Do your BOOT IMAGE backup NOW !!!!

[RJK]

I Norton 'Ghost'ed my C:\ boot drive onto a drive on my 2nd hd, on the 15th,
(a couple of days ago), after putting it off for WEEEEeeeeeks, and earlier
on tonight I was having a rummage around the web and went to
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083630/
and clicked on the "view trailer" link and stupidly? "permitted" several
ActiveX controls ....and added imdb.com into IE6's trusted sites zone
and into the "Web Content" list in my Norton firewall and allowed scripting
and almost everything else so that I could see the movie trailer. I then
got onto some other site ...videodetective.com I think it was.

I'm guessing that some sort of malicious IE6 plugin was installed, because
after I'd seen the wrong trailer !!!! I removed imdb.com from IE6 trusted
sites and from Norton firewall (so that my very high security settings were
restored), and ended up with my IE6 not working. i.e. IE6's white "Page
cannot be displayed."

There is so much thoughtless and maliciously configured crap out there, and
web site designers, and that huge industry in consumer statistics data
collection etc. who have all had free-reign to rummage around inside peoples
PC's, (as they have done for decades), are responsible for a growing number
of people who now simply don't want to get into web sites that give you a
"done" on IE6's status bar - and an empty browser window. We just go
somewhere else.

SOOOooooo I booted from Norton Ghost 9's recovery cd and restored my C:\
image from J:\ and all is hunky -dory !

.....so there you are, don't put off your Ghost'ing for WEEEEeeeeeeeks !! DO
IT NOW !

....and while you're at it, update your hosts file from
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

.....yank your IE6 and firewall security up to HIGH and don't drop it for
anybody. I know it's annoying to have to keep tweaking into IE6's trusted
sites zone and firewall etc. to get functionality from sites that one trusts
not hurl malicious content into your browser window but, that's better than
getting a crippled IE6.

best regards, Richard

 

[Charlie Tame]

I followed the link you posted and went to the site you mentioned and viewed
the trailer you were trying to find and - nothing bad happened.

Yes there are some ads I wouldn't touch but nothing tried anything malicious
on here. I was not asked to download any ActiveX or anything like it...

As you said in your post you are "Guessing".

What has happened here is that you have become another victim of Norton's
hype, and Norton has broken something. Let's run thorough your actions.

You altered IE settings you don't normally alter, you altered Norton
settings you don't normally alter, and then you alter everything some more,
and IE stops working.

Then you advise others like this:-

I know it's annoying to have to keep tweaking into IE6's trusted sites
zone and firewall etc. to get functionality from sites that one trusts not
hurl malicious content into your browser window but, that's better than
getting a crippled IE6.

and yet your own "Tweaking" appear to be the clear cause of your recent
problems.

There have been updates in the last couple of days... in your enthusiasm to
take every security precaution possible I assume you have already been to
the Microsoft update site and restored the updates you "Ghost" will have
effectively removed... er they were up to date before this happened weren't
they?

Charlie

 

[George Hester]

Got another idea. Make a user that has no permissions and another that has
all permissions. Then browse the web as you see fit in one or the other
users. That is actually the only sure fire way of prohibiting the nasties.

 

[Charlie Tame]

Which is of no use at all if you are then going to switch users just to find
out what it is that's being blocked is it... ???

Is that not the same as the actions the OP took?

Charlie

 

[Rock]

I Norton 'Ghost'ed my C:\ boot drive onto a drive on my 2nd hd, on the 15th,
(a couple of days ago), after putting it off for WEEEEeeeeeks, and earlier
on tonight I was having a rummage around the web and went to
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083630/
and clicked on the "view trailer" link and stupidly? "permitted" several
ActiveX controls ....and added imdb.com into IE6's trusted sites zone
and into the "Web Content" list in my Norton firewall and allowed scripting
and almost everything else so that I could see the movie trailer. I then
got onto some other site ...videodetective.com I think it was.

