Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2011 February 3
| Computing desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < February 2 | << Jan | February | Mar >> | February 4 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
February 3
[edit]fapemaia malware
[edit]I foolishly clicked on www.fapemaia.pt/sun.php, which must be a virus. I can't find information on it in the McAfee or Symantec virus libraries. How can I get information on this in order to deal with it? Thanks. --Halcatalyst (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- That URL redirects (HTTP 302) to http://{denzialex,dzikketu,oygmuntua}.com/?cid=3s01, apparently choosing the server at random. This looks very dodgy. Unfortunately, I can't connect to any of the three servers (connection timed out), so I can't learn any more than that. What symptoms are you seeing? You could run HijackThis and post the log here and we could take a look. There may be better forums for that sort of thing, though. -- BenRG (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Symptoms: On the click there was a brief flurry of activity and then the website for a Canadian pharmacy offering Viagra came up. Then, nothing much, though now the browser is running slow. HijackThis: I downloaded and ran it. The first time it halted on the Hosts file, saying (I think) that it couldn't get in, but that I could by using the RUN command or (easier, with Vista) using Run as Administrator. I clicked OK and the program terminated. Then I tried again using Run as Administrator, so I have two log files. Can I uoload one of thm here for analysis, or is there a better way? Thanks again. --Halcatalyst (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Only the second log using Run as Administrator is useful. You can paste it between the two "collapse" lines below, but no guarantees that I/we will spot anything. If browser slowness is the only symptom then you may not actually have any malware. (What browser do you use?) -- BenRG (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- The file is pasted below. My browser is Firefox 3.6. --Halcatalyst (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Only the second log using Run as Administrator is useful. You can paste it between the two "collapse" lines below, but no guarantees that I/we will spot anything. If browser slowness is the only symptom then you may not actually have any malware. (What browser do you use?) -- BenRG (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Symptoms: On the click there was a brief flurry of activity and then the website for a Canadian pharmacy offering Viagra came up. Then, nothing much, though now the browser is running slow. HijackThis: I downloaded and ran it. The first time it halted on the Hosts file, saying (I think) that it couldn't get in, but that I could by using the RUN command or (easier, with Vista) using Run as Administrator. I clicked OK and the program terminated. Then I tried again using Run as Administrator, so I have two log files. Can I uoload one of thm here for analysis, or is there a better way? Thanks again. --Halcatalyst (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
HijackThis log
|
|---|
Logfile of Trend Micro HijackThis v2.0.4 Running processes: R0 - HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Main,Start Page = http://www.stjohnmv.org/ -- |
Possible Spam in Subject Line
[edit]Hello. How can I remove the [Possible spam detected by WebShield] header from the subject line of emails sent to my Hotmail address? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 06:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- That could be caused by a variety of anti-virus/anti-spam products, either running on your computer or on the network that the email passes through before it gets to you. If it's in the subject line, that suggests it may be added before the email arrives in your inbox. Are you able to isolate it to emails with certain addresses/content or is it happening randomly or to all mail? --Kateshortforbob talk 11:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The header is added to my email sent from my volunteering institution. I often reply to these emails and want to eliminate the chance of forgetting to remove the spam header before sending. --Mayfare (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
What does Winlock.exe (malware) do?
[edit]An anti-virus scanner recently found this malware on my computer. I have looked it up on Google, but all I get is the same text repeated at many different sites saying it's malware.
What exactly does Winlock.exe do? What exactly does it do that's malicious? Thanks 92.15.14.91 (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
PC Upgrade question
[edit]Perhaps someone can give a few quick pointers to this question. We have a Windows 7 PC in production area which is used pretty much only to deal with one MS Access database (there's a person assigned to the computer who's responsibility is to run a variety of queries in response to different situations). By Access standards, the database is rather large (with the biggest table containing ~150,000 records, with a dozen or so auxiliary tables 5,000-15,000 records each, plus a good number of small lookup tables), and the queries are quite convoluted as well. It takes about 60 seconds to run one of the most used queries, and since it needs to be run a bazillion times during the course of the day, it really adds up.
The PC is a 2.66 GHz quad-core with 12 gigs of RAM and an SSD for the hard drive. We would like to upgrade (or replace) the hardware so the same query takes no more than 10-15 seconds to run (5 would be ideal). There is no way to switch to a different OS, software, or a database product, but there is plenty of flexibility with hardware (as long as it remains a PC). Any suggestions as to what kind of upgrade should be sufficient to reach that goal? Money is not a big concern but of course we would like to avoid spending more than needed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 3, 2011; 16:53 (UTC)
- My experience with Access (this is Access 2003) is that it gains almost nothing from extra memory or more CPUs. It appears to run its queries in a single thread, so multi-core CPUs do not help (I run a quad core with 6 Gigs and never see it use more than a few 10s of megs of memory and 25% CPU). My only suggestion would be to get the fastest single CPU that you can find and use that. (Note that this comes from using it with larger tables of a few million records, but probably less complex relationships). --Phil Holmes (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I suspected as much :( I wish we could do away with Access, but that's not my decision to make. By the way, this database runs in Access 2007, but I assume it (or Access 2010 for that matter) does not use multiple cores either, right?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 3, 2011; 17:35 (UTC)
- (ec) That sounds like a beefy database server already. It's not quite "internet-class" in that it's a little less RAM than you might find on an enterprise database server, and the CPU isn't "top of the line for 2011," but it's still pretty darned powerful. I suspect your biggest database bottleneck is, as always, disk access; (though at 12 GB of RAM you could be caching almost everything in RAM already...
