• vandermeer

    vandermeer

    @vandermeer

    Viewing 15 replies - 16 through 30 (of 43 total)
    Author
    Replies
    • in reply to: email programs #2396282

      I’d suggest investing some time looking into Interlink and its developer before considering it.

      2 users thanked author for this post.
    • in reply to: NAS connection no longer works — multiple logins #2395237

      Back in July, WD NASs were widely reported to have a serious security flaw.
      https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/2/22561140/wd-cloud-os-3-security-flaw-update-patch-disconnect

      You might want to check whether the problem you’re experiencing is related to it.

      My WD MyBookLive was definitely a potential victim, so I took out the 1TB drive and checked it for viruses. When it came up clean, I put it in my box of honorably discharged HDDs, “just in case I need it some day” (which I probably won’t).

      I sent the NAS itself on a one-way trip to the recycling station and bought a used one-bay Synology 116 for 60 euros with a 2TB HDD.

      I didn’t win this year’s Nobel Prize for Computing Wizardry, but I’m nonetheless happy with my decision.

      You might want to reassess your situation and, if push comes to shove, trash your “old WD NAS” and replace it with a used-but-more-modern device. I like Synology, but there are lots of other good machines out there that don’t cost an arm and a leg.

    • in reply to: Synology DSM V7 #2389765

      I use my three Synology drives for nothing but local backup; they’re not open to the internet. Why do I need three? Why not?

      Anyway, I have a DS114, 115, and DS116, all of which I updated to DM7 back in July – I think.

      The update went fine, and I haven’t had any subsequent issues.

      I guess Synology made some security upgrades, which I s’pose makes the exercise worth it.

      Other than this, all I can say is that they added features that I don’t use.

      I see no performance difference whatsoever between v7 and previous ones.

      Your mileage may vary.

      1 user thanked author for this post.
    • in reply to: July 21 Updates; what should I believe? #2378082

      @ GoneToPlaid -> I had no idea that “C:\Windows\winsxs\Temp\PendingRenames” even existed. Thanks. I’m happy to report that this folder is empty on all six of my Win7 machines.

      @ GoneToPlaid and PKCano -> I’m at a loss to explain (and I certainly don’t understand) why the View update history on my machines (all six!) is different than yours.

      As you can see in the image, on my machines (here you see three of the six), everything I’ve ever installed shows! And in case you’re wondering, yes, they’re all also displayed in “Installed Updates”.

      These six machines were set up at various points in time between 2009 and 2020 using a variety of installation media. I have to admit that I have virtually no recollection of where I got the media or the product keys, but I guess they all came from shady corners of the net packed in unmarked brown paper bags or whatever.

      As for the options I selected for the installs, if I know myself, they were probably “So Wake Me Up When It’s All Over” or whatever.

      In any case, thanks to both of you and abbodi1406, I’m now at ease with the July updates and looking forward to what August will bring.

      Stay healthy, and thanks again.

      2 users thanked author for this post.
    • in reply to: July 21 Updates; what should I believe? #2377961

      Isn’t he referring to Update History instead of Installed Updates?
      All the ones I have installed show up in Installed Updates, but DO NO show in Update History as per screenshots.

      If you mean GoneToPlaid, yes, I think you’re right.

    • in reply to: July 21 Updates; what should I believe? #2377744

      No! Update History is history of Windows Update.
      If you install an update through WU it shows in the history.
      If you then uninstall the update by going to Installed Updates and choosing “uninstall,” it DOES NOT show the uninstall in Update History b/c WU was not used for the operation.

      I have been updating this Win7 machine with Win7EUSI since Feb 2020. The only thing that shows in Update History are the updates that come through WU, NOT the ones I have installed using the Bypass. See screenshot.

      Update-History

      I’m using Win7Pro x64. For some reason, it appears our experience has been quite different.

      I’ve only used the Bypass to install updates since this all started. As you can see in the attached image, “View updates history” shows every single install – and its success or failure.

      I also mentioned my issue on the website where the Bypass is distributed, and our colleague abbodi1406 kindly offered the following information in response to my explaining that I had been unable to uninstall the SSU:

      “That’s normal, SSU cannot be uninstalled (which means it’s correctly installed). Update History failure is not really relevant.”

      Given his manifest expertise in these matters, I feel considerably more comfortable with the issue now.

      Thank you PKCano for your follow-up and for the constant valuable input you provide in these forums.

    • in reply to: July 21 Updates; what should I believe? #2377711

      If Installed Updates doesn’t flag it as failed, it isn’t failed.

      Thank you, but to the best of my knowledge, in Win7, the success or failure of an update is only shown under “View update history”.

      As far as I’m able to see, nothing of the like appears under “Installed updates”, even if the “Comments” column is active – or am I missing something?