It's a pathetic movie. Only good thing about it was Tanya Roberts - and
certainly not her acting. Why did you feel compelled to post this
drivel, btw, and to three newsgroups? If in fact the problem was
created by you yourself in allowing all those Active X installs, you
want to tell everyone about how you can't practice safe hex? Active X
isn't needed to see the trailer anyway.

 

[Jonny]

Yes, early Monday a.m. is my normal time for image backups on a weekly
basis.

Don't know about your firewall, by mine opting for a trust at a website,
will never bother you again for access permissions for that particular
website. I never saw any evidence of reason to trust in your post.

ActiveX or any other windows interactive software can be used legitimately
or otherwise. This should be considered when asked to allow/disallow such.

I don't depend on NAV or ZA Pro for blocking/detecting keyloggers, web habit
tracking cookies, etc. Other specialized software installed for that,
thanks.

Yep, imaging your hard drive(s) on a regular and often basis can get you out
of bind when restoring is needed of that image.

Sorry about your misfortune.

 

[Matt]

you could always try Firefox browser if you feel yourself unable to
resist installing ActiveX components.

http://www.spreadfirefox.com/

 

[Guest]

I have to agree with Charlie. Plus his answer was written in a way not to
offend anyone. He should be a MVP.
If I am at a website and it asks to download something I ALWAYs choose "NO".
Or use the "X" box if available.
If IE6 can't view the page with the way I have it set? I do not need to be
there.
Hope everyone has a great Christmas!

 

[Charlie Tame]

Hehe, I am an MVP actually, and yes I believe you have the safest answer.
Good basic settings do not restrict your surfing too much and protect you
from all but the worst attacks. If something a website requests would
involve changing those settings then the webmaster is either a jackass or he
is up to something. Changing the settings is rather like keeping the car
doors locked to thwart car jackers and then unlocking them when someone
approaches the car

In fact I do alter my settings from time to time when investigating
problems - can't investigate properly without doing that, but I never allow
unsigned activex without first establishing what it's for and ignore pop
ups. Mostly it's the silly things like smiley face junk which trick people
into voluntarily downloading crapware.

As for what happened to the OP's machine who knows... we all know backups
are a good idea, but he will never know what caused his problem and I am
pretty sure it was nothing to do with IMDB. Having said that I would not put
IMDB in the trusted zone with no restrictions. I've been to perfectly
reputable company websites where they have hired a webmaster and discovered
that the webmaster, without the owner's knowledge, has added little
"Fundraisers" like hit counters that install spyware. I usually advise the
owner that their website installs crap and thank you very much but I won't
be shopping there until it's cleaned up. Most times the owners are horrified
and act to rectify the problem, if they don't - well - up to them if they
don't want business. What that means is that you have to be very careful
what sites you trust, whether the owner is trustworthy or not.

I use Yahoo messenger, but when installing it there's a set of choices
whether to install their damned toolbar or "Companion" or whatever they call
the thing. If you say no on one page it pops up checked again on the next
page... you have to say no twice. That annoys me but the danger has nothing
to do with settings, it has everything to do with reading what you are
letting yourself in for

Oh well, each to his own, besides which "Ghost" has broken machines a couple
of times so thanks very much but no thanks

Charlie

 

[Plato]

I Norton 'Ghost'ed my C:\ boot drive onto a drive on my 2nd hd, on the 15th,
(a couple of days ago), after putting it off for WEEEEeeeeeks, and earlier
on tonight I was having a rummage around the web and went to

Contact Symantec for Symantec problems.

 

[RJK]

Well Hello !!

What a varied bunch of views !

I should have mentioned that while at imdb I did click on a link off to
another site somewhere. As I'd ghosted just a couple of days 'ago' it was
quickest for me to restore that ghost image. Normally I'd have spent time
pining it down but, had other things to do ! ...thank you very much for
pointing out that I'll never know what it was - I KNOW THAT !!

imho there is no such thing as "good basic settings," the only way to go is
the "multi-layered" approach to internet security with EVERYTHING set to
'block' and 'high'
....meaning that one has to do a little work to allow a particular site to
fully load in ones browser window e.g. heavily scripted sites. ...
http://cquirke.mvps.org/ I suspect
has some views on this ! ...where is he when you need him !! ??

regards, Richard

 

[Charlie Tame]

Reply below to save space...

