From: Thees Peereboom 

Rich,

Sorry about that - don't know what went wrong. I'll take a look at the
SFC-output. Thanks for looking into this sofar.

- Thees Peereboom

On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 17:48:25 -0800, "Rich"  wrote:

>   Only one in five is posted.  It doesn't matter.  I don't have a way to
search for Dutch messages.
>
>   The log for SFC is in the system or application event logs.  I don't
remember which of these two.
>
>Rich
>
>  "Thees Peereboom"  wrote in message
news:o22iuuknp69s5f168svg9v0h4kih4b115h{at}4ax.com...
>  Rich,
>
>  See attached BMP - sorry for it being Dutch, but the errormsg is as I
>  translated earlier. Next to the errorbox you see the properties I
>  opened at the security ('beveiliging') tab. For this case I just
>  opened a shortcut, but this happens at every file I open the security
>  tab of.
>
>  I ran SFC /SCANNOW, it asked for the original W2K CD many times, but
>  ended without any report or log - is it stored somewhere?
>
>  Thanks for taking the time to look into this.
>
>  - Thees Peereboom
>
>  On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 08:49:39 -0800, "Rich"  wrote:
>
>  >   You can't expect different languages to compare.
>  >
>  >   I don't know in what file the message to which you referred resides.  If
the message is a simple message box you can copy it by pressing Ctrl+C when
the message box has the focus.  Reply here with the text.  If it is a
dialog you need to make a graphics copy to post here.  Maybe I can identify
the file with that message.
>  >
>  >   You can also try SFC /SCANNOW to check if all the protected files match
known versions.
>  >
>  >Rich
>  >
>  >  "Thees Peereboom"  wrote in message
news:v8ehuucjsav8j3vgmlth3s56a9prc6rs6v{at}4ax.com...
>  >  Rich,
>  >
>  >  I have another machine running W2K, only that's a US version I bought,
>  >  while on this machine W2K is an OEM Dutch version (came with the
>  >  Dell). Would it still be possible to compare files?
>  >
>  >  What files should I look at?
>  >
>  >  TIA,
>  >
>  >  - Thees Peereboom
>  >
>  >  On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 23:09:16 -0800, "Rich"  wrote:
>  >
>  >  >   This sounds like something is corrupted.  Try comparing
the files on
this machine with another running the same version of Windows.
>  >  >
>  >  >Rich
>  >  >
>  >  >  "Thees Peereboom" 
wrote in message
news:7skbuu8i15bbj0vd4kg2soi480j9b0ghpo{at}4ax.com...
>  >  >  Rich,
>  >  >
>  >  >  On a completely different note, I've got a securityproblem which I
>  >  >  seem unable to solve. I've posted about this before, but sofar no
>  >  >  luck.
>  >  >
>  >  >  This machine is part of an NT4 domain, users and groups
are maintained
>  >  >  on that domain. For some time now whenever I try to change the
>  >  >  securitysettings on this machine (other machines in the domain work
>  >  >  fine) I get the following error:
>  >  >
>  >  >  (leftclick on file, choose properties, go to the securitytab and
>  >  >  choose add)
>  >  >
>  >  >  'Cannot open the dialogue for userselection (null)'
>  >  >
>  >  >  which leaves me unable to add or change any rights.
>  >  >
>  >  >  I'd really appreciate at least a direction to search,
since I have not
>  >  >  been able even to find this error in the docs.
>  >  >
>  >  >  TIA,
>  >  >
>  >  >  - Thees Peereboom
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >  On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 18:37:40 -0800, "Rich"
 wrote:
>  >  >
>  >  >  >   I don't see any backing down.  Microsoft does make
choices that
affect backward compatibility but all such choices are scrutinized.  If the
compat problems are due to app bugs work arounds, often specific to one
app, are implemented.  Quite a bit of effort is made to keep existing apps
from third parties working.  Sometimes changes are made in documented or
default behavior, and don't believe that simply changing system defaults
doesn't have compat problems.  These are documented and often configurable
by admins or users depending on the scope of the setting.  I suspect there
are more settings changes that API behavior changes.  John O encountered
one in Windows XP Home Edition.  By default network access is authenticated
as the guest account to limit the ability of someone to attack a system
remotely and do dammage.  It allows a local user to have no password and
not open the system to attack using that user's account.  How did this bite
John?  He disabled the guest
>  >account.
>  >  >  >This is a fine example of breaking existing behavior
to gain greater
security.
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  >Rich
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  "Geo."  wrote in message
news:3de56764$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>  >  >  >  "Rich"  wrote in message
news:3de42e03{at}w3.nls.net...
>  >  >  >   >>  It's more complicated.<<
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  I don't doubt it, I just find it funny that right after Craig
Mundie made
>  >  >  >  his "break the apps for security"
statements along comes a security
issue
>  >  >  >  and he's forced to back down from the hardline stance.
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  FWIW, I don't think it's microsoft's place to force
patches on
people as Mr
>  >  >  >  Mundie seems to think, there are other much better
ways for MS to
make NT a
>  >  >  >  whole lot more secure. Really simple things like
random directory
names
>  >  >  >  (instead of \winnt use \winnt+installdate) and
stuff that won't
break apps
>  >  >  >  but will break 90% of the hacks.
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  Look at how many hacks have been foiled by the IE temp files
directory
>  >  >  >  names. Such a simple thing to do and it blocked
countless exploits
that
>  >  >  >  never became a reality because the files couldn't be located
easily.
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  Geo.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4