From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0C36_01C2984D.6B1C0F60
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   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.

------=_NextPart_000_0C36_01C2984D.6B1C0F60
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   You can't
expect different =
languages=20
to compare.
 
   I don't
know in what file =
the message=20
to which you referred resides.  If the message is a simple
message=20 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=20
a graphics copy to post here.  Maybe I can identify the file with = that=20
message.
 
   You can
also try SFC =
/SCANNOW to check=20
if all the protected files match known versions.
 
Rich
 

  "Thees Peereboom" <theesp{at}barkto.com>">mailto:theesp{at}barkto.com">theesp{at}barkto.com>
wrote in =
message news:v8ehuucjsav=
8j3vgmlth3s56a9prc6rs6v{at}4ax.com...Rich,I=20
  have another machine running W2K, only that's a US version I =
bought,while=20
  on this machine W2K is an OEM Dutch version (came with theDell). =
Would it=20
  still be possible to compare files?What files should I look=20
  at?TIA,- Thees
PeereboomOn Fri, 29 Nov 2002 =
23:09:16=20
  -0800, "Rich" <{at}>
wrote:>   This sounds =
like=20
  something is corrupted.  Try comparing the files on this machine =
with=20
  another running the same version of=20
 
Windows.>>Rich>> 
"Thees Peereboom" =
<theesp{at}barkto.com>">mailto:theesp{at}barkto.com">theesp{at}barkto.com>
wrote in =
message news:7skbuu8i15b=
bj0vd4kg2soi480j9b0ghpo{at}4ax.com...> =20
  Rich,>>  On a completely
different note, I've got a =

  securityproblem which I>  seem unable to solve. I've =
posted about=20
  this before, but sofar no> 
luck.>>  =
This=20
  machine is part of an NT4 domain, users and groups are=20
  maintained>  on that domain. For some time now
whenever I =
try to=20
  change the>  securitysettings on this machine (other =
machines in=20
  the domain work>  fine) I get the following=20
  error:>>  (leftclick on file,
choose properties, go =
to the=20
  securitytab and>  choose
add)>>  =
'Cannot open=20
  the dialogue for userselection
(null)'>>  which =
leaves me=20
  unable to add or change any
rights.>>  I'd really=20
  appreciate at least a direction to search, since I have =
not>  been=20
  able even to find this error in the
docs.>> =20
  TIA,>>  - Thees =
Peereboom>>>  On=20
  Wed, 27 Nov 2002 18:37:40 -0800, "Rich" <{at}> =
wrote:>> =20
  >   I don't see any backing down. 
Microsoft does =
make=20
  choices that affect backward compatibility but all such choices are=20
  scrutinized.  If the compat problems are due to app bugs work =
arounds,=20
  often specific to one app, are implemented.  Quite a bit of =
effort is=20
  made to keep existing apps from third parties working.  Sometimes =
changes=20
  are made in documented or default behavior, and don't believe that =
simply=20
  changing system defaults doesn't have compat problems.  These are =

  documented and often configurable by admins or users depending on the =
scope of=20
  the setting.  I suspect there are more settings changes that API =
behavior=20
  changes.  John O encountered one in Windows XP Home =
Edition.  By=20
  default network access is authenticated as the guest account to limit =
the=20
  ability of someone to attack a system remotely and do dammage.  =
It allows=20
  a local user to have no password and not open the system to attack =
using that=20
  user's account.  How did this bite John?  He disabled the =
guest=20
  account.>  >This is a fine example of
breaking existing =

  behavior to gain greater security.> 
>> =20
  >Rich> 
>>  >  "Geo."
<georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote in =
message news:3de56764$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
> =20
  >  "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:3de42e03{at}w3.nls.net...>=
 =20
  >   >>  It's more =
complicated.<<> =20
  >>  >  I don't doubt it,
I just find it funny =
that=20
  right after Craig Mundie made> 
>  his "break the =
apps for=20
  security" statements along comes a security
issue>  =
>  and=20
  he's forced to back down from the hardline stance.> =20
  >>  >  FWIW, I don't
think it's microsoft's =
place to=20
  force patches on people as Mr> 
>  Mundie seems to =
think,=20
  there are other much better ways for MS to make NT a>  =
> =20
  whole lot more secure. Really simple things like random directory=20
  names>  >  (instead of \winnt use =
\winnt+installdate) and=20
  stuff that won't break apps> 
>  but will break =
90% of the=20
  hacks.>  >> 
>  Look at how many =
hacks have=20
  been foiled by the IE temp files directory> 
>  =
names.=20
  Such a simple thing to do and it blocked countless exploits =
that> =20
  >  never became a reality because the files couldn't be =
located=20
  easily.>  >> 
> =20
Geo.

------=_NextPart_000_0C36_01C2984D.6B1C0F60--

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