Well Hello !!

What a varied bunch of views !

I should have mentioned that while at imdb I did click on a link off to
another site somewhere. As I'd ghosted just a couple of days 'ago' it was
quickest for me to restore that ghost image. Normally I'd have spent time
pining it down but, had other things to do ! ...thank you very much for
pointing out that I'll never know what it was - I KNOW THAT !!

imho there is no such thing as "good basic settings," the only way to go
is the "multi-layered" approach to internet security with EVERYTHING set
to 'block' and 'high'

Unfortunately for that approach to work you have to know what you are doing
on several levels, and most people want to "Use" a computer not analyze it.
If we aim too secure then people will find it difficult to deal with and
undo the settings, most likely undoing more than was insecure in the first
place.

There are some "Basic" settings that should not be undone except in very
specific situations, for example unsigned activex should NEVER be fully
enabled in the internet zone, the zones are put there and given "Obvious
sounding" names so the average "User" does not have to understand all the
individual bits and pieces. I personally tell people to use the trusted zone
where possible instead of lowering settings for all sites in the internet
zone in an attempt to avoid the situation where they will see all the
activex settings and turn them all on because they are not sure which is
relevant. If they don't know then best they don't turn things on, right? Of
course this is not helped by MS's unfortunate habit of using the words
"Allow" and "Enable" in strange contexts. Some settings you "Enable" some
function that actually "Disables" something else, and they then refer to
"Signed" activex and "Activex not marked as safe" instead of "Unsigned"....

Remember the jdbmgr virus? Some helpful guy found his jdbmgr.exe file was
infected, figured that the file itself "Was" the virus and had thousands of
people delete a perfectly valid system component. To be honest when one sees
a post that says "I went here and something happened so you must do..." it
is less helpful than it could be IF we can track down the precise cause. I
apologise if my reply came across as critical or condescending - there was
nothing wrong with the advice.

Charlie

 

[RJK]

I quite agree with all you say. One thing that's always bugged me is that
"file download" never works - even for a site specified in the 'trusted
sites zone' i.e. a little message box that pops up saying "You current
settings prohibit this file download" ...or something like that. One has to
enable "file download" in the "internet Zone," Custom settings. I've spent
ages in the past digging and tweaking and could never find a combination of
settings that would allow a file download unless this was switched on in the
internet zone. ...but, that's an issue for IE6 NG's.

....and I particularly agree with your views on trying to strike a "happy
balance" with security settings for users who don't or won't dig and tweak -
and who say 'yes' to items they shouldn't, and end up in a fix, ( including
me who did it to myself ! )

A while ago I replaced a motherboard for a retired chap that lives a couple
of villages away from me / tweaked up his security etc. and a few weeks
later got a 'phone call from him complaining that he's got a mysterious £70
item on his 'phone bill. When I called in there and examined his machine, I
found that several 'diallers' had been installed, and one or more of these
had been making premium rate overseas telephone calls to a BBS (bulletin
board system). ...the poor old chap thought he was still connected to his
ISP while using these. This was after spending considerable time with the
fellow, (when I returned his machine weeks before), and repeatedly warning
about this type of malware.

By the way you didn't come across as "critical or condescending," ...I love
to shout about things ! ...and I was annoyed that I busted my own browser,
so I quickly bashed out a post to remind those who ghost regularly, and may
have lapsed, to get on and do that ghost " ...it can save so much time !

regards, Richard

 

[Charlie Tame]

A while ago I replaced a motherboard for a retired chap that lives a
couple of villages away from me / tweaked up his security etc. and a few
weeks later got a 'phone call from him complaining that he's got a
mysterious £70 item on his 'phone bill. When I called in there and
examined his machine, I found that several 'diallers' had been installed,
and one or more of these had been making premium rate overseas telephone
calls to a BBS (bulletin board system). ...the poor old chap thought he
was still connected to his ISP while using these. This was after spending
considerable time with the fellow, (when I returned his machine weeks
before), and repeatedly warning about this type of malware.

