Windows xp home

[Guest]

A customers system has xp home and acquired the hacktool.rootkit virus. I
installed her drive on a working system and removed the virus and infected
files. Putting the drive back in her tower and trying to access windows, it
will only go to the black screen right before entering windows where the
curser appears and it just will not go any further. I tried switching the
hard drive with a windows 98 system on it and it loads just fine. I tried
reinstalling xp but it only goes to the blamk screen and hangs just as it did
with the old operating system. Is it possible that the virus changed the
cmos of the motherboard or something else. Possibly the master boot record
was changed or ?????????.
I sure could use some ideas as I am baffled with this one.
Dave Giles

 

[Dan]

I know that 98SE is more secure since it is based on 9x source code and is
now mostly ignored by hackers since they are mainly targetting XP PRO. and
have the NT source code in their sites. 98, 98SE and even ME (I do not like
Millenium) all are based on 9x which has its roots in MS-DOS and NT does not
have a true maintenance operating system and Microsoft needs to have a
seperate NT underlying maintenance operating system and not rely on an
emulator of MS-DOS since MS-DOS's true successor was the 9x source code which
reached the height of its glory with 98 Second Edition and unfortunately
Microsoft rushed out Millenium and so it was flawed and I am really glad that
Microsoft is taking their time with Longhorn and I hope it is awesome.

"Creative Design and Computers" <Creative Design and
(e-mail address removed)> wrote in message
: A customers system has xp home and acquired the hacktool.rootkit virus. I
: installed her drive on a working system and removed the virus and infected
: files. Putting the drive back in her tower and trying to access windows,
it
: will only go to the black screen right before entering windows where the
: curser appears and it just will not go any further. I tried switching the
: hard drive with a windows 98 system on it and it loads just fine. I tried
: reinstalling xp but it only goes to the blamk screen and hangs just as it
did
: with the old operating system. Is it possible that the virus changed the
: cmos of the motherboard or something else. Possibly the master boot record
: was changed or ?????????.
: I sure could use some ideas as I am baffled with this one.
: Dave Giles

 

[Rock]

A customers system has xp home and acquired the hacktool.rootkit virus. I
installed her drive on a working system and removed the virus and infected
files. Putting the drive back in her tower and trying to access windows, it
will only go to the black screen right before entering windows where the
curser appears and it just will not go any further. I tried switching the
hard drive with a windows 98 system on it and it loads just fine. I tried
reinstalling xp but it only goes to the blamk screen and hangs just as it did
with the old operating system. Is it possible that the virus changed the
cmos of the motherboard or something else. Possibly the master boot record
was changed or ?????????.
I sure could use some ideas as I am baffled with this one.
Dave Giles

See if this might help:

Unable to Log On To Windows XP After Removing wsaupdater.exe
http://www.lavasofthelp.com/articles/v6/04/06/0901.html

 

[Ron Martell]

I know that 98SE is more secure since it is based on 9x source code and is
now mostly ignored by hackers since they are mainly targetting XP PRO. and
have the NT source code in their sites. 98, 98SE and even ME (I do not like
Millenium) all are based on 9x which has its roots in MS-DOS and NT does not
have a true maintenance operating system and Microsoft needs to have a
seperate NT underlying maintenance operating system and not rely on an
emulator of MS-DOS since MS-DOS's true successor was the 9x source code which
reached the height of its glory with 98 Second Edition and unfortunately
Microsoft rushed out Millenium and so it was flawed and I am really glad that
Microsoft is taking their time with Longhorn and I hope it is awesome.

