Why is Win Explorer accessing the Net?

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Vance Roos, Dec 16, 2003.

  1. Vance Roos

    Vance Roos Guest

    I run Win XP Pro and I recently got a message from my Sygate Pro 5.0
    firewall which said:

    ==== START QUOTE ====
    "Windows Explorer is trying to broadcast an ICMP Type 10 (Router
    Solicitation) packet to [224.0.0.2]. Do you want to allow this
    program access to the network?"
    ==== END QUOTE ====

    When I look it up it seems that 224.0.0.2 is for something called
    "Local Network Control Block" (See
    http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3171.html)

    My QUESTION to the newsgroup is should I allow Windows Explorer
    access to the Net in order for it to go to that IP address?

    --------

    These are my own thoughts:

    (a) On one hand, I can not see why a simple file manager like Windows
    Explorer would need to access the Net.

    (b) On the other hand, Windows Explorer is deeply embedded in Win XP
    and may need to perform all sorts of function on behamf of XP.

    I have had some problems in being over-hasty in blocking
    comunications from XP to the Net (for example blocking NTOSKRNL.EXE,
    NDISUIO.SYS and SVCHOST.EXE).

    --------

    Can someone who understands what is taking place please advise me if
    I should allow to permit permanent access for Windows Explorer to the
    Net?
     
    Vance Roos, Dec 16, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <9453581ED5DCD471AE@130.133.1.4>, says...
    > I run Win XP Pro and I recently got a message from my Sygate Pro 5.0
    > firewall which said:
    >
    > ==== START QUOTE ====
    > "Windows Explorer is trying to broadcast an ICMP Type 10 (Router
    > Solicitation) packet to [224.0.0.2]. Do you want to allow this
    > program access to the network?"
    > ==== END QUOTE ====
    >
    > When I look it up it seems that 224.0.0.2 is for something called
    > "Local Network Control Block" (See
    > http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3171.html)
    >
    > My QUESTION to the newsgroup is should I allow Windows Explorer
    > access to the Net in order for it to go to that IP address?
    >
    > --------
    >
    > These are my own thoughts:
    >
    > (a) On one hand, I can not see why a simple file manager like Windows
    > Explorer would need to access the Net.
    >
    > (b) On the other hand, Windows Explorer is deeply embedded in Win XP
    > and may need to perform all sorts of function on behamf of XP.
    >
    > I have had some problems in being over-hasty in blocking
    > comunications from XP to the Net (for example blocking NTOSKRNL.EXE,
    > NDISUIO.SYS and SVCHOST.EXE).
    >
    > --------
    >
    > Can someone who understands what is taking place please advise me if
    > I should allow to permit permanent access for Windows Explorer to the
    > Net?
    >




    It's not accessing the "net", it's attempting to access the local area
    network.... probably looking for other hosts, etc. for DNS purposes or
    Microshaft's silly fucking "Master Browser" BS.


    --
    Colonel Flagg
    http://www.internetwarzone.org/

    Privacy at a click:
    http://www.cotse.net

    Q: How many Bill Gates does it take to change a lightbulb?
    A: None, he just defines Darkness? as the new industry standard..."

    "...I see stupid people."
     
    Colonel Flagg, Dec 16, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Vance Roos wrote:
    >
    > I run Win XP Pro and I recently got a message from my Sygate Pro 5.0
    > firewall which said:
    >
    > ==== START QUOTE ====
    > "Windows Explorer is trying to broadcast an ICMP Type 10 (Router
    > Solicitation) packet to [224.0.0.2]. Do you want to allow this
    > program access to the network?"
    > ==== END QUOTE ====
    >
    > When I look it up it seems that 224.0.0.2 is for something called
    > "Local Network Control Block" (See
    > http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3171.html)
    >
    > My QUESTION to the newsgroup is should I allow Windows Explorer
    > access to the Net in order for it to go to that IP address?


    That seems to be an attempt to discover a router in your LAN. Since your
    internal LAN traffic has no business in the Internet, I'd order the FW
    to silently discard those packets, no matter what application is sending
    them.