    • in reply to: July 21 Updates; what should I believe? #2377635

      Are you installing using a 2021 ESU?
      Are you installing using the W7ESUI method described here?

      If the latter, did you try manually installing the SSU without using W7ESUI first? If so, that would account for the failure in Update History (the history of Windows Update installations/failures).
      If you then use W&ESUI to install the SSU, you are not going through Windows Update, so there may not be a recorded in Update History. It would only show up in Installed Updates.

      What you see in Installed Updates is what is actually installed on the PC.

      Thank you very much for taking the time to reply. As mentioned above, I’ve been using the ingenious ESU Bypass since the very beginning, and it’s always come through. Even on the machine in question, it worked correctly, enabling me to install the other three updates. The only problem was with the SSU.

      I was happy to read, “What you see in Installed Updates is what is actually installed on the PC”, but I guess the question is whether the installation is “correct”, or is there some type of error that will prevent installation of next month’s updates?

      Again, thanks for your help.

    • in reply to: July 21 Updates; what should I believe? #2377632

      Go to https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/kb5004378-servicing-stack-update-for-windows-7-sp1-and-server-2008-r2-sp1-july-13-2021-5e865e08-d235-48eb-8c4b-9defa4f5d79c

       

      Go down to the File Information section and expand it.  Now you can check the information from the update against the actual files installed on your system.

      Perhaps I should have mentioned in my original post that I installed last night’s updates on six computers of various types using the ESU Bypass. I’ve been using the Bypass with unfailing success on these machines since the end of Win7 support. The problem I’ve described occurred on only one of the six machines.

      The reason I got suspicious about it was that after installing the SSU on that machine, I was told I had to restart, which wasn’t the case on the other five – and has, to the best of my recollection – never been required when doing an SSU update.

      In any case, thank you very much for your reply and the information. Going through the file-check process was quite interesting, but now – unfortunately – I’m even a bit more confused.

      In the relevant folder are all the files mentioned in the rather long MS list to which you kindly linked.

      It appears that all the ones with the file version 6.1.7601.2562 are properly installed, but for some reason, the dates of the “non-versioned” files don’t match those on the MS list.

      For example, GlobalInstallOrder.xml – on the MS list, the date is 12 Oct 2020, but on my machine it’s 12 Mar 2020. WcmTypes.xsd is also dated 12 Oct 2020 on the MS list, but on my machine, the date is 14 Jul 2009. (I’m wondering if this is a mistake of some kind because of the “14 July” component, or that 14 July 2009 was when I originally installed Win7.)

      Another interesting thing is the file “x86_installed”. On my computer, it doesn’t appear in the folder indicated on the MS list at all, but rather in a separate folder under C:\Windows\servicing\Version\6.1.7601.2562, which matches yesterday’s install, but – as I’ve said – diverges from the list.

      The date discrepancy also matches the one I’ve mentioned above: on the list it’s 12 Oct 2020, but on my machine, it’s, again, 14 Jul 2009.

      Does all this indicate that I’m OK, or is something really screwed up that I should be concerned about? I guess the correct SSU will be required to install next month’s updates.

      Hmmmm, maybe I’ll just have to wait and see what happens.

      Anyway, thanks again very much for your help.

    • in reply to: July 2021 security updates are out #2377483

      I updated three Win7 machines with the Bypass and my Win10 21H1 normally.

      I’ve been testing for about two hours. As far as I can see, everything works.

      Let it be said that I’m on a tiny home network. I don’t think I’d be so cavalier if I were responsible for a massive corporate environment.

      3 users thanked author for this post.
    • in reply to: Need lots of Win7 updates! #2375716

      thanks so much! Yes, I’ve been using the internet nearly since it was available so know to be extremely careful and firefox blocks uncertified sites which helps tremendously. Since my laptop is running great without a year or so of updates provided through the ESU or 0P I think that I’ll stop worrying.

      The updates, if anything, might make your machine run worse. Therefore, if you do update, you might want to opt for the “security-only” variety rather than “quality-security”or whatever they’re called.

      The point is that the updates theoretically contain code changes that address newly discovered threats. IMNSHO, the “quality” aspect is mostly window dressing.

      It’s sort of like the old story, “My grandpa drank two bottles of whisky and smoked three packs of cigarettes a day until he died in his sleep in perfect health at 107”.

      It seems like karma has something to do with the necessity to update or not.

    • in reply to: Does your router auto update? #2375405

      With over 14 million customers, Deutsche Telekom – formerly the national communications monopoly – is by far Germany’s biggest internet provider. Vodafone is next with about 11.