BTDT several times and you know the sad part... often you will do this two
or three times and the "Victim" will then take the machine to some store
saying "I had some guy do something to this and now look at it" and be quite
happy to part with $200 to get it back "Fixed". Next time of course he'll
probably live with the phone bill for a while and go back to the shop
believing it to be the "Computer's" fault

Had one that refused absolutely to use start > shutdown and it kept getting
hosed. After the third reinstall (Easiest way since it never had time to
acquire any useful personal data) I said "You know I don't think you've
been using start > shutdown like you said you would have you?"

"No" comes the reply "Shouldn't have to. I don't have time for that and
anyway my friend says it should be just like the TV, turn it on when you
want it and off when you don't". She was quite upset when I refused to spend
the time messing with it and told her "Since your friend obviously knows
more about this than I do I suggest you get her to fix it". Oh well To be
honest she is typical of the sort that will get a dangerous email or
something and ask "Friends" how to view it (ie how to install the virus) and
then forward it on to everybody telling them how to do the same - boasting
some great technical knowledge Sorry but I have to conclude that leaving
her computer broken is actually a public service ! Some people you just
can't feel sorry for...

Another problem is that "Average Users" expect you to be able to fix things
in minutes. You simply can't do that these days. You may be able to remove
the "Symptoms" of something but you cannot usually rectify the cause so
easily.

Charlie

 

[cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

This is one of a few costly consequences of malware, others being over
200 fake "anti-pyware" rackets (ZoftSpy, NoAdware etc.) and the usual
phishing and identity theft stuff. Malware has teeth - that is
nothing new to one who has suffered a purely malicious data destroying
payload - but these days, these teeth are businesslike.

Unfortunately, you need to do more than malware cleanup and user
education, you also have to "educate the system", i.e. fix some of the
absurd risks it may automatically take on the users' behalf, either by
design (risk manage these) or via defective code (patch these)

Had one that refused absolutely to use start > shutdown and it kept getting
hosed. After the third reinstall (Easiest way since it never had time to
acquire any useful personal data)

It sounds like both sides are so crummy, they deserve each other.

If the user's too stupid (sorry, there's no point in dressing this up
up in flowery words) to shut down properly, then he deserves the
ass-kicking that Darwin is abbout to apply.

If the tech's so shallow that "just re-install" is the stock result to
everything - implying that nothing further is done to manage risks,
leaving everything set as duhfault - then better results can't really
be expected. This system will rot on the baseline, forever.

http://cquirke.mvps.org/reinst.htm refers.

"No" comes the reply "Shouldn't have to. I don't have time for that and
anyway my friend says it should be just like the TV, turn it on when you
want it and off when you don't".

Please ask her to take herself and her friends out of the gene pool;
say, to some far distant island or deep rural trailer park where there
is no electricity and especially no Internet. The rest of the
Internet can do without them acting as a malware safe haven.

I know we are supposed to be "nice" and diplomatic about newbies, bend
over backwards to cater to their huffy consumer demands etc. but there
comes a point at which the bough breaks, and it's Darwin takes the
hindmost. With parents of heroin addicts, that may be after the nth
time the household is stripped of things to be sold to pay off the
dealers. With PC newbies, it's the first time I hear the user can't
be bothered to shut down properly after the need has been explained.

Another problem is that "Average Users" expect you to be able to fix things
in minutes. You simply can't do that these days. You may be able to remove
the "Symptoms" of something but you cannot usually rectify the cause so
easily.

