Search options (Page 20 of 58)

Yeah, I got that, I was just saying that, while technically wrong, they aren't completely off, it's just a human input error

Anyway, I now replaced them with the values you provided to prevent further confusion of less savvy users.

Thanks for the heads-up anyhow!

Regardless of that unpleasant fact, some FTP programmes establish several simultaneous connections to a server, however, some servers will only allow a sole connection at a time (meaning you can either transfer a file or list the directory contents, not both).

What you can do is reconfigure your FTP porgramme to establish a single connection only or use good old Windows Explorer for the task (yes, it works).
Just type ftp://username:password@ftp.server.com replacing the letters with their appropriate substitues.
That usually does the trick (and although I am employing FileZilla on this machine, I'm using it myself from time to time for really minor FTP jobs).

Has been resolved now:
http://bugtracker.driverpacks.net/view.php?id=424

Hopefully makes it into the next official release

http://www.wpiw.net

As the saying goes, the one-eyed is king among the blind

Ok, thing is, Win PFW is not supposed to block outbound traffic at all so it does not fail in something it does not claim to do.
And, yes, I was assuming he was using the free version (I have yet to meet someone using the pro but that may just be me).
The free one really does score very low, more along the three worst if you look at the other graphs.
But that is not what matters.
Thing is, these are all well-known and -documented leaking methods. As the last site update was two years ago one can only hope the situation has improved but I wouldn't bet on it.
My point is/was that if there is at least one of these well-known methods that do get through, the whole idea of effectively filtering outbound traffic is nullified.
God knows how many less known or 0-day methods there may be so all a PFW can achive is blocking programmes that are honest about their desire to send to the net, and those ususally provide an option to turn that behaviour off (which is the better solution anyway).
And if you cannot trust the software you use to access the net, how can you trust that SW at all?
What other functionality may be there that you do not desire, yet haven't got to known yet?
Best to not use such software at all then (if you are concerned which you must be if you want to block it somehow).

Sure, my point here is that it's pointless.
Ok, A PFW is good to block inbound traffic (which Windows PFW does achieve) but not for anything else.
If you are using a router, you can do without a PFW, but, as it comes with no fees, you may just leave Win PFW up and running.
Getting an alternative (and maybe even paying for it) gives you a false sense of security and also costs you money for little in return.
So why do it?

Ok, it has been several years I have been using ZA (yes, I admit it, but that was also back then when I did not have a router and Windows did not provide a PFW ) so my memory may be wrong.
It was just a guess basically, plus, I am not so sure you cannot configure it to block referrers (or otherwise mess up the config).

Certainly shares my view of the matter

I mean, sure, you can use a PFW if you really like and have some resources to spend but don't get caught in the illusion you may be "save" now or "invulnerable" (really hate the new Norton ads for exactly that, making the user believe they could do anything now without having to use their brains).

So, if you manually adjust the link, does the DL work for you?

Probably ZoneAlarm blocking referrers.

Best bet is to trash can ZA completely (it has way too many security holes to be effective anyway) and to only rely on XP SP2's built-in PFW - that is enough to block hackers from gaining access to your system.
And ZA cannot effectively prevent programs from "phoning home" anyway (http://www.firewallleaktester.com/).

Not too comfortable, TBH.

Firstly, it's unneeded to upload them to another host because they already are hosted somewhere, else you could not have downloaded them in the first place.

Secondly, though this is somewhat minor, a direct link to the manufacturer's official site usually ensures it's virus-free (this argument is somewhat weakened by the fact that should an infection happen it would also be included in the 3rd party DriverPack if the user uploads it to our host) but more importantly, that it really is the official release driver and not some (dubious, sometimes) beta or even hacked version (of course, there may be cases when you need those).

And thirdly, using a proper host (which the manufacturer's link would be) means that you do not have to endure the waiting time and captchas of the OCHs (one click hoster).
That gets tiresome after a while, moreso with rather small files when getting to the link takes much longer than the actual download time...

But you can find that very driver (which ususally is the best to use for your device) on the Microsoft Update Catalogue (check the link on the lower left side of the WU site!).

If you fear spam bots or w/e, you do not have to give out your email address as it can be seen (by Mods/Admins only, I believe) in the personal info field on the very left of your post

Regular users can still drop you an email via the forum email function without being able to see it (it's kinda annonymous), so a bot couldn't grab it from there, either (hence no need to fear).

Just FYI.