Windows 98 is in no way *more* secure than Windows XP. It may give
you a false sense of security because not so many scumbags are
targetting it these days but it is still highly vulnerable and just as
soon as Windows XP gets a bit tougher to penetrate you could see
renewed assaults aimed at the 9x products.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

 

[Guest]

Very strange indeed, as it gives me an bios error at that point. Is it
possible that the cmos chip has been compromised. ?????
Dave

 

[Frank]

I know that 98SE is more secure since it is based on 9x source code and is
now mostly ignored by hackers since they are mainly targetting XP PRO. and
have the NT source code in their sites. 98, 98SE and even ME (I do not like
Millenium) all are based on 9x which has its roots in MS-DOS and NT does not
have a true maintenance operating system and Microsoft needs to have a
seperate NT underlying maintenance operating system and not rely on an
emulator of MS-DOS since MS-DOS's true successor was the 9x source code which
reached the height of its glory with 98 Second Edition and unfortunately
Microsoft rushed out Millenium and so it was flawed and I am really glad that
Microsoft is taking their time with Longhorn and I hope it is awesome.

"Creative Design and Computers" <Creative Design and
(e-mail address removed)> wrote in message
: A customers system has xp home and acquired the hacktool.rootkit virus. I
: installed her drive on a working system and removed the virus and infected
: files. Putting the drive back in her tower and trying to access windows,
it
: will only go to the black screen right before entering windows where the
: curser appears and it just will not go any further. I tried switching the
: hard drive with a windows 98 system on it and it loads just fine. I tried
: reinstalling xp but it only goes to the blamk screen and hangs just as it
did
: with the old operating system. Is it possible that the virus changed the
: cmos of the motherboard or something else. Possibly the master boot record
: was changed or ?????????.
: I sure could use some ideas as I am baffled with this one.
: Dave Giles

Hey what is a "true maintenance operating system"?
Is that like when cars used to come with a complete tool kit?
Remember that?
Frank

 

[Dan]

So with 98SE all beefed up in security with third party products, then you
still think XP (NT code based) is more secure, Ron?

:
: >I know that 98SE is more secure since it is based on 9x source code and is
: >now mostly ignored by hackers since they are mainly targetting XP PRO. and
: >have the NT source code in their sites. 98, 98SE and even ME (I do not
like
: >Millenium) all are based on 9x which has its roots in MS-DOS and NT does
not
: >have a true maintenance operating system and Microsoft needs to have a
: >seperate NT underlying maintenance operating system and not rely on an
: >emulator of MS-DOS since MS-DOS's true successor was the 9x source code
which
: >reached the height of its glory with 98 Second Edition and unfortunately
: >Microsoft rushed out Millenium and so it was flawed and I am really glad
that
: >Microsoft is taking their time with Longhorn and I hope it is awesome.
: >
:
: Windows 98 is in no way *more* secure than Windows XP. It may give
: you a false sense of security because not so many scumbags are
: targetting it these days but it is still highly vulnerable and just as
: soon as Windows XP gets a bit tougher to penetrate you could see
: renewed assaults aimed at the 9x products.
:
:
: Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
: --
: Microsoft MVP
: On-Line Help Computer Service
: http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
:
: "The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

 

[Frank]

So with 98SE all beefed up in security with third party products, then you
still think XP (NT code based) is more secure, Ron?

:
: >I know that 98SE is more secure since it is based on 9x source code and is
: >now mostly ignored by hackers since they are mainly targetting XP PRO. and
: >have the NT source code in their sites. 98, 98SE and even ME (I do not
like
: >Millenium) all are based on 9x which has its roots in MS-DOS and NT does
not
: >have a true maintenance operating system and Microsoft needs to have a
: >seperate NT underlying maintenance operating system and not rely on an
: >emulator of MS-DOS since MS-DOS's true successor was the 9x source code
which
: >reached the height of its glory with 98 Second Edition and unfortunately
: >Microsoft rushed out Millenium and so it was flawed and I am really glad
that
: >Microsoft is taking their time with Longhorn and I hope it is awesome.
: >
:
: Windows 98 is in no way *more* secure than Windows XP. It may give
: you a false sense of security because not so many scumbags are
: targetting it these days but it is still highly vulnerable and just as
: soon as Windows XP gets a bit tougher to penetrate you could see
: renewed assaults aimed at the 9x products.
:
:
: Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
: --
: Microsoft MVP
: On-Line Help Computer Service
: http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
:
: "The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

For one simple reason Dan:
NTFS is way more secure than FAT.
Frank

 

[Dan]

Okay, I will give you that but what about when XP is installed on a Fat32
drive.

