|
Last Chance posted:Did you run a virus scan? I mean, for your infection? You mean before or after the reinstall? Before, the goddamn thing kept coming back every restart and would dig into my registry. After, my virus scan hasn't picked it up and I don't see it in my registry anymore. Roman Reigns fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Dec 17, 2016 |
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 18:33 |
|
|
That's certainly odd. Virus scanners use some really low-level hooks and should be way higher privileged than anything that calls itself a virus these days.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:That's certainly odd. Virus scanners use some really low-level hooks and should be way higher privileged than anything that calls itself a virus these days. Oh it gets better. Between webroot, malwarebytes, rkill, and tdskiller only MalwareBytes was able to pick it up. Also did the Windows 10 Resets, both with and without keeping files, and the fucker still came back. My files were already backed up, so I did the clean reinstall and it seemed to have worked. But now Windows doesn't seem to want to update beyond KB3199986. I just tried the Windows Update troubleshooter but it didn't find anything. I'm getting the feeling I may have to do another Reset, as the updates were at least working then, but I hate to do it after just getting everything back up...
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
Roman Reigns posted:You mean before or after the reinstall? Before, the goddamn thing kept coming back every restart and would dig into my registry. After, my virus scan hasn't picked it up and I don't see it in my registry anymore. That's because AV is dumpster fire garbage and does more harm than good. Combat Pretzel posted:That's certainly odd. Virus scanners use some really low-level hooks and should be way higher privileged than anything that calls itself a virus these days. Those low level hooks end up being a huge security risk and are exploited all the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:That's because AV is dumpster fire garbage and does more harm than good. Yeah I'm ending my subscription after this. I always back up my files anyway, and this is the first incident I've had in over a year so gently caress it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
Don't pay for av.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 07:45
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:Those low level hooks end up being a huge security risk and are exploited all the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
I don't recall anyone in the 80s using viruses to slow down uranium enrichment in Iran but maybe that's just me? Edit: the 80s/90s viruses only looked sophisticated because we had little to measure it by. Frankly I'll take a TSR virus that shuffles the characters on the display and maybe wipes the MBR over Conficker/Stuxnet/any of the myriad botnet viruses/Cryptolocker, etc. any day. Sheep fucked around with this message at 15:15 on Dec 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
That's a targeted solution that likely also involved social engineering type of antics to get installed in that place.Sheep posted:Edit: the 80s/90s viruses only looked sophisticated because we had little to measure it by. Frankly I'll take a TSR virus that shuffles the characters on the display and maybe wipes the MBR over Conficker/Stuxnet/any of the myriad botnet viruses/Cryptolocker, etc. any day. Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Dec 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
What "virus from the DOS days" were you impressed by? They all assumed they were executed with admin rights, pretty much, and many did nothing at all harmful. In 2016 we have malware shutting down hospital networks and reprogramming routers and webcams to knock out a sizeable part of the internet via DDoS. Some rose-tinted poo poo here for being nostalgic about something that played loud sounds and achieved nothing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
Regardless of payload, I kinda consider the old viruses to be more skillful. You had just a couple of hundred bytes to a very few kilobytes to implement a payload (whatever you may think about it), polymorphism (self-modification) to evade detection and a means to mess with the format of executables to latch to them unnoticed for transmission. If that's not impressive considering the lack of constraints there are these days (hardware and available APIs), then I don't know. As far as names, I mean, gee, it's kind of a long while ago. It's been 20 years I'm running the NT line of operating systems.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
Khablam posted:In 2016 ... reprogramming routers and webcams to knock out a sizeable part of the internet via DDoS. The only impressive thing about that is how impressively awful security is on those type of devices - all that botnet is doing is using hardcoded admin credentials that are common across a whole load of lovely devices
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