Exactly.... even double-tracking HD and system a la...

http://cquirke.mvps.org/pccrisis.htm

....to handle an unknown flaky PC takes a day, though most of this time
will be spent unattended (not billed in full as "labor")

Track A: PC hardware other than HD
- eyeball fans, clean heat sinks, check capacitors etc.
- RAM diags to run multiple hours, preferably overnight

Track B: HD assessed via Bart CDR boot (DO NOT BOOT HD!!)
- HD Tune temperature, SMART, "slow" surface scan
- ChkDsk to check for file system errors and ?fix for NTFS
- ensure free space, redirect Bart's %Temp% to HD location
- ScanDisk to interactively find and fix FATxx errors on < 137G
- formal virus scans, multiple scanners, run sequentially
- formal AdAware and Spybot scans, no cleanup (as no undo)
- formal manual integration checks
- purge Temp, TIF and (if malware found) consider purging SR

Track AB: i.e. when HD is back in system after above
- Safe Mode SysClean, AdAware, Spybot scans and fixes
- manual integration checks
- if malware found, consider purging SR
- normal Windows, ?redo SysClean, AdAware, Spybot
- run rootkit detection tools, e.g. RKR, Blacklight
- "low point" (max free space) defrag
- uninstall outdated Sun Java, if present
- apply OS, Java, Firefox, Acrobat Reader etc. patches
- apply risk management (lots of detail there)
- if heavy commercial malware infestation, add MSAS beta
- install and update Spyware Blaster, apply passive protection
- check firewall settings, clean up dumb-ass F&PS shares etc.
- check resident av settings and update
- relocate incoming malware risks out of data set
- relocate bulky junk out of data set
- set up auto-backup for data set

Sentences (tracks) A and B to run concurrently, expect these to take
several hours, most likely overnight. Most of track A will be
unatteded, while track B will need a nudge from one av to another,
unless you've automated Bart further than I have. Track AB is short
but more intensely hands-on; you can double track multiple systems
during the defrags, scans and installs, but need to stay focussed
through the risk management and manual cleanup processes.

Alas, the tools to do this do not ship with the OS product. You have
to do the Bart CDR thing yourself, plus you need the RunScanner plugin
if your scanners are to see the correct registry, and if your formal
integration checks are to have any meaning at all for the same reason.

The above is a hardcore first approach to systems known to be unstable
or generally flaky, and where nothing further than "duh, let's just
format and re-install Windows" has ever been done. If risk and data
location management have already been done, then it's a lot less work.

In some cases, track B will branch off into data recovery, especially
if FATxx. This is not because FATxx is more likely to be corrupted
than NTFS - for many corruption causes, the risks are exactly the same
for both file systems - but because data recovery is often hopeless on
NTFS as there are no tools for deep manual file system repair.

 

[Charlie Tame]

Reply to one para below, snipped what I agree with and have nothing useful
to add

If the tech's so shallow that "just re-install" is the stock result to
everything - implying that nothing further is done to manage risks,
leaving everything set as duhfault - then better results can't really
be expected. This system will rot on the baseline, forever.

In *the case I quoted I had set up the same security settings I use (and I
visit some risky places deliberately) which are not 100% but are aimed at
limiting the "Annoyance" so that the user will not be tempted to undo them
in order to see some "Exciting" website or email that a (similarly stupid)
friend has sent her. Unfortunately, instead of asking me they ask the friend
(who is already infected with everything and it's dog) and adjust their
settings to take every possible advantage of all the infections and more...
it is as if there is a competition going on.

There is really no point in trying to "Lock" better settings because they
simply ask the advice of someone they know will tell them what they want to
hear and that will be "He's made it so bad you'll have to reinstall" and
they will do that and we are back to square one again

Therefore your gene pool solution appears to be the only one that will work


By contrast I find that most people are happy to modify their behavior and
suggest the same to their friends as a result of simple explanation of risk,
the changes to the computer settings then become a "Backup" safety device
for many risks and revisits become maintenance and tidy up rather than
extinguish the fire and rebuild

Charlie

 

[cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote

In *the case I quoted I had set up the same security settings I use (and I
visit some risky places deliberately) which are not 100% but are aimed at
limiting the "Annoyance" so that the user will not be tempted to undo them
in order to see some "Exciting" website or email that a (similarly stupid)
friend has sent her. Unfortunately, instead of asking me they ask the friend
(who is already infected with everything and it's dog) and adjust their
settings to take every possible advantage of all the infections and more...
it is as if there is a competition going on.