: Dan wrote:
: > So with 98SE all beefed up in security with third party products, then
you
: > still think XP (NT code based) is more secure, Ron?
: >
: > : > :
: > : >I know that 98SE is more secure since it is based on 9x source code
and is
: > : >now mostly ignored by hackers since they are mainly targetting XP PRO.
and
: > : >have the NT source code in their sites. 98, 98SE and even ME (I do
not
: > like
: > : >Millenium) all are based on 9x which has its roots in MS-DOS and NT
does
: > not
: > : >have a true maintenance operating system and Microsoft needs to have a
: > : >seperate NT underlying maintenance operating system and not rely on an
: > : >emulator of MS-DOS since MS-DOS's true successor was the 9x source
code
: > which
: > : >reached the height of its glory with 98 Second Edition and
unfortunately
: > : >Microsoft rushed out Millenium and so it was flawed and I am really
glad
: > that
: > : >Microsoft is taking their time with Longhorn and I hope it is awesome.
: > : >
: > :
: > : Windows 98 is in no way *more* secure than Windows XP. It may give
: > : you a false sense of security because not so many scumbags are
: > : targetting it these days but it is still highly vulnerable and just as
: > : soon as Windows XP gets a bit tougher to penetrate you could see
: > : renewed assaults aimed at the 9x products.
: > :
: > :
: > : Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
: > : --
: > : Microsoft MVP
: > : On-Line Help Computer Service
: > : http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
: > :
: > : "The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
: >
: >
: For one simple reason Dan:
: NTFS is way more secure than FAT.
: Frank

 

[Alex Nichol]

So with 98SE all beefed up in security with third party products, then you
still think XP (NT code based) is more secure, Ron?

With SP2 XP certainly is. And Win98 had to provide lax access for
programs to get at hardware direct, so many legacy 16 bit matters and
their drivers and DOS in real mode could run. This makes it less
stable and less secure

 

[Frank]

Okay, I will give you that but what about when XP is installed on a Fat32
drive.

: Dan wrote:
: > So with 98SE all beefed up in security with third party products, then
you
: > still think XP (NT code based) is more secure, Ron?
: >
: > : > :
: > : >I know that 98SE is more secure since it is based on 9x source code
and is
: > : >now mostly ignored by hackers since they are mainly targetting XP PRO.
and
: > : >have the NT source code in their sites. 98, 98SE and even ME (I do
not
: > like
: > : >Millenium) all are based on 9x which has its roots in MS-DOS and NT
does
: > not
: > : >have a true maintenance operating system and Microsoft needs to have a
: > : >seperate NT underlying maintenance operating system and not rely on an
: > : >emulator of MS-DOS since MS-DOS's true successor was the 9x source
code
: > which
: > : >reached the height of its glory with 98 Second Edition and
unfortunately
: > : >Microsoft rushed out Millenium and so it was flawed and I am really
glad
: > that
: > : >Microsoft is taking their time with Longhorn and I hope it is awesome.
: > : >
: > :
: > : Windows 98 is in no way *more* secure than Windows XP. It may give
: > : you a false sense of security because not so many scumbags are
: > : targetting it these days but it is still highly vulnerable and just as
: > : soon as Windows XP gets a bit tougher to penetrate you could see
: > : renewed assaults aimed at the 9x products.
: > :
: > :
: > : Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
: > : --
: > : Microsoft MVP
: > : On-Line Help Computer Service
: > : http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
: > :
: > : "The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
: >
: >
: For one simple reason Dan:
: NTFS is way more secure than FAT.
: Frank