It's apples and oranges. Old viruses had less to work with but they were also breaking into simpler systems with less security. Inarguably you had to have technically sophisticated code to accomplish anything with the thin margin of resources you could steal, but your targets were rarely networked so there wasn't a lot to actually do other than bust things. Compared to modern viruses which can take advantage of so many resources that the whole point of most of them is to outright steal them invisibly from you, but need to be socially sophisticated to get through to their targets. Old viruses might be small and clever, but they're not using png transparencies to assemble malware on the local system clever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Regardless of payload, I kinda consider the old viruses to be more skillful. You had just a couple of hundred bytes to a very few kilobytes to implement a payload (whatever you may think about it), polymorphism (self-modification) to evade detection and a means to mess with the format of executables to latch to them unnoticed for transmission. If that's not impressive considering the lack of constraints there are these days (hardware and available APIs), then I don't know. It's not really impressive. The size was small because they were probably in assembly or similar. The security they had to defeat to do their work was almost completely non-existent. This is before any form of exploit mitigation was even in-place, and even before you needed exploits to do what you wanted to do. You talk about APIs making it easier but consider that in a lot of modern software API calls are the majority of/entire attack surface. Corrupting these to do what you want to do takes more ingenuity than attacking running memory in an area before any protections were in place to prevent that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
Khablam posted:It's not really impressive. The size was small because they were probably in assembly or similar. The security they had to defeat to do their work was almost completely non-existent. This is before any form of exploit mitigation was even in-place, and even before you needed exploits to do what you wanted to do. Not to mention, most all programs were small then, so why wouldn't the viruses be as well? You could get a full featured word processor on a 360 KB disk with enough free space for a document or two.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
Low level tricks are neat, maybe that's what they like about old viruses
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Does anyone know how many digital entitlements for Win10 you can have associated with your account? I've converted 2 Win7 systems over to Win10 licenses and converted one of them to a digital entitlement on my microsoft account, but I don't want to log into my other system with my microsoft id if it doesn't track multiple entitlements per account edit - Talked to Microsoft support and they are still working on the digital license stuff and to just activate with my Windows 7 key if I change my hardware and have issues WhyteRyce fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
WhyteRyce posted:Does anyone know how many digital entitlements for Win10 you can have associated with your account? I've converted 2 Win7 systems over to Win10 licenses and converted one of them to a digital entitlement on my microsoft account, but I don't want to log into my other system with my microsoft id if it doesn't track multiple entitlements per account I have two different systems that were 7 to 10 free upgrades, and both are digital entitlement and signed into a microsoft account.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
How do you tell how many separate entitlements are connected to the account? I logged in on account.microsoft.com and I see six machines that I know have licenses but 2 have blank serials there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
If you skip signing in with a Microsoft account the device hash gets stored in the general pool and you can reinstall Windows 10 to it at leisure. Windows 10 will associate apps to 10  devices with the same Microsoft account so that might be the device cap, but I dunno man I'm not going to spin up a bunch of VMs and a fake account to test this poo pooAlso the device serial numbers on your account devices page is pulled from firmware and a lot of homebuilt PCs don't have a number there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
What the hell is Microsoft Compatibility Telemetry, why is it making my disk grind and spin and act like crazy, and how do I make it stop?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Windows 10, Chrome, and Photoshop/Video Games keep reporting being out of memory on my machine, but Task Manager reports 11.5GB/16GB used and only 16.7GB/30.9GB committed. Programs are crashing. Any idea what's up?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
For some reason I can't sort any files in any folders on my second hard drive by date modified, size, type, etc. It just does this long load bar across the file location at the top then craps out. I don't have this issue on my SSD though. Ideas?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:Windows 10, Chrome, and Photoshop/Video Games keep reporting being out of memory on my machine, but Task Manager reports 11.5GB/16GB used and only 16.7GB/30.9GB committed. Programs are crashing. Any idea what's up? What's your virtual memory/swap settings? How much free disk space? How many of those programs are 64 bit?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
