J
John Fitzsimons
What sort of information would that be ?
< snip >
You shouldn't have to. If you only do work related work on your work
computer then there is nothing your employer would be bothered about
finding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Set all files on Windows XP to a specified create & access date
What sort of information would that be ?
< snip >
You shouldn't have to. If you only do work related work on your work
computer then there is nothing your employer would be bothered about
finding.
D
donnadigacomo
David said:Did you reboot?
I did belaatedly reboot (why wouldn't the change take hold
immediately)?
It seems to ONLY work for folders but not files.
And, even then it still changed the 'last modified' date.
Do I understand the use model correctly?
M
Michael Bednarek
On 10 Oct 2005 18:08:08 -0700, donnadigacomo@... wrote in
alt.comp.freeware.discussion, microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,
alt.comp.freeware, alt.msdos.batch, microsoft.public.security,
alt.privacy.spyware -seen in alt.msdos.batch-:
There seem to be three different questions in this thread, yours
(Donna), Conor's, and Paul Koch's. It seems that replies are not always
fully understood by those they were probably not intended for.
You wanted a tool to set file dates to a certain date, claiming this
would be some sort of security enhancement. Several contributors pointed
out that this was a really stupid idea; they also pointed out tools and
batch language constructs to do it.
Conor then asserted that all date/time stamping of files could be
switched off under Windows XP, which I questioned.
Then Paul Koch jumped in and told us of how he messed with the file
system of his work computer, and he asked for a method to disable the
recording of LastAccessTime, which Far Canal and I answered.
You picked this up and disabled the recording of LastAccessTime on your
computer, obviously without understanding the implications.
First, you asked why a change like that would need a reboot. Well,
certain features do. A lot of things are established when the system
boots and then never looked at again until the next boot - like
fundamental file system attributes.
Then you observe that this doesn't affect the modification date of
files; note that the name of the registry refers to disabling the Last
Access date. Do you understand that the NTFS file system maintains 3
sets of dates for each file/directory? Unlike Conor, I believe only the
Last Access date can be turned off.
Still, the whole thread is pretty pointless because the question in the
Subject line is a) not a good idea (I'm being polite here), b) contrary
to your explanation in your earlier reply to Pegasus, has nothing to do
with security; in fact, as Asher_N, Paul Adare, Steven L Umbach, and I
have pointed out, it is dangerous interference with your OS and might
well have the opposite (re security) effect.
alt.comp.freeware.discussion, microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,
alt.comp.freeware, alt.msdos.batch, microsoft.public.security,
alt.privacy.spyware -seen in alt.msdos.batch-:
I did belaatedly reboot (why wouldn't the change take hold
immediately)?
It seems to ONLY work for folders but not files.
And, even then it still changed the 'last modified' date.
Do I understand the use model correctly?
There seem to be three different questions in this thread, yours
(Donna), Conor's, and Paul Koch's. It seems that replies are not always
fully understood by those they were probably not intended for.
You wanted a tool to set file dates to a certain date, claiming this
would be some sort of security enhancement. Several contributors pointed
out that this was a really stupid idea; they also pointed out tools and
batch language constructs to do it.
Conor then asserted that all date/time stamping of files could be
switched off under Windows XP, which I questioned.
Then Paul Koch jumped in and told us of how he messed with the file
system of his work computer, and he asked for a method to disable the
recording of LastAccessTime, which Far Canal and I answered.
You picked this up and disabled the recording of LastAccessTime on your
computer, obviously without understanding the implications.
First, you asked why a change like that would need a reboot. Well,
certain features do. A lot of things are established when the system
boots and then never looked at again until the next boot - like
fundamental file system attributes.
Then you observe that this doesn't affect the modification date of
files; note that the name of the registry refers to disabling the Last
Access date. Do you understand that the NTFS file system maintains 3
sets of dates for each file/directory? Unlike Conor, I believe only the
Last Access date can be turned off.
Still, the whole thread is pretty pointless because the question in the
Subject line is a) not a good idea (I'm being polite here), b) contrary
to your explanation in your earlier reply to Pegasus, has nothing to do
with security; in fact, as Asher_N, Paul Adare, Steven L Umbach, and I
have pointed out, it is dangerous interference with your OS and might
well have the opposite (re security) effect.
D
David Candy
And none of you read what I posted that specifically states IT DOES NOT TURN OFF LAST ACCESS DATES for files.
Determines whether NTFS updates the last-access time stamp on each directory when it lists the directories on an NTFS volume.
Determines whether NTFS updates the last-access time stamp on each directory when it lists the directories on an NTFS volume.
U
Uncle Joe
As a retired manager, I learned over
the years that there two types of
employees: the productive ones
and the ones who waste their time and
the company's time snooping on and
gossiping about their coworkers.
I would have loved to have gotten
proof that an employee of mine was
illegally installing/unistalling rouge
software, and/or invading another's
PC for the purpose of snooping on
them instead of concentrating on
his/her assigned tasks. Bye, bye, dude.
the years that there two types of
employees: the productive ones
and the ones who waste their time and
the company's time snooping on and
gossiping about their coworkers.