    -- Lassi
     
    Lassi =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hippel=E4inen?=, Dec 16, 2003
    #3
  4. On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 08:39:45 GMT, Vance Roos spoketh

    >I run Win XP Pro and I recently got a message from my Sygate Pro 5.0
    >firewall which said:
    >
    >==== START QUOTE ====
    >"Windows Explorer is trying to broadcast an ICMP Type 10 (Router
    >Solicitation) packet to [224.0.0.2]. Do you want to allow this
    >program access to the network?"
    >==== END QUOTE ====
    >


    Simply disable the IRDP in the registry. The value name is
    "HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters\[InterfaceName]\PerformRouterDiscovery".
    Set the value to 0 (zero), and it'll stop.

    Lars M. Hansen
    http://www.hansenonline.net
    (replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
     
    Lars M. Hansen, Dec 16, 2003
    #4
  5. On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:09:34 -0500, Colonel Flagg spoketh

    >
    >It's not accessing the "net", it's attempting to access the local area
    >network.... probably looking for other hosts, etc. for DNS purposes or
    >Microshaft's silly fucking "Master Browser" BS.


    Not even close ...


    Lars M. Hansen
    http://www.hansenonline.net
    (replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
     
    Lars M. Hansen, Dec 16, 2003
    #5
  6. Vance Roos

    NeoSadist Guest

    Colonel Flagg wrote:

    > In article <9453581ED5DCD471AE@130.133.1.4>, says...
    >> I run Win XP Pro and I recently got a message from my Sygate Pro 5.0
    >> firewall which said:
    >>
    >> ==== START QUOTE ====
    >> "Windows Explorer is trying to broadcast an ICMP Type 10 (Router
    >> Solicitation) packet to [224.0.0.2]. Do you want to allow this
    >> program access to the network?"
    >> ==== END QUOTE ====
    >>
    >> When I look it up it seems that 224.0.0.2 is for something called
    >> "Local Network Control Block" (See
    >> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3171.html)
    >>
    >> My QUESTION to the newsgroup is should I allow Windows Explorer
    >> access to the Net in order for it to go to that IP address?
    >>
    >> --------
    >>
    >> These are my own thoughts:
    >>
    >> (a) On one hand, I can not see why a simple file manager like Windows
    >> Explorer would need to access the Net.
    >>
    >> (b) On the other hand, Windows Explorer is deeply embedded in Win XP
    >> and may need to perform all sorts of function on behamf of XP.
    >>
    >> I have had some problems in being over-hasty in blocking
    >> comunications from XP to the Net (for example blocking NTOSKRNL.EXE,
    >> NDISUIO.SYS and SVCHOST.EXE).
    >>
    >> --------
    >>
    >> Can someone who understands what is taking place please advise me if
    >> I should allow to permit permanent access for Windows Explorer to the
    >> Net?
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    > It's not accessing the "net", it's attempting to access the local area
    > network.... probably looking for other hosts, etc. for DNS purposes or
    > Microshaft's silly fucking "Master Browser" BS.
    >
    >


    No, Master browser broadcasting isn't ICMP, it's a broadcast over Netbios I
    believe (hold on, let me start up ethereal) Ok, here's what it looks like:

    First, the computer coming up will ask the router, over ARP, who has the IP
    it was given by DHCP, and if it's not taken, it will register it by
    broadcasting NetBios Name Service (port 137) over its subnet's broadcast IP
    (which is why windows computers are described as "leaky", or "not fit to
    use anywhere without a firewall"). It will then also register its
    workgroup if it doesn't detect that its workgroup is up, again over netbios
    name service (port 137). From there it will then use the master browser
    stuff, broadcasting over the LAN at its subnet broadcast level that it is
    (win2k pro) an nt workstation and that it is serving a printer. Master
    browser announcements are UDP packets over port 138 using TCP/IP, NOT ICMP.
    But that's ok, you don't have a linux machine connected to your LAN running
    ethereal like I do. Do that some time with a spare computer: you'd be
    surprised at how "noisy" windows machines can be.

    --
    It is now 10 p.m. Do you know where Henry Kissinger is?
    -- Elizabeth Carpenter
     
    NeoSadist, Dec 16, 2003
    #6
  7. In article <>,
    says...
    > On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:09:34 -0500, Colonel Flagg spoketh
    >
    > >
    > >It's not accessing the "net", it's attempting to access the local area
    > >network.... probably looking for other hosts, etc. for DNS purposes or
    > >Microshaft's silly fucking "Master Browser" BS.

