System files infected
in [Viruses]
|
Prev: System Files Infected
Next: AVAST?
From: The Learner on 27 Mar 2010 13:25 Sorry if this is posted twice. The first time, I crossposted and it didn't show up on my PC. This is the second time and I'm posting it to just one group at a time. While uninstalling Comodo (an app from Cnet) , my system stalled. Had to shut down using the On/Off button. After trying to reboot, I found I was infected and my system tried to fix the problems - but couldn't. I use ERUNT and have a Raid 1 backup system. I was able to get into a prompt mode and used ERUNT to get my system going. I used my backup to restore everything back to a time when I didn't have Comodo installed. The system booted. Then, I used Avira Free Version but it found five unsigned system files. I tried System File Recovery - but I have an HP Pavilion laptop which does not have an original Vista disk. It only has a partition which is supposed to restore the system back to it's store bought condition. I don't want to do this and believe if I had the I386 folder, I could used System File Checker to replace these unsigned files. NOTE: I also ran my backup on the partition that is used for Restore (and it found files that (I don't think) should have been there. In any case, the backup corrected that partition since I only ran two backups of it since I've owned the laptop. Bottom line: I need a way to fix those five unsigned system files. Please help.......
From: David Kaye on 29 Mar 2010 08:09 "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote: >That's wrong. People should indeed Cross-Post. I don't agree. Different newsgroups are for different purposes, which is why there are different ones to begin with. Post ONLY on the newsgroup which is closest to the purpose of the post. I am a longtime Usenet participant. >everyone gets the benefit of the discussion. It also reduces the load on a > news server. Load? Text messages barely produce any load; it's the huge binaries files that load down Usenet servers. >Few news groups are moderated and if you were to post to one then it it > unlikley that you >would be Cross-Posting to non-moderated groups. Obviously the original poster had included a moderated group in his crossposts, which explains why his original post didn't get posted right away. Otherwise Usenet is nearly instantaneous. My post here on news.eternal-september.org will show up within an instant or two on Google Groups, Microsoft's forums, Giganews, and on my friend's Usenet server. So, if there was significant lag in seeing the post it was because one of the crossposts was a moderated newsgroup.
From: Beauregard T. Shagnasty on 29 Mar 2010 07:58 David Kaye wrote: > "David H. Lipman" wrote: >> That's wrong. People should indeed Cross-Post. > > I don't agree. Different newsgroups are for different purposes, > which is why there are different ones to begin with. Post ONLY on > the newsgroup which is closest to the purpose of the post. I am a > longtime Usenet participant. > >> everyone gets the benefit of the discussion. It also reduces the >> load on a news server. > > Load? Text messages barely produce any load; it's the huge binaries > files that load down Usenet servers. > >> Few news groups are moderated and if you were to post to one then it >> it unlikley that you would be Cross-Posting to non-moderated groups. > > Obviously the original poster had included a moderated group in his > crossposts, which explains why his original post didn't get posted > right away. ... But they were posted right away. The OP just didn't see them for some reason only he could tell about. Maybe he has cross-posted articles filtered. > So, if there was significant lag in seeing the post it was because > one of the crossposts was a moderated newsgroup. The OP's first round, he cross-posted. The second round he *multi-posted* a half-hour later to both alt.comp.virus and alt.comp.anti-virus -- neither of which are moderated. He then replied to his own multiple multi-posts with a file listing. In this case, cross-posting would definitely be desired. -- -bts -Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
From: Virus Guy on 29 Mar 2010 09:00 "David H. Lipman" wrote: > | My feeling is that people should NOT crosspost at all. > That's wrong. People should indeed Cross-Post. You get more people > to read it and everyone gets the benefit of the discussion. It also > reduces the load on a news server. Crossposting is indeed the logical and efficient way to conduct a conversation who's subject matter spans across the interests of several newsgroups.
From: Virus Guy on 29 Mar 2010 09:25
David Kaye wrote: > > That's wrong. People should indeed Cross-Post. > > I don't agree. Different newsgroups are for different purposes, There are thousands of newsgroups, and there is considerable overlap in many of the computer and technology-related groups, especially when a particular subject touchs or involves combinations of different technology or product areas. > which is why there are different ones to begin with. If I have a question on how Windows XP handles a particular type of SCSI hard drive, do I post my question in a Windows XP group, or a Hard-drive or storage-related group? If I want to know how different furnaces compare with each other, should I post my question to misc.consumers.house, alt.home.repair, or alt.hvac? > Post ONLY on the newsgroup which is closest to the purpose of the > post. A typical use-case situation is one where an issue or question will arise and the poster will consult a list of usenet group names, perhaps searching the list for a keyword to see which groups contain that word. I might search for "home", "house", "repair", "hvac", "furnace", etc. When I've compiled a list of likely groups that *seem* to match the focus of my intended post, I will simply cross-post my question to all of them (I might check to see if any of them are dormant - ie no posts for weeks or months - and remove that group from my list). As it might be likely that I would not have been a regular reader of those groups, I will not necessarily have a feel for what, exactly, is typically discussed in them. If the post is of no interest in a particular group, it will simply be ignored by the readers of that group. It was always anticipated that there would or could be posts that would span the interests of several groups. That's why cross-posting was designed into usenet. > I am a longtime Usenet participant. I've been posting to usenet since about 1988 or 1989. How about you? > > everyone gets the benefit of the discussion. It also reduces > > the load on a news server. > > Load? Text messages barely produce any load; Do you know what the daily usenet traffic is? Even for text groups? > it's the huge binaries files that load down Usenet servers. Most usenet servers do not carry binary files. There are many servers run as a hobby that only carry text groups. Load and bandwidth is important - especially to them. They are becoming increasingly important as many ISP's and institutions are turning off their NNTP servers. > > Few news groups are moderated and if you were to post to one > > then it it unlikley that you would be Cross-Posting to non- > > moderated groups. > > Obviously the original poster had included a moderated group > in his crossposts, which explains why his original post didn't > get posted right away. Sometimes (most times) a poster has no knowledge that a particular group is moderated. When selecting a group from a list being displayed to you by your news client, the client that I use is not aware (or does not indicate) which groups are moderated. I'm not sure if the "moderation-status" of a group is an attribute that even exists, or if it's transmitted between servers and clients. |