There are two aspects to "just rebuild"; the one is whether the
settings etc. you want to apply can be automated, and the other is how
to preserve the user's settings and so on. That's assuming the tech
has any respect for the user's settings and preferences, etc.

On the first, I'm still finding automation (on XP Home) falls short of
removing the effort to re-apply the settings etc. that I want. The
problem is finding the .REG etc. that correspond to the manual
settings one applies interactively. This would help...

http://cquirke.mvps.org/savereg.htm

....if MS ever had the clue to design that into the OS, but mostly they
take the line that the user is to be force-fed settings by "the
administrator", which in the home consumer world translates to malware
dominating the user's experience through the same automation, but the
user having no way to automate what they do interactively.

Until MS takes the home market seriously, i.e. beyond expecting us to
pretend to be a corporation with per-user job descriptions and a
notional CEO-appointed sysadmin to bully everyone, this won't change.

There is really no point in trying to "Lock" better settings because they
simply ask the advice of someone they know will tell them what they want to
hear and that will be "He's made it so bad you'll have to reinstall" and
they will do that and we are back to square one again

Maybe we should discuss exactly what settings are involved here? It's
always a judgement call, and finding a balance isn't always easy, so
it can help to compare notes on this topic.

My first objective is preventing the system doing stupid things
automatically. MS acknowledges the need for this when it's due to
code defect, but it's up to us to manage design defects.

Next, is to get the system to present essential information to the
user, so the user can make better-informed decisions. Ideally, one
would want the system to abide by those decisions, but unfortunately
where the system is so dumb as to allow greater risks to be spoofed
(e.g. running raw .EXE code in a file named as a DOS .PIF shortcut),
the defect is so deeply hard-coded that there's no easy cure.

Once the user's presented with risk info and decides to go ahead, then
you've done what you can and the user takes responsibility what
happens next. If it takes tech effort to undo the damage, then the
user will be expected to pay for that.

There are two obstacles to risk management.

The first is where an app is so badly designed that you are forced to
throw the baby away with the bath water. For example, if you wanted
to completely suppress HTML scripts and active content in OE mail, you
have to throw away all the formatting, images etc. of HTML mail as
well, as there's nothing more fine-tuned than "HTML" vs. "plain text".

The second is the nag problem, i.e. where the user's subjected to so
many nags that click fatigue sets in. Because so many crappy web
sites routinely use scripting for no good reason at all, it's no
longer practical to set IE to prompt whenever scripts want to run -
you are pressurized into the bad practice of assigning these
programming rights to all arbitrary web sites you want to "read".

By contrast I find that most people are happy to modify their behavior and
suggest the same to their friends as a result of simple explanation of risk,
the changes to the computer settings then become a "Backup" safety device
for many risks and revisits become maintenance and tidy up rather than
extinguish the fire and rebuild

Yup. If I had such useless users as you seem to be stuck with, I'd
push them out of the nest through rudeness, delayed response, and
punitive billing. Whether they stay or go, it's win-win; I either
pull large income with a minimum of rush, or I lose the aggrevation
and free up resources to help more worthwhile cases.

If you hit hard-core intransigence, don't feel obliged to be merciful.