    >
    > Not even close ...
    >
    >
    > Lars M. Hansen
    > http://www.hansenonline.net
    > (replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
    >


    just a guess. course that's how MS Programmers do their jobs.




    --
    Colonel Flagg
    http://www.internetwarzone.org/

    Privacy at a click:
    http://www.cotse.net

    Q: How many Bill Gates does it take to change a lightbulb?
    A: None, he just defines Darkness? as the new industry standard..."

    "...I see stupid people."
     
    Colonel Flagg, Dec 17, 2003
    #7
  8. In article <>,
    says...
    > Colonel Flagg wrote:
    >
    > > In article <9453581ED5DCD471AE@130.133.1.4>, says...
    > >> I run Win XP Pro and I recently got a message from my Sygate Pro 5.0
    > >> firewall which said:
    > >>
    > >> ==== START QUOTE ====
    > >> "Windows Explorer is trying to broadcast an ICMP Type 10 (Router
    > >> Solicitation) packet to [224.0.0.2]. Do you want to allow this
    > >> program access to the network?"
    > >> ==== END QUOTE ====
    > >>
    > >> When I look it up it seems that 224.0.0.2 is for something called
    > >> "Local Network Control Block" (See
    > >> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3171.html)
    > >>
    > >> My QUESTION to the newsgroup is should I allow Windows Explorer
    > >> access to the Net in order for it to go to that IP address?
    > >>
    > >> --------
    > >>
    > >> These are my own thoughts:
    > >>
    > >> (a) On one hand, I can not see why a simple file manager like Windows
    > >> Explorer would need to access the Net.
    > >>
    > >> (b) On the other hand, Windows Explorer is deeply embedded in Win XP
    > >> and may need to perform all sorts of function on behamf of XP.
    > >>
    > >> I have had some problems in being over-hasty in blocking
    > >> comunications from XP to the Net (for example blocking NTOSKRNL.EXE,
    > >> NDISUIO.SYS and SVCHOST.EXE).
    > >>
    > >> --------
    > >>
    > >> Can someone who understands what is taking place please advise me if
    > >> I should allow to permit permanent access for Windows Explorer to the
    > >> Net?
    > >>

    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > It's not accessing the "net", it's attempting to access the local area
    > > network.... probably looking for other hosts, etc. for DNS purposes or
    > > Microshaft's silly fucking "Master Browser" BS.
    > >
    > >

    >
    > No, Master browser broadcasting isn't ICMP, it's a broadcast over Netbios I
    > believe (hold on, let me start up ethereal) Ok, here's what it looks like:
    >
    > First, the computer coming up will ask the router, over ARP, who has the IP
    > it was given by DHCP, and if it's not taken, it will register it by
    > broadcasting NetBios Name Service (port 137) over its subnet's broadcast IP
    > (which is why windows computers are described as "leaky", or "not fit to
    > use anywhere without a firewall"). It will then also register its
    > workgroup if it doesn't detect that its workgroup is up, again over netbios
    > name service (port 137). From there it will then use the master browser
    > stuff, broadcasting over the LAN at its subnet broadcast level that it is
    > (win2k pro) an nt workstation and that it is serving a printer. Master
    > browser announcements are UDP packets over port 138 using TCP/IP, NOT ICMP.
    > But that's ok, you don't have a linux machine connected to your LAN running
    > ethereal like I do. Do that some time with a spare computer: you'd be
    > surprised at how "noisy" windows machines can be.
    >
    >



    actually, all but two of my machines are linux, the other two would be a
    freebsd box and a winxp box, behind yet another firewall....

    actually, i could care less what windows does... all of my clients are
    moving to linux anyway. :)



    --
    Colonel Flagg
    http://www.internetwarzone.org/

    Privacy at a click:
    http://www.cotse.net

    Q: How many Bill Gates does it take to change a lightbulb?
    A: None, he just defines Darkness? as the new industry standard..."

    "...I see stupid people."
     
