a tad of caution, as the MS site makes clear.
No they don't. Caution for what? What is going to happen by removing MSJVM, they will not be vulnerable to auto-installing spyware? This unfounded paranoia without facts is illogical.
I find your tone patronising. You can't force advice down people's throats, just give good advice and let 'them' choose to take it if they want. And give 'them' a little more credit as well. We can't all be MasterTechs, and most of us don't even want to be,
What I said in that post was clear. Apparently I have to force common sense down some peoples. You are so hung up on "choosing". You responses is proof why I don't give most people credit. You have a choice. Either A. Use IE and not get infected with Malware by removing MSJVM or B. Choose to ignore facts and get infected. So please choose away.
-
Mastertech, no need for this tone:
Apparently I have to force common sense down some peoples.
We don't need an unfriendly help here...
-
Then please ask others to stop making personal refences in the replies. Are these comments conviently overlooked?
Why do you assume everybody is really stupid?
What about the tone of all his replies?
-
Matertech is telling some useful information and if people find it offensive than I don't know what they think... maybe jealousy again ? We had that before...
I am so tired of this s**t...
No strange tone from the Mastertech's side at all... all he is trying to tell people is to help if they are wrong, and sometimes it looks like they are...
-
S.Z., thankyou. I am trying to STOP people from getting infected with Spyware. If removing MSJVM does something truly catostrophic or breaks even one commonly used application that has no patch then someone please let me know. Because I truly want to know. I have not been able to find any legitimate reason to keep MSJVM. None, ZERO. MSJVM is Java. Any application that is correctly written in Java will work with the real Java otherwise there is a problem with the program that needs to be corrected by the manufacturer. So far there is no remote evidence of this. Anyone disputing this needs to provide proof otherwise.
As for assumptions:
If you want to go on assumptions I can give you one. Microsoft pulled the MSJVM removal tool because they knew ALL Java applications broke after running it even after installing Sun's. The reason? A left over registry key. Which you can download a fix for from my website for. I have strong suspicions this is the problem most people are having with any Java related problem after removing MSJVM with the tool.
-
IMO Mastertech has proven that he is right and had no intention to insult anybody or anything like that only to try and make us understand something here, i am personnaly glad he is here on the forum cause i already learned alot from him and i'm hoping that he will continue to post here so i can learn more... ;)
-
Exactly ! One correction though, Miha...
...i'm hoping that he will continue to post here so I can learn more...
So, WE ALL can learn more I would say... ;)
-
...
...
As for assumptions:
If you want to go on assumptions I can give you one. Microsoft pulled the MSJVM removal tool because they knew ALL Java applications broke after running it even after installing Sun's. The reason? A left over registry key. Which you can download a fix for from my website for. I have strong suspicions this is the problem most people are having with any Java related problem after removing MSJVM with the tool.
...
...
Where Mastertech ? I couldn't find the link... can you provide a direct link to that fix ?
Thanks in advance !
-
Link (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/SecureXP.html#Spyware)
Look under Microsoft Java Virtual Machine v1.1.4 Removal Tool. Labeled "Registry Fix". Please read the instructions carefully before proceeding. Any mistakes are easy to fix it just takes less time to do it right the first time. ;)
-
Thanks I appreciate your help Drew... thanks again !
-
Exactly ! One correction though, Miha...
...i'm hoping that he will continue to post here so I can learn more...
So, WE ALL can learn more I would say... ;)
Yes Sasha you're totally right there.... ;)
-
If you are here to 'tell people something', then you are in the wrong place.
This is not a soapbox for you to expound your wisdom.
FreewheelinFrank
Would you prefer that we listen to yours?
Some of us happen to enjoy his wisdom. Wisdom combined with knowledge is rare and I for one,
am glad Mastertech is sharing some of it us.
We don't need an unfriendly help here...
What's so unfriendly? It's truthful, correct and straight to the point.
-
We don't need an unfriendly help here...
What's so unfriendly? It's truthful, correct and straight to the point.
Why Bob you've started to be against me?
Ask Polonus and Frank what was unfriendly. I never said MasterTech had not posted usefully and worthfully.
For some reason you've started to be against any opinion of mine... read your last quotes of mine...
-
Why Bob you've started to be against me?
...
...