------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

Rudeness is human nature's way of curbing demand

 

[RJK]

I've got one, (customer), that I believe beats all of yours ! He's been
trying to send an email for over 15 years. ...let me elaborate !
.... ...{Richard mumbles}...where will I begin ? ...
....with at least ten years of hindisght I could describe him most succinctly
I supppose as "stubborn." He has seemingly spent over ten years trying to
reduce his PC to a typewriter, and also keeps trying to convert his PC based
hardware into an old fashioned fax machine and photocopier - at least that's
how it seems to me. During the past few years he often complains that he's
losing work because people refuse to fax things to him, they offer to email
them to him, and indeed he has actually stated that, "people don't seem to
know what a fax machine is, anymore..." ...he is in my view simply being
stubborn in addition to intentionally avoiding learning basic PC and PC
software concepts. Having said that he owns a desktop PC and a laptop and
seems willing but, NEVER seems to get very far with them with them. Very
annoying from my point of view, he is the only person with whom I've
experienced consistent tuition problems, he's ALWAYS more determined to tell
me what went wrong, what he thought went wrong, and is ALWAYS determined to
give me a detailed account of what he'd done and what happened during PC
sessions where I wasn't in attendance.
....so for the umpteenth time I reactivate his suspended ISP account, stand
behind him and lead him through "dialling up," starting OE and drawing his
attention to the fleeting 'sending' and 'receiving' on OE's status bar etc.
He has spent a considerable number of hours "waiting" for the computer to do
something, when in fact the computer is waiting for input and interraction
from him ! i.e. during a recent "ear bending" telephone call he explained
that he'd visited the DVLC (UK driver vehicle and licensing centre), and
attempted to download a "form." All their forms are offered in *.pdf
format, and apparantly, after he'd clicked a hyperlink to a *.pdf document,
(and obviously after IE had fired up Adobe Acrobat Reader as a plug-in and
loaded the document), which had a large circular logo top left, he got
frustrated with trying to "click" on the logo in the document and nothing
happened ..so he left his laptop for two hours, then returned and again
repeatedly kept clicking on the logo in the *.pdf document. ...after
listening, (for AGES about what he thought had gone wrong - interspersed
with at at least 50 "wot I fink 'appened..." 's ), to all this I tried to
explain what had been happening, and that he had actually "loaded" the
"form" he was after, and could have "zoomed" it to a smaller size / saved it
to disk / printed it out etc.
He also keeps padding out Word ducuments with spaces ! ....I won't go into
that one !!!!

What would you do with one (customer) like this ?

regards, Richard

 

[Charlie Tame]

Hehe, what can we say?

Had a database on a small network and after some testing called contract
manager to suggest he try and log on.

DOS prompt days by the way

Type your name
Type your password

"It does nothing"
"Huh?"
"It won't take that"

After 10 minutes of trying his login on several terminals I visit the
office.

Type your name YOUR NAME
Type your password YOUR PASSWORD

"Harry, what's your name?"
"Harry Wood."
"It's not 'Your name' then? and you remember the password you gave me to
use?"
"Oh yes."

Type your name "HARRY WOOD"
Type your password YOUR PASSWORD"

"No Harry, not my password, it's your password it wants."
"Ah, I see."

Type your name HARRY WOOD
Type your password MY PASSWORD

"No Harry, it wants your password, the actual word you gave me."
"Why?"
"Well, because you're supposed to be the only one that knows it."
"But what use is that, nobody else will be able to use it".
"Nobody else around here is called Harry Wood, that's the idea, so nobody
else can pretend to be you."
"Ah, I see, why can't we all use the same name?"
"Because then the computer wouldn't know which set of menus to give us?"
"Why not, that doesn't seem right to me."
"Okay, when you sit down at Dave's computer how would it know you were not
Dave?"
"Because I'm not Dave..."
"But it has no eyes or ears - how would it know someone else had sat down?"
"Because it's supposed to be a computer."

Needless to say it wasn't just the password ended up on a stick up note
attached to the monitor - I had to write down the name he was supposed to
type as well

Since that took place in, oh 1993 or 94 I guess you still beat me? Hehe

Charlie

 

[Mike Fields]

Hey, have you been talking to my father again ???

"That's not what I want to hear, so go over it again
until you can tell it the way I want to hear it ..."
(he also can not understand who "owns" the internet
and why they just don't make virius' and spam
illegal and be done with it)

mikey