    Colonel Flagg, Dec 17, 2003
    #8
  9. On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:10:56 -0500, Colonel Flagg spoketh

    >In article <>,
    > says...
    >> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:09:34 -0500, Colonel Flagg spoketh
    >>
    >> >
    >> >It's not accessing the "net", it's attempting to access the local area
    >> >network.... probably looking for other hosts, etc. for DNS purposes or
    >> >Microshaft's silly fucking "Master Browser" BS.

    >>
    >> Not even close ...
    >>
    >>
    >> Lars M. Hansen
    >> http://www.hansenonline.net
    >> (replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
    >>

    >
    >just a guess. course that's how MS Programmers do their jobs.


    And you know this how?


    Lars M. Hansen
    http://www.hansenonline.net
    (replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
     
    Lars M. Hansen, Dec 17, 2003
    #9
  10. In article <>,
    says...

    > >just a guess. course that's how MS Programmers do their jobs.

    >
    > And you know this how?
    >
    >
    > Lars M. Hansen
    > http://www.hansenonline.net
    > (replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
    >



    the *quality* or rather *lack thereof* of their products.



    --
    Colonel Flagg
    http://www.internetwarzone.org/

    Privacy at a click:
    http://www.cotse.net

    Q: How many Bill Gates does it take to change a lightbulb?
    A: None, he just defines Darkness? as the new industry standard..."

    "...I see stupid people."
     
    Colonel Flagg, Dec 17, 2003
    #10
  11. On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:38:38 -0500, Colonel Flagg spoketh

    >In article <>,
    > says...
    >
    >> >just a guess. course that's how MS Programmers do their jobs.

    >>
    >> And you know this how?
    >>
    >>
    >> Lars M. Hansen
    >> http://www.hansenonline.net
    >> (replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
    >>

    >
    >
    >the *quality* or rather *lack thereof* of their products.


    So, basically, you're just guessing too ...


    Lars M. Hansen
    http://www.hansenonline.net
    (replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
     
    Lars M. Hansen, Dec 17, 2003
    #11
  12. "Colonel Flagg" <> wrote in
    message news:...
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    >
    > > >just a guess. course that's how MS Programmers do their jobs.

    > >
    > > And you know this how?


    > the *quality* or rather *lack thereof* of their products.


    Hmm. Personally, I'd call that a severe lack of testing.

    I've seen far worse stuff marked as "Gold" when seconded to the QA lab of a
    company that I used to work for (smaller than MS, but with an annual
    turnover a few billion more than my current employer).

    The best one, by far, was a NetWare agent that didn't even attempt to do
    what it should, but simply rendered the box unbootable. That was an
    interesting one to fix, given that it was only the second time I'd sat in
    front of a NetWare box.. Even "better" was an official shipping CD that had
    apparently passed QA, but immediately aborted InstallShield when run on
    *any* standard box. That was a particularly "interesting" customer site
    visit, needless to say..

    A lot of these cock-ups come from invalid assumptions made at an interface
    level (I'm generalising, here - I have no better idea of the programmers'
    skills than anyone else here).

    Although I would like to see a little less in the "buffer overflow"
    department!

    --

    Hairy One Kenobi

    Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this opinion do not necessarily
    reflect the opinions of the highly-opinionated person expressing the opinion
    in the first place. So there!
     
    Hairy One Kenobi, Dec 18, 2003
    #12
  13. In article <>,
    says...
    > On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:38:38 -0500, Colonel Flagg spoketh
    >
    > >In article <>,
    > > says...
    > >
    > >> >just a guess. course that's how MS Programmers do their jobs.
    > >>
    > >> And you know this how?
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Lars M. Hansen
    > >> http://www.hansenonline.net
    > >> (replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
    > >>

    > >
    > >
    > >the *quality* or rather *lack thereof* of their products.

    >
    > So, basically, you're just guessing too ...
    >



    no, actually, it's from years of experience using their so-called
    "products" and supporting end-users with all of their complaints about
    how windows is a piece of shit.

    that's why I eventually switched to linux & freebsd for all of my server
    needs and only use one xp workstation for 3 reasons that has nothing to
    do with Microsoft... 1) Eudora, 2) Photoshop, 3) Flash creation

    and all of my clients are either showing a lot of interest in migrating
    to linux for their file servers or they're in the process of moving.
    considering i take care of the majority of law offices in my town and
    around 30-40 other clients in the area... i think i'll make a little-
    tiny-dent in the money-machine that *was* microsoft. if ever person that
    feels the way i do, makes the same contribution to the anti-microsoft
    game, we'll eventually win :)

    thanks for asking tho.