I don't see where he is against you... no really ?
He just mentioned how Mastertech's posts are useful and full of wisdom... I don't see anything else. You feel threatened for no reason Tech...
-
Some people like to think there is a clear distinction between right and wrong but some others are not happy with this way of thinking. So, between these two personality archetypes, conflicts are common. Just search for "personality test" and "Jung," probably, there will be some hits. Hope this tip will let your social lives easier whether on the net or not. ;)
Or should I say just relax? ;D
-
Why Bob you've started to be against me?
Technical,
To not agree with a person isn't the same as being against a person.
For me to agree with everything you say, (or visa-versa) would make us the same person.
We may be a band of brothers in this forum but even brothers sometimes disagree. ;D ;D
-
Well, well folks,
I like to go to the bottom of the problem here. The first one to point me out to the dangers of not updating, and using the latest Sun Java updates was FWF. I like to listen if there is usefull information from "a new kid on the block", but we want the full story, and not something, a minority has to regret later. I personally remember, in the days that I did not know all aspects of it, I uploaded my IE version and was stuck with older drivers and a persisting dibeng.dll HUGE PROBLEM, making it impossible to run programs on my computer. Incompatibility problems are no problem, if Windows let you go back on your tracks, but that is not possible, and just that policy made them fortunes. If a car vendor would do this thing we would not accept this, saying you are just running an older platform, upgrade or buy something else, we only hold the spare parts for say 5 years. But in the computer world you have to comply, at least if you are using MS products. So I now say: "look before you leap". I check all scripts running in MWSH with AVX Script Wall, and run NoScript.
I agree with FWF that the dangers are in the implementation of the Java engine. Why did not Microsoft provide us with a solution? No to create build after build in order to wipe old persistent insecurity under the carpet, is what MS does. The NT platform was safe and secure, what they did with it later was not. And now some come and say we have been using an OS for years with an insecure Java module. To be able to use these holes against Java users you must be a very crafty programmer, so the danger is not immanent there, but known spyware uses the same old exploits over and over again.
What is wisdom here?
polonus
-
Why did not Microsoft provide us with a solution?
They did they told us to update our systems and install Sun JRE.
-
Polonus,
What are you talking about. What does updating IE (vague reference to some older version) have to do with removing MSJVM? Nothing.
You issue with dibeng.dll sounds like one from 98/ME which was a video driver issue. Temp workaround was simple, boot in safe mode and set the video driver to VGA then go online and get the updated video driver. Nothing to do with Java.
The only serious application that was ever dependant on MSJVM was IE 5. If you are still running IE 5 then your security worries have much more to do then just MSJVM. 99% of the workarounds listed required using IE 6 (which you should anyway) and Sun JVM.
Any properly written Java application will work better with the REAL Java not just the botched MSJVM. Don't you understand this? There is no "other side" of the story. I'm tired of people making this out like there is some remote danger. It is irresponsible to make some correlation with a video driver or any driver issue that absolutely NOTHING to do with Java or how it works. The only thing affected by Java is Java applications or ones that use IE for Java. This is like trying to scare people about not updating Flash. Please.
Please post some proof of something, anything.
-
Hi Mastertech,
I just wanted to be sure about not getting any aftermath.
The general story of the MS hick ups has nothing to do with Java as such. It was just to explain, where inexperienced users land with reference to the Microsoft philosophy. It is not user friendly software, it is Microsoft friendly software. The other things aside like BSODS, hung ups, bad compatibility with other software, why did Microsoft started this MSJVM adventure in the first place, like with the ActiveX (nothing to do with Java though!!). Explain this to me, and isn't it so, the boys in Redmond are often running behind the facts? If they had not done this, you would not be here to having to tell everyone, just like with default settings being bad, people surfing with super admin rights, lively dangerous. Why don't they come up with something out of the box that is pre-installed safe for the Neophyte users so the crap is not there in the first place and the million zombie nets are not there any longer? Or do we have to undergo two years of forum bootcamp to come to our senses security wise? Not everybody does that or has the will to do so.
greets,
polonus
-
"The Microsoft Philosophy"? ::)
FYI BSODs and hangs ups are virus, driver and hardware related in 2000 and XP.
