Autistic computer: MSHOME is not accessible

[balperson]

I have a situation that is driving me crazy. I hope someone can help.

I have four computers in the house. My main computer (call it #1) is
direct-connected to the router (Linksys WRT54GS). My son's computer
(#2) is also direct-connected to the router. My wife's computer (#3)
and my notebook (#4) are connected to the router through a wireless
network. All four computers are running XP Professional and they are
all in the MSHOME workgroup. All four computers can connect to the
Internet with no problems.

Here's the problem: #2, #3, and #4 can all see each other and share
files and printers. (This is a good thing.) #1 is autistic. It can't
see any of the other computers, and it can't be seen by the other
computers. It can't share files or printers with any other computer.

#2, #3, and #4 can successfully ping each other. They can all
successfully ping #1. They all show up for each other under the Net
View command. (#1 does not appear on Net View on any computer.)

#1 can't ping any of the other computers. The command results in
"Request timed out." The Net View command produces, "List of servers
for this workgroup is not currently available." Any attempt to address
MSHOME on #1 produces the message, "Mshome is not accessible. You
might not have permission to use this network resource. Contact the
administrator of this server to find out if you have access
permissions."

If it is any diagnostic help, here is the output from ipconfig /all on
#1:

Windows IP Configuration
Host Name . . . . . . . . . . . . : PRIMARY
Primary Dns Suffix . . . . . . . :
Node Type . . . . . . . . . . . . : Unknown
IP Routing Enabled. . . . . . . . : No
WINS Proxy Enabled. . . . . . . . : No
Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection:
Connection-specific DNS Suffix . :
Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Intel(R) PRO/1000 MT
Desktop Adapter
Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 00-07-E9-0F-F3-2E
Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : Yes
Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . : Yes
IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.100
Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.1
DHCP Server . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.1
DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : 207.69.188.186
207.69.188.185
Lease Obtained. . . . . . . . . . : Sunday, October 16, 2005
3:12:34 PM
Lease Expires . . . . . . . . . . : Monday, October 17, 2005
3:12:34 PM
Ethernet adapter Bluetooth Network:
Media State . . . . . . . . . . . : Media disconnected
Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Bluetooth LAN Access Server
Driver
Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 00-0C-55-F9-FC-B5


This thing is driving me nuts. I've spent four days combing the
Internet. Lot's of messages cite the MSHOME error, but none of them
seems to have a solution that helps.

 

[saiena]

Hi.

Can you login to your router's control panel from PC 1?

If you login to your router's control panel, and look at the DHCP clients
table, are all four PCs appearing, and each with a unique IP address?

When you're doing ping testing, have you tried pinging #1 from the other PCs
using its numeric address?
What about pinging the other PCs from #1 numeric addresses?

Have you shut down all five devices (PCs and router), and then restarted
them (router first).

-steve

 

[balperson]

Steve,

Thanks for the response.

I'll have to find out how to do this. (Sorry, I'm desperately trying to
learn this stuff as I go along.) I'll check the router documentation
and do this tonight.)

ipconfig on each computer shows unique addresses:
#1 192.168.1.100
#2 192.168.1.101
#3 192.168.1.102
#4 192.168.1.103

#1 cannot ping any other computer. The other computers can ping each
other.

I had shut down all four computers, but didn't think of shutting down
the router. I'll try this as soon as I post this note.

Burt

All ping testing has been with the numerical addresses.

 

[balperson]

I just shut everything down, then brought the equipment up, starting
with the router. No joy.

 

[Paul D.Smith]

Got any firewalls? What might be happening is the following...

#1 sends "ping, are you there" to #2/3/4
#2/3/4 sends "yes mate, over here" to #1
Firewall on #1 says "someones trying to attack me - block that message" and
blocks the response from #2/3/4.
#1 is sat there thinking "why doesn't anyone answer me?"

You can come up with similar scenarios for everything else you described.

If you have the firewall on your router enabled, you can reasonably safely
turn off firewalls on #1 to run a test. To be very paranoid, disconnect the
router from the internet before running the test.

If this solves it, you need to make sure all the routers allows your subnet
in but block everything else except where explicitly defined by you.

Paul DS.

 

[balperson]

AHA! You were right on the money!

It was a firewall problem. I had assumed that since all the problems
were with #1, it was only necessary to turn off the firewall on #1. Not
so simple.

Thanks to your analysis, I turned off the software firewalls on all
four computers. All computers are fat and happy.

I have a few other questions, if you have the time.

What do I lose by enabling only the hardware firewall? Just how
necessary is a software firewall if you are protected by the hardware
firewall?

If I do re-enable the software firewall, is there any advantage to
using Norton Internet Security (2003) vs. Windows XP firewall, or vice
versa?

I am so grateful for your help. Thank you.

Burt

 

[Paul D.Smith]

Answers below...

Paul DS.

AHA! You were right on the money!

It was a firewall problem. I had assumed that since all the problems
were with #1, it was only necessary to turn off the firewall on #1. Not
so simple.

Thanks to your analysis, I turned off the software firewalls on all
four computers. All computers are fat and happy.

I have a few other questions, if you have the time.

What do I lose by enabling only the hardware firewall? Just how
necessary is a software firewall if you are protected by the hardware
firewall?

The software firewall is "belt-n-braces". If someone puts a virus into the
system, perhaps off an infected CD or floppy, then the software firewall
_might_ protect the other machines in your network. To be honest,
anti-virus software is probably more important, it all depends on how
paranoid you are.

Also, it's not unknown for software patches to routers to open ports -
stupid but it has happened, and then you could find youtself wide open!

Google the web and you should find some sites that allow you to check out
your exposure. Basically they scan all the "normal" ports on your router.
If they find one open, then close it unless you have a good reason not to.

If I do re-enable the software firewall, is there any advantage to
using Norton Internet Security (2003) vs. Windows XP firewall, or vice
versa?

WinXP filewall used to have a bad rap although it may be better post SP2. I
use ZoneAlarm (the free version) and I personally hate all Norton products
because of the problems I've had with their customer service department -
but that's a personal issue ;-).