    --
    Colonel Flagg
    http://www.internetwarzone.org/

    Privacy at a click:
    http://www.cotse.net

    Q: How many Bill Gates does it take to change a lightbulb?
    A: None, he just defines Darkness? as the new industry standard..."

    "...I see stupid people."
     
    Colonel Flagg, Dec 18, 2003
    #13
  14. On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:05:39 -0500, Colonel Flagg spoketh


    >
    >no, actually, it's from years of experience using their so-called
    >"products" and supporting end-users with all of their complaints about
    >how windows is a piece of shit.
    >
    >that's why I eventually switched to linux & freebsd for all of my server
    >needs and only use one xp workstation for 3 reasons that has nothing to
    >do with Microsoft... 1) Eudora, 2) Photoshop, 3) Flash creation
    >
    >and all of my clients are either showing a lot of interest in migrating
    >to linux for their file servers or they're in the process of moving.
    >considering i take care of the majority of law offices in my town and
    >around 30-40 other clients in the area... i think i'll make a little-
    >tiny-dent in the money-machine that *was* microsoft. if ever person that
    >feels the way i do, makes the same contribution to the anti-microsoft
    >game, we'll eventually win :)
    >
    >thanks for asking tho.


    Interesting, because from years of experience, I've had little trouble
    with any Microsoft product, and a large portion of the troubles I've had
    have been human error (either by the operator or the installer).

    Lars M. Hansen
    http://www.hansenonline.net
    (replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
     
    Lars M. Hansen, Dec 18, 2003
    #14
  15. Vance Roos

    Joe Dunning Guest

    On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:14:26 GMT, Lars M. Hansen
    <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 08:39:45 GMT, Vance Roos spoketh
    >
    >>I run Win XP Pro and I recently got a message from my Sygate Pro 5.0
    >>firewall which said:
    >>
    >>==== START QUOTE ====
    >>"Windows Explorer is trying to broadcast an ICMP Type 10 (Router
    >>Solicitation) packet to [224.0.0.2]. Do you want to allow this
    >>program access to the network?"
    >>==== END QUOTE ====
    >>

    >
    >Simply disable the IRDP in the registry. The value name is
    >"HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters\[InterfaceName]\PerformRouterDiscovery".
    >Set the value to 0 (zero), and it'll stop.


    And people say that configuring *nix machines requires you to remember
    obscure locations to make changes?


    >
    >Lars M. Hansen
    >http://www.hansenonline.net
    >(replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
     
    Joe Dunning, Dec 18, 2003
    #15
  16. Vance Roos

    David Guest

    Windows explorer is much more than a simple file manager. It is the user
    shell when you log into windows. It can be difficult to decide which
    core windows programs to allow to access the internet especially since
    the application controls of the different personal firewalls all work a
    little differently. Other firewalls for example may not indicate such
    activity if they are using a different scheme to control ICMP traffic or
    can "monitor" activity at the dll level. I would tend to use protocol
    and port filtering for such diverse applications as explorer.exe and
    svchost.exe since they perform multiple functions. I'm not familiar with
    Sygate, but you should check to see what other filtering is available.
    For example, explorer in regards to being a shell can oversee file
    transfers via netbios over tcp/ip, ftp, and has some responsibility as
    seen in your case in regards to ICMP traffic. If you are not in a LAN
    where you need to browse the resources of other LAN machines,if you do
    not do ftp transfers via the explorer shell, and if you have a DHCP
    assigned internet gateway address and no internal routers using routing
    protocols, then you could probably block explorer access in Sygate
    without adverse affects. Personally I would probably hack the registry
    as Lars has pointed out, and leave the Sygate settings for explorer in a
    state of flux so that other activity would generate an alert. This way
    you would be dealing with the specific alerts you received, and will not
    block explorer from doing something else you may want it to do or allow
    it to do things you may not want. The next thing it tries will generate
    an alert which will either be for valid traffic or perhaps give you a
    hint that something malicious has made its way onto your machine.