Your problems with Microsoft and the background story with MSJVM only complicates a relatively simple process for inexperienced users regarding protecting themselves.
I "surf" daily with "super" admin rights. Your point? I don't understand how the Linux/Unix ideology always works it's way into Windows discussions.
Vista will seriously improve system security out of the box but for the last three years Microsoft has been deadly serious about security with their constant monthly security patches, antispyware and antivirus aquisitions, improvements like SP2 ect...
You don't need to go to any "boot" camp, you can simply read my guide: Secure XP (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/SecureXP.html) and start telling people to uninstall MSJVM without worrying about explaining to them unfounded "consequences" and other nonexistent nonsense.
Why not be part of the solution? We can all gripe but it solves nothing.
-
start telling people to uninstall MSJVM without worrying about explaining to them unfounded "consequences" and other nonexistent nonsense.
We have been telling people to switch to Sun Java and keep it updated for a long time. (Those of us who believe in Java at all- there are those who recommend ditching it completely, of course.)
Nobody is saying anything other than that MSJVM is a security risk and has to go. I believe this whole thing started with me saying that Encyclopedia Britannica ceased to work when MSJVM was no longer present, even though Sun Java was (Yes, correctly) installed.
I also said that I ditched the program rather than have the security risk of MSJVM on my computer.
This doesn't seem to have been an unfounded consequence or non-existent nonsense. My point was that some applications may not work if MSJVM is removed, which has to be borne in mind when removing MSJVM, which, to repeat, I accept is vital for security.
You have made some stark claims here:
How does that effect your OS and other programs?
It doesn't, just install Sun's Java instead.
What are the dangers?
None.
I have simply made there may in fact be consequences to removing MSJVM. I was quite surprised at your reaction, considering that the Microsoft site says the same thing.
What software? You say some, show me a list that includes no workaround. I have no way to test EB to see if it will work with Sun's Java properly installed. This is the problem you are making declarations as if some huge list of applications exists that breaks. This not even remotely true. So far you have mentioned one unconfirmed application, that doesn't even relate to "some".
So again please provide proof of your claims.
You have NO proof it is dependant to begin with. You have no proof there are other applications out there that are.
I don't claim to be an expert here, but I believe that some applications are dependent on MSJVM.
It seems to be freely admitted by MS that developers may have some work to do in 'migrating MSJVM-based applications':
Third-party Java Runtime Environments These may also be an option. Be aware that these solutions are not supported by Microsoft. Depending on the amount of MSJVM-specific dependencies within the application (for example, WFC, JavaCOM, ms.*), there may be varying degrees of manual conversion that you will be required to perform.
The Microsoft Journal for Developers
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/04/10/EndBracket/
This is perhaps why there may be a problem. Microsoft as usual did not implement specifications but decided to do things its own way:
Microsoft VM for Java
The Microsoft VM for Java provides a complete implementation of Sun's JVM specification. However, it provides extensions to the specifications that target Windows platforms. The VM extends the standard JVM to provide the capability to load component object model (COM) classes and expose COM interfaces of Java classes.
http://jdj.sys-con.com/read/36072.htm
It's not hard to find evidence that some applications have not been able to migrate:
Why the product is Free? What is the catch?
There is no catch. From the beginning of year 2004 Microsoft does not support its Java Virtual Machine (MSJVM) any longer. Since "ZBit Zip-Unzip Component lite" relies on MSJVM we feel that we can not charge money for product that requires a platform that is not being supported anymore. That is because honesty and integrity are fundamental principles of ZBit Inc. (see our mission statement). However, component still works fine on machines with MSJVM installed and many people find it very useful for basic zipping unzipping functionality on their web sites and in standalone applications. So, we decided not to discontinue the product but rather give it away for free.
http://www.zbitinc.com/faq.asp?p=2
I respect your experience in the field of moving computer users away from MSJVM. I'm quite sure that any problems with applications ceasing to work are very, very rare and very, very minor.
However, as with my encyclopedia, it's not inconceivable that somebody might experience a problem. It don't believe it's worth making a big deal of the issue. Everybody here is in agreement that MSJVM has to go, and that there's no reason to keep it, even if it means finding a work-around for old software, or even ditching it completely.