Here is how to check your Access configuration and set up the size of the RAM cacheWrong link, see below. (Make the cache size a few gigabytes, since your machine is dedicated to only this task...). If your data is actually larger than you can meaningfully fit in RAM, it's time to strobe the file back-end across multiple hard-disk drives (or SSDs, in your case). You can do this by setting up a RAID array or by configuring Access's data backend to strobe across regular file-systems. But I would really suggest you get a database expert to take a look at your actual system - if your data tables are pathological (i.e., not tuned for easy access to the kinds of queries you are running), then all the hardware in the world won't make the performance any better. You may need a database "reorganization" for performance-tuning. Nimur (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, the PC already uses an SSD, but the idea of putting in multiple SSDs in a RAID may be something to consider. Thanks for that. The database itself is actually pretty well-organized—I'm sure there are areas to improve, but it's not your typical hodge-podge of data from random sources :) Efficiency-wise it's probably as efficient as it can get, given the environment. It's also not on any network for security reasons; everything is locally stored and processed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 3, 2011; 17:35 (UTC)
- Definitely. But let me re-emphasize - Access may not be currently configured to make the most of your RAM. Check the size of Access' RAM cache size and make sure it's huge (say, 8 GB or 10 GB), so that you are actually taking advantage of your 12 GB available. Nimur (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, but are you sure it's the right link? It seems to talk about the olden days, 486s, VB 3.0, and other such antiquities. Is that tip still relevant today?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 3, 2011; 18:38 (UTC)
- Argh, I used a bad link, my error (too many tabs open!) The earlier link was irrelevant. Here's Performance Tips to Speed Up Your Access 2007 Database, hang on while I navigate through my page-history to find what I was actually looking for. Sorry. Nimur (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Is Win7 32 or 64-bit? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's 64-bit (otherwise it would be pointless to have 12 Gb of RAM :))—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 3, 2011; 22:00 (UTC)
- Or if you where just idly curious, or thought your windows 7 is only 32 bits and wondered about the 12Gb. Windows 7 comes in both 32 bit and 64 bit variants. Taemyr (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Doesn't Office 2007 only come in a 32-bit edition though? (I didn't think it was until 2010 that there was a 64-bit option). So as such, can a 32-bit application actually take advantage of all that RAM since a 32-bit operating system would have been limited to 4Gb? (I don't know the answer as I've never tested this, I'm just throwing the question out there). When you look at the process in task manager, how much memory is it actually using? ZX81 talk 23:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, good point. I don't believe there is a 64-bit version of Office 2007 (although I think there is a 64-bit version of Office 2010). I'll add this to a list of things to consider for the next software upgrade cycle; thanks for the idea!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 4, 2011; 15:37 (UTC)
- I use the 64-bit version of Microsoft Office 2007 Professional Edition on my workstation. Rocketshiporion♫ 20:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but although you might be using a 64-bit operating system, you're using 32-bit Office 2007. Since posting my original answer I checked further and I can confirm there was no 64-bit version of Office 2007 and it wasn't until Office 2010 that this option was introduced (Microsoft link here). ZX81 talk 21:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- What SSD are you using? There are large differences in performances for different models.
- It's OCZ Vertex 2. I use the exact same model at home myself, and am yet to complain about performance :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 4, 2011; 15:37 (UTC)
- What SSD are you using? There are large differences in performances for different models.
Windows Vista Broke!
[edit]Hi, i have WinVista Premium x64, and it broke the other night. I have limited knowledge of the output of the BSOD, but it seems there are errors with storport.sys. (getting "DRIVER_IRQL_NOT_LESS_THAN_OR_EQUAL").... I did the research and there are a myriad of possible causes it seems. I have ruled out memory or other hardware being an issue because the Operating System broke while the PC was running, without any recent change to hardware/drivers. Additionally, i am able to successfully boot from an Ubuntu Live CD.
I can view my NTFS disks from Ubuntu, but i am semi novice with Linux in general... Knowing that i can see my files from windows, is there a way i can just get "good copies" of these files and write over them, or use some sort of repair program from Ubuntu?
Looking for specific suggestions/downloads if possible. Thanks!
137.81.47.223 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think the Ubuntu live CD comes with a memory test utility (memtest86). I'd run that. Memory can fail while the computer is running. If it fails, try removing one of your memory modules. Is this a desktop? If it passes the test, boot from a Vista DVD and re-install Windows.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- You can use the Vista Windows Memory Diagnostics Tool. What heppens if you boot into safe mode? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Its not memory, i forced my BIOS to do a slow boot, thus making it check memory, and it passed. Besides, wouldnt the Ubuntu live CD fail if there was a memory issue? I did try removing some memory chips and all that, didnt fix the issue. Also, safe mode fails to load as well, i either BSOD or i get "Safe-Mode" in each corner of the screen, with a mouse cursor but no taskbar or start menu showing up. It is a desktop.