      They’ve improved their service remarkably over the years and – though I’m sure many people in Germany wouldn’t agree – in my opinion nowadays deliver a pretty good experience across the board. They’re certainly not cheap, but in this case, you do get what you pay for.

      Over the years, the Telekom has developed its own brand of router, called “Speedport”. You can buy or rent them when you sign up as a customer, or you can buy them on the open market – even on EBay and Amazon.de.

      Over the years, the Speedports have been manufactured by various producers: At the beginning it was Siemens; nowadays it’s Arcadyan and I think some others, depending on the model.

      Anyway, to the point, the routers have an auto-update function (called EasySupport) that’s on by default. Needless to say, a high-profile, close-to-the-government outfit like the Telekom is obliged to make a reasonable effort to make sure things are current, though I have no idea how successful they actually are. Of course, though, you can log into the router to check manually whether it’s up to date.

      All I can say is I’ve been with them for about 25 years, and (by the grace of God?) have never been hacked  and have never suffered an insufferable break in service.

      I’ll close by repeating something I mentioned in regard to the WD MyBook Live problem: The Speedport routers don’t have a UPnP function.

      I dunno, sometimes not having a world of choices actually seems advantageous.

       

    • in reply to: Got a Western Digital My book? #2374965

      How, please, can I find out whether UPnP is active in my “system”

      It may be enabled by default on your router. This is the only place you really need to worry about it.

      What is your router model?

      cheers, Paul

      Thank you for your reply.

      I’m in Berlin and have a “Speedport Smart 3” router, which is a product of the “Deutsche Telekom”, the former government communications monopoly and still the country’s biggest provider – as far as I know.

      Anyway, a bit of reading just now just revealed that my router – and all the routers in the “Speedport” series – don’t even have the UPnP function. It seems that in its “eternal maternal” role as Germany’s communications babysitter, the ex-monopolist decided to distribute only idiot-proof products.

      Obviously lots of people don’t want to be “babysat”, so they opt for “Fritzboxes” from the German company AVM or go for Netgear or whatever.

      People like me, though, who need all the protection we can get in the contemporary internet sharktank, are quite content that someone has closed at least one door whose potential for danger has, at least apparently in this case, been exposed for all to see – and (for the unfortunate) to feel.

      Having written all this, my MyBook Live still has its plugs pulled and will remain de-electrified till the beanbrains at WD reveal their solution to the crisis.

      I must admit that having found out about my router’s lack of UPnP makes me feel a bit better about leaving my two Synology drives working on my LAN.

      Just for the record, none of my NAS devices was ever intentionally opened to the Internet. I only use them as a convenient backup solution on my little home LAN.

      Apparently, though, similar scenarios were enough to cause lots of poor folks heartache due to WD’s lack of professionalism.

    • in reply to: Got a Western Digital My book? #2373807

      I’m always pleased to show my ignorance.
      🙂

      The WD statement quoted above says the following:
      “The log files we have reviewed show that the attackers directly connected to the affected My Book Live devices from a variety of IP addresses in different countries. This indicates that the affected devices were directly accessible from the Internet, either through direct connection or through port forwarding that was enabled either manually or automatically via UPnP.”

      As I mentioned in my posting above, my WD My Book Live (from which I’ve pulled the electricity plug), had no internet connection;it was behind my router/firewall.

      What I don’t understand from the WD post is “…through port forwarding that was enabled either manually or automatically via UPnP.”

      How, please, can I find out whether UPnP is active in my “system”, which includes a router, a non-managed switch, three computers, three printers, and two Synology NAS devices, as well several laptops, cell phones, and tablets connected to my router via WiFi?

      Thank you.

    • in reply to: Trouble updating Google Chrome #2373805

      For a variety of reasons, I use Chrome portable, which I originally downloaded here:
      https://portableapps.com/apps/internet/google_chrome_portable

      I periodically check for updates here:
      https://us-cert.cisa.gov/ncas/current-activity
      They’re usually on top of things, but as of this evening (25 June), for some reason, they still don’t have 91.0.4472.124.

      I then went to my “update” source:
      https://www.neowin.net/news/google-chrome-9104472124-offline-installer/

      There I found the latest version, did my little update routine, and in two minutes, I was good to go.

      Just to “head ’em off at the pass”, yes, I trust these two sources. In fact – in the overall scope of things – I trust them much more than I trust Alphabet/Google.

      By the way, the “Offline Installer” solution doesn’t permit updating from within Chrome. The “*.*_chrome_installer.exe” file only contains the “Chrome-bin” folder; you have to delete the old one manually.

      If it’s of any interest, my main browser is Pale Moon. I only keep Chrome on my machine for those rare cases when Pale Moon chokes on some weird type of javascript, which occurs once every two or three months.

    Viewing 15 replies - 16 through 30 (of 43 total)