    >
    > My QUESTION to the newsgroup is should I allow Windows Explorer
    > access to the Net in order for it to go to that IP address?
    >
    > --------
    >
    > These are my own thoughts:
    >
    > (a) On one hand, I can not see why a simple file manager like Windows
    > Explorer would need to access the Net.
    >
    > (b) On the other hand, Windows Explorer is deeply embedded in Win XP
    > and may need to perform all sorts of function on behamf of XP.
    >
    > I have had some problems in being over-hasty in blocking
    > comunications from XP to the Net (for example blocking NTOSKRNL.EXE,
    > NDISUIO.SYS and SVCHOST.EXE).
    >
    > --------
    >
    > Can someone who understands what is taking place please advise me if
    > I should allow to permit permanent access for Windows Explorer to the
    > Net?
     
    David, Dec 18, 2003
    #16
  17. "Joe Dunning" <> wrote in message
    news:BN9Eb.417631$275.1297774@attbi_s53...
    > On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:14:26 GMT, Lars M. Hansen
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 08:39:45 GMT, Vance Roos spoketh
    > >
    > >>I run Win XP Pro and I recently got a message from my Sygate Pro 5.0
    > >>firewall which said:
    > >>
    > >>==== START QUOTE ====
    > >>"Windows Explorer is trying to broadcast an ICMP Type 10 (Router
    > >>Solicitation) packet to [224.0.0.2]. Do you want to allow this
    > >>program access to the network?"
    > >>==== END QUOTE ====
    > >>

    > >
    > >Simply disable the IRDP in the registry. The value name is

    >
    >"HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters\[InterfaceName]\Pe

    rformRouterDiscovery".
    > >Set the value to 0 (zero), and it'll stop.

    >
    > And people say that configuring *nix machines requires you to remember
    > obscure locations to make changes?


    The registry is easy enough to locate.. you just need to know what you're
    doing when you get there ;o)

    If anything, it might be /too/ easy to get at - take a trawl through all the
    posts [on other froups] about "I changed all of these settings using obscure
    utility abc, didn't take a backup, and now xyz doesn't work"..

    H1K
     
    Hairy One Kenobi, Dec 18, 2003
    #17
  18. A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, Lars M. Hansen
    <> wrote:

    > Interesting, because from years of experience, I've had little trouble
    > with any Microsoft product, and a large portion of the troubles I've had
    > have been human error (either by the operator or the installer).


    Lars, are you getting paid to defend M$?
     
    --= Ö§âmâ ßíñ Këñ0ßí =--, Dec 23, 2003
    #18
  19. Vance Roos

    Adam Russell Guest

    "--= Ö§âmâ ßíñ Këñ0ßí =--" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, Lars M. Hansen
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > Interesting, because from years of experience, I've had little trouble
    > > with any Microsoft product, and a large portion of the troubles I've had
    > > have been human error (either by the operator or the installer).

    >
    > Lars, are you getting paid to defend M$?


    A person does not have to be biased to want to tell the truth as he sees it.
    Might you be projecting some flaw in yourself?
     
    Adam Russell, Dec 23, 2003
    #19
  20. On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:59:39 GMT, --= Ö§âmâ ßíñ Këñ0ßí =-- spoketh

    >A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, Lars M. Hansen
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> Interesting, because from years of experience, I've had little trouble
    >> with any Microsoft product, and a large portion of the troubles I've had
    >> have been human error (either by the operator or the installer).

    >
    >Lars, are you getting paid to defend M$?


    no.

    Lars M. Hansen
    http://www.hansenonline.net
    (replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
     
    Lars M. Hansen, Dec 23, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,309
  2. You HAVE NO IDEA

    Why Why Why

    You HAVE NO IDEA, Apr 22, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    1,535
    billyw
    Apr 24, 2004
  3. awfullynice

    Win 98Se - Find Files in Win Explorer

    awfullynice, Dec 9, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    540
    awfullynice
    Dec 9, 2004
  4. pcbutts1

    Re: Explorer.exe Crashes when accessing Network

    pcbutts1, Jul 17, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    432
    pcbutts1
    Jul 17, 2005
  5. Velvet Whore

    Why? why? why?

    Velvet Whore, Nov 18, 2005, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    418
    Fakename
    Nov 20, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page