I would reinstall windows, but i dont want to lose any info on the hard drive, like installed programs. Wont reinstalling force me to format,, thus losing that data?
I would like options that dont involve formatting, if possible. :)
137.81.47.223 (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- BIOS memory tests generally aren't very great. Use the memtest one as provided by Ubuntu - it may take overnight, but will shake out an slightly dodgy locations. CS Miller (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Csmiller is correct; memtest86 is much more thorough than any BIOS memory test. From your description, though, it sounds to me that it's more likely that some file that Vista requires has become corrupted, hence your booting every other time (my guess) into safe mode. Personally I would run memtest86 in order to eliminate that possibility, then I would reinstall Windows; here is a Microsoft page that discusses a couple of ways of reinstalling Vista; and no, it doesn't require you to format your hard disk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, re-installing Windows does not format the hard drive (unless you specifically tell the installer to reformat). You will retain all your old files, but any third-party programs you had installed will not work, anymore. For example, if you used Firefox, you would need to download that again and re-install it. But any pictures, for example, would still be on the hard drive, although I think Windows installer puts them in a folder titled Windows.old in the root of the drive.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- You can do a repair install of Vista by booting a Vista install disc and selecting "repair"; it might solve the problem and you won't even have to reinstall applications. Your computer manufacturer's system restore disc will erase everything, though. Vista's repair install is probably the only remedy that has much hope of working short of a full reinstall.
- I think the most common cause of DRIVER_IRQL_NOT_LESS_THAN_OR_EQUAL is a buggy driver. Drivers are supposed to call certain kernel functions only at certain IRQ levels, and if they screw up then you get this bluescreen. You can't be sure that the driver mentioned on the bluescreen is the culprit, since not every bit of code in the kernel sanity-checks the IRQ level all the time.
- As CS Miller said, BIOS memory tests are almost useless; you should use memtest86 (available as a Ubuntu boot option) or Microsoft's memory tester (available as a Vista boot option, I think, though I've never used it). Different operating systems put important data in different places, and a dodgy memory chip might cause a failure in Vista but not Ubuntu. But if you systematically tried booting with each memory module absent and the problem continued, then it's probably not the memory. -- BenRG (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I am now on my Ubuntu liveboot CD, but i dont see a memory checker on here. There is "System Testing" under system > admin menu, but it only does sound checks etc.... how can i test my memory with ubuntu from the live boot CD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.81.116.186 (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- If you have a system > admin menu you have gone to far. It's on the first menu you get, the one where you choose if you want to install ubuntu or run without installing. Taemyr (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is this screen, for Ubuntu-10.04 LTS, which is the previous revision (I don't have a 10.10 [latest] disc). It will be overlaid with the language selection menu, just select English (the default). CS Miller (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
10.10 does not have that option at this screen, only install and try... i searched folder "FileSystem" but i cant find the executable because i dont know linux extensions. Can someone give directions to access console and run it from there? or someone here know more about what 10.10 liveboot cd looks like?
137.81.116.186 (talk) 03:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Alternatively, you could just download and burn a memtest86 boot disc from the memtest86 home page. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- To ask the obvious question, have you tried pushing F6 for other options? Nil Einne (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well after downloading the Ubuntu 10.10 32 bit desktop liveCD I found that the text GRUB menu is no longer shown, instead Ubuntu boots and then you are shown a graphical menu with the 'install' and 'try' options. (Hint: it would have been helpful if you'd made this clear since I'm sure I wasn't the only person who thought you did get the text GRUB menu but only install and try.) Anyway after some searching I found [2] which says this has been the case since 10.04 or possibly earlier but when you see the keyboard and accessibility? symbol shown before Ubuntu boots up you push spacebar and get the text Grub menu again which does of course show the memtest option. Testing on my 10.10 live CD confirms this still works. Nil Einne (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Geometers SketchPad 5 and chaos method of Sierpinski Triangle
[edit]Hi, I am just learning Geometers SketchPad through a class I am taking, and it seems to be very useful software. However, i was wondering if the custom tool creator could be used to script in sierpinski's triangle using the chaos method:
1) Select a point inside a defined triangle as a "base point". 2) Randomly select one of the vertices of the main triangle. 3) find the mid-point between the selected triangle vertex and your "base. 4) Draw this mid-point and allow it to become the new "base". 5) Repeat Steps 2-4 as many times as desired.
I asked my instructor how to script this, and she said that the script editor is new to GS 5, and that she knew very little about it.
I have version 5.03 running on Windows XP Professional, if this is of any importance to the features available to me. Is what im asking possible? I would love to be able to define 3 points and just let the script run, perhaps with a predefined parameter which will tell the script how many iterations to go through!