Why do that?
Frank

 

[Dan]

Thanks Alex. I see your point. I am looking forward to the updates from
Microsoft that are supposed to be released today. Although, it may annoy
other users, I love updating my Windows software, seeing what the software
has changed, and analyzing it. I wonder when programs will start removing
associated registry entries with programs because it certainly is tiring to
remove a few hundred registry entries manually when you remove a Symantec
product like Norton SystemWorks. It is a challenge but I sometimes feel it
is a waste of time and the product manufacturer should have removed these
registry entries. Fortunately, Computer Associates has their EZARMOR which I
really like and when you unistall it then the product removes the associated
registry entries. Anyway, back to the 98SE and XP SP2 debate, I see where
you are coming from and appreciate the feedback. I agree with you, but I
hope that NT (XP and future Longhorn) will soon be able to have their own
maintenence operating system and not have to rely on an MS-DOS emulator in a
command.com prompt according to Gary S. Terhune, MVP and Chris Quirke, MVP.
Thanks again and have a great day! :>

: Dan wrote:
:
: >So with 98SE all beefed up in security with third party products, then you
: >still think XP (NT code based) is more secure, Ron?
:
: With SP2 XP certainly is. And Win98 had to provide lax access for
: programs to get at hardware direct, so many legacy 16 bit matters and
: their drivers and DOS in real mode could run. This makes it less
: stable and less secure
:
: --
: Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
: Bournemouth, U.K. (e-mail address removed)8E8L.org (remove the D8 bit)

 

[Plato]

Windows 98 is in no way *more* secure than Windows XP. It may give
you a false sense of security because not so many scumbags are
targetting it these days but it is still highly vulnerable and just as
soon as Windows XP gets a bit tougher to penetrate you could see
renewed assaults aimed at the 9x products.

Nah. The nasty boys dont care 'bout OS's in decline.

 

[Guest]

O.K. guys, I have solved the issue myself. Apparently the customer had the
bios anti-virus item unchecked in the bios so that the virus wrote a script
into the bios preventing it from loading windows. Unfortunatly I had
re-formated the drive to try to reload the system. I even in desperation re,
moved the partition and re-installed it to no avail. My last attempt at
trying to repair this beast was to download a flash for the bios, "(which i
do not recommend to anyone who does not have extensive experience)" and after
flashing it, the system loaded right up without any problems. Please share
this with anyone who has this problem in the future as this particular virus
is deadly.
Dave Giles

 

[Dan]

Thanks for sharing your experience with us David. I appreciate the
information. Have a great day!

"Creative Design and Computers"
: O.K. guys, I have solved the issue myself. Apparently the customer had the
: bios anti-virus item unchecked in the bios so that the virus wrote a script
: into the bios preventing it from loading windows. Unfortunatly I had
: re-formated the drive to try to reload the system. I even in desperation
re,
: moved the partition and re-installed it to no avail. My last attempt at
: trying to repair this beast was to download a flash for the bios, "(which i
: do not recommend to anyone who does not have extensive experience)" and
after
: flashing it, the system loaded right up without any problems. Please share
: this with anyone who has this problem in the future as this particular
virus
: is deadly.
: Dave Giles
:
: "Creative Design and Computers" wrote:
:
: > A customers system has xp home and acquired the hacktool.rootkit virus.
I
: > installed her drive on a working system and removed the virus and
infected
: > files. Putting the drive back in her tower and trying to access windows,
it
: > will only go to the black screen right before entering windows where the
: > curser appears and it just will not go any further. I tried switching
the
: > hard drive with a windows 98 system on it and it loads just fine. I
tried
: > reinstalling xp but it only goes to the blamk screen and hangs just as it
did
: > with the old operating system. Is it possible that the virus changed the
: > cmos of the motherboard or something else. Possibly the master boot
record
: > was changed or ?????????.
: > I sure could use some ideas as I am baffled with this one.
: > Dave Giles