-
I support thousands of customers and end users and have no had a single remote incident related to doing this properly
For someone who has adopted such a highly qualified "Title" and has apparently such a broad range of responsiblity, It appears there`s a misplaced need to bash people over the head with solutions rather than suggest options. you would think he would have learned just a tad more about how to relate to people .I for one can see where Frank is coming from .
-
There happens to not be a difference between Franks and Mastertech's point of view.
Both agree that MSJVM has to go. :)
-
My point was that some applications may not work if MSJVM is removed, which has to be borne in mind when removing MSJVM
Again what applications? Do you have a list? I can only find IE 5.x. of which no one should be running for other security reasons. MSJVM is Java. Microsoft licensed it from Sun then tried to modify it, got sued for violating the licensing agreement and had to release a compliant version. Outside of Microsoft next to no one wrote applications for the botched version of MSJVM, they write them for Java which means it will work with Java. There is only one software developer of Java = Sun. This isn't complicated. The only reason IE 5.x breaks is because Microsoft coded it to only accept MSJVM not that it could not easily work with Sun's version as 6.x clearly can as should any browser with Java support.
I have simply made there may in fact be consequences to removing MSJVM. I was quite surprised at your reaction, considering that the Microsoft site says the same thing.
There are consequences to everything. But what are the factual consequences? How many Java related applications broke after SP2 or SP1a for that matter? Do you have a list, does anyone? How long has SP1a been out? Microsoft has to say everything "as if" to protect themselves legally.
Did you read the Zbit page? The program was a pay program and they dumped the dependant one for free. If you paid for it now the Zbit Full version works. The version they discontinued was the one dependant on MSJVM and thus gave it away for free. No one is effected by this. Not to mention who uses it to begin with?
For someone who has adopted such a highly qualified "Title" and has apparently such a broad range of responsiblity, It appears there`s a misplaced need to bash people over the head with solutions rather than suggest options. you would think he would have learned just a tad more about how to relate to people .I for one can see where Frank is coming from .
With MSJVM there is no "option" if you remotely care about security. My stance on this will not change unless convincing evidence is provided. This is more about proving me wrong then worrying about what a new reader may get out of this discussion. You start giving people the 0.00000000001% issues with everything and they will never do it out of fear it is really 50% or some other nonsense. This is extremely irresponsible, especially the way it is trying to be presented as "common".
Should a big deal be made the Freedom Force does not work with SP2? When it is the only game that does not? You would word it as "When you upgrade to SP2 Freedom Force and possible many other Games will not work" would but massively irresponsible. This is my point about MSJVM.
-
This discussion has gone on long enough. Anybody reading the thread can make up their own minds.
-
Which will be to uninstall MSJVM. ;)
-
That's about as obvious as saying somebody would get off a sinking ship into a waiting lifeboat. As MSJVM is no longer supported, changing to Sun has never been an issue. I meant that people can make up their minds about the other issues.
-
Which will be removing MSJVM and installing Sun's Java. ;)
-
No, mostly your arrogance.
-
Anything anybody does not understand they can ask and if I know I will answer. ;)
-
FreewheelinFrank,
No, mostly your arrogance.
That's a little un-called for IMHO.
If this subject is starting to bother you, why not just stop looking at it or stop responding to it?
-
See above Bob. I did. I even gave MasterTech the last word. But he couldn't resist coming back.
As for arrogance, look at Mastertech's postings. You won't see an IMHO there. Hot even a IMO. Simply this is right and that is wrong.
Why, and why we still have spam, and spyware, and adware etc. etc.?
Because no one uses my Security Guide?
Sorry, Bob.
But if that's not arrogant, I don't know what is.
-
Arrogance would be saying that My Security Guide is the only one that offers complete security advice for Windows XP. I didn't, what I said was that people still get viruses and spyware because they don't use My guide. Which implies that if people used My Security Guide we wouldn't have all these problems. That is not arrogance it is the truth. Spam is a much more complicated problem in terms of a true solution. But it does not necessarily relate to security. Most spam is non malicious advertising. An annoyance yes but not a security problem.
See Frank what I do is find solutions to problems and post them freely on the Internet for people to use. How is that Arrogance? It is not. Don't confuse confidence with Arrogance. They are two very different things.
-
Now you're being patronising. :-*
-
Yes you appear to take everything that way. ::)