I would have loved to have gotten
proof that an employee of mine was
illegally installing/unistalling rouge
software, and/or invading another's
PC for the purpose of snooping on
them instead of concentrating on
his/her assigned tasks. Bye, bye, dude.
P
Paul Adare
microsoft.public.security news group, <"Uncle Joe" <Uncle
(e-mail address removed)>> says...
Not only that, but do you really want an employee who, in addition to
snooping and using unauthorized software, is dumb enough to post this
fact and his sleazy reasons behind doing so, to a public news group
using his work email address?
Paul buddy, you'd better hope that none of your fellow employees that
you spy on reads any of these news groups.
--
Paul Adare
MVP - Windows - Virtual Machine
http://www.identit.ca/blogs/paul/
"The English language, complete with irony, satire, and sarcasm, has
survived for centuries without smileys. Only the new crop of modern
computer geeks finds it impossible to detect a joke that is not clearly
labeled as such."
Ray Shea
(e-mail address removed)>> says...
As a retired manager, I learned over
the years that there two types of
employees: the productive ones
and the ones who waste their time and
the company's time snooping on and
gossiping about their coworkers.
I would have loved to have gotten
proof that an employee of mine was
illegally installing/unistalling rouge
software, and/or invading another's
PC for the purpose of snooping on
them instead of concentrating on
his/her assigned tasks. Bye, bye, dude.
Not only that, but do you really want an employee who, in addition to
snooping and using unauthorized software, is dumb enough to post this
fact and his sleazy reasons behind doing so, to a public news group
using his work email address?
Paul buddy, you'd better hope that none of your fellow employees that
you spy on reads any of these news groups.
--
Paul Adare
MVP - Windows - Virtual Machine
http://www.identit.ca/blogs/paul/
"The English language, complete with irony, satire, and sarcasm, has
survived for centuries without smileys. Only the new crop of modern
computer geeks finds it impossible to detect a joke that is not clearly
labeled as such."
Ray Shea
M
Michael Bednarek
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 13:04:04 +1000, "David Candy" <.> topposted with no
line wrap in alt.comp.freeware.discussion,
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, alt.comp.freeware, alt.msdos.batch,
microsoft.public.security, alt.privacy.spyware:
It does here (NT5.x), and always did. With this setting enabled, Last
Access Date for files will remain equal to Created Date, for directories
equal to the Modified Date, regardless of subsequent access.
The text from Microsoft you quote is clearly wrong where it refers to
"directory" in its first sentence. Here's a better wording:
<http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...Kit/80dc5066-7f13-4ac3-8da8-48ebd60b4447.mspx>,
and even more thoroughly in
<http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/fsutil_behavior.mspx>.
The reason that "directory" is frequently mentioned in the discussion of
NtfsDisableLastAccessUpdate is that the Last Access Date for a directory
gets also updated whenever any file in it gets changed, something which
may not be intuitively obvious.
line wrap in alt.comp.freeware.discussion,
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, alt.comp.freeware, alt.msdos.batch,
microsoft.public.security, alt.privacy.spyware:
And none of you read what I posted that specifically states IT DOES NOT TURN OFF LAST ACCESS DATES for files.
Determines whether NTFS updates the last-access time stamp on each directory when it lists the directories on an NTFS volume.
It does here (NT5.x), and always did. With this setting enabled, Last
Access Date for files will remain equal to Created Date, for directories
equal to the Modified Date, regardless of subsequent access.
The text from Microsoft you quote is clearly wrong where it refers to
"directory" in its first sentence. Here's a better wording:
<http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...Kit/80dc5066-7f13-4ac3-8da8-48ebd60b4447.mspx>,
and even more thoroughly in
<http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/fsutil_behavior.mspx>.
The reason that "directory" is frequently mentioned in the discussion of
NtfsDisableLastAccessUpdate is that the Last Access Date for a directory
gets also updated whenever any file in it gets changed, something which
may not be intuitively obvious.
F
filthy-mcnasty
Using at least one appendage, the entity known in this space-time continuum
Um, why is anyone actually still helping this "%£!@~*. Would you want it as
a colleague. Does the word troll perhaps apply?
Um, why is anyone actually still helping this "%£!@~*. Would you want it as
a colleague. Does the word troll perhaps apply?
F
filthy-mcnasty
Using at least one appendage, the entity known in this space-time continuum
Sorry - screwed up my "troll" note slightly
a) Pressed the wrong send option. NOT reply by email only
b) NOT intended to imply any criticism of Michael Bednarek
Excuse me please all, and especially a big apology to Michael
But this creature is slime, troll or no
Sorry - screwed up my "troll" note slightly
a) Pressed the wrong send option. NOT reply by email only
b) NOT intended to imply any criticism of Michael Bednarek
Excuse me please all, and especially a big apology to Michael
But this creature is slime, troll or no
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.