nielsm posted:What's your virtual memory/swap settings? How much free disk space?    Game(s) are probably 64b, as is Photoshop. Chrome is whatever. Most of my other stuff are just small utilities. Putty, WinSCP, Afterburner, HwInfo. And I suppose discord, slack, and skype. Drives C, D, and E are all SSDs. 850 Evo, 840 Evo, and a Sandisk Ultra (iirc), in that order.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Okay yeah that all looks reasonable. I'm not sure what else to do, apart from grabbing a debugger and look for memory allocations failing and trace the cause from that. Not something I'd want to do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
I've had a similar problem once or twice having Firefox and Warframe open. I've got 8gb, but Task Manager said of about three quarters of that was in use when I got the "memory hog" popup.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
I'm sure you had your reasons when you unchecked that box top left, but considering the problems you're having, I'd try going back on that. Not saying things are working as they should with the settings you have there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Windows likes to stick page files on spinning rust when I let it run wild
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:Windows 10, Chrome, and Photoshop/Video Games keep reporting being out of memory on my machine, but Task Manager reports 11.5GB/16GB used and only 16.7GB/30.9GB committed. Programs are crashing. Any idea what's up? All of those use VRAM heavily, not just system RAM. I suspect you're failing graphics buffer allocation and not system memory. What graphics card are you using?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
stedd posted:All of those use VRAM heavily, not just system RAM. I suspect you're failing graphics buffer allocation and not system memory. What graphics card are you using? GTX 1070, 8GB GDDR5X VRAM
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:GTX 1070, 8GB GDDR5X VRAM Hmm, doesn't sound suspicious then but would be good to double check. Use cpuz or MSI afterburner or whatever to look at VRAM usage. Also, take a look through the system event log (application and system channels) and see if any errors pop out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:Windows likes to stick page files on spinning rust when I let it run wild The other oddity is that none of it is on the c drive. I'd say I read something about that messing things up, but I can't tell if I'm making that up. But a thing you could try without involving spinning rust anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
stedd posted:Hmm, doesn't sound suspicious then but would be good to double check. Use cpuz or MSI afterburner or whatever to look at VRAM usage. Also, take a look through the system event log (application and system channels) and see if any errors pop out. Is there a way to output this to a log? I'll run the programs and see what happens. Flipperwaldt posted:It would be more of a troubleshooting step. I remember not having a page file entirely does dumb poo poo. I'll try those steps though. e: to specify the error, Windows begins spawning pop-ups saying I need to close programs to free memory, then programs crash if I don't close the game or Chrome or Photoshop, etc. PerrineClostermann fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Dec 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:Windows likes to stick page files on spinning rust when I let it run wild It looks like your operating system is on spinning rust. Why is your operating system on spinning rust?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
dont be mean to me posted:It looks like your operating system is on spinning rust. PerrineClostermann posted:Drives C, D, and E are all SSDs. 850 Evo, 840 Evo, and a Sandisk Ultra (iirc), in that order.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:Is there a way to output this to a log? I'll run the programs and see what happens. There's probably a ETW provider somewhere that outputs this, but I'm not aware of one off the top of my head. The easiest thing will be to just keep CPUz open and see what it says when the error shows up. PerrineClostermann posted:I remember not having a page file entirely does dumb poo poo. I'll try those steps though. Not having any page file reduces what the memory manager can page out, in that it prevents MM from paging out private pages. File back pages can still be paged (think DLL pages), so all you're really doing is reducing the number of options that MM has. In many cases it better to page out private pages instead of file backed pages, so turning off the page file can harm performance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:Drives C, D, and E are all SSDs. 850 Evo, 840 Evo, and a Sandisk Ultra (iirc), in that order. Here's a thought - do you have RAPID enabled on the boot drive?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
I don't have rapid enabled
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 18:33 |
|
|
When programs start complaining about memory open resource monitor -> memory tab and sort by commit and see which program is eating all the memory. It's probably Chrome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 16:57
|
|
