 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows 98 / Networking / March 2008XP to Win98 network problem
I had two win98 computers connected via a crossover cable with no problems. I've just replaced one win98 computer with an XP. Now the win98 can access the XP ok. However the XP sees the win98 but in trying to access it the following message occurs. "\\win98 is not accessible. You might not have permission to use this network resource. Contact the administrator ..." I've tried with the XP firewall turned off with the same result. Zone Alarm and Grisoft AVG are installed on the win98 Any help appreciated. John > I had two win98 computers connected via a crossover cable with no > problems. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "\\win98 is not accessible. You might not have permission to use this > network resource. Contact the administrator ..." Your hardware network of two Win98 PCs connected via crossover cable needed no software setup. Your new network of XP and Win98 PC requires conventional setup, done most easily by 1. On the Win98 PC, enable sharing via / Control Panel / Network. You should also prearrange that each PC has a unique name but specify the same "workgroup." 2. Appropriate hardware connection. 3. On the WinXP PC, run the Network Wizard. As the last function, create a NETSETUP floppy. 4. With the system CD handy in case needed, run NETSETUP on the Win98 PC. This usually works OK (even if it generates an error message that installation could not be completed.) Repost back here with results.  SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) > > I had two win98 computers connected via a crossover cable with no > > problems. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Carlsbad Springs > (Ottawa, Canada) Installing the protocol 'Netbuie' in XP will make things go much better. It's not available by default but is on the XP CD. Google 'netbuie in XP' and you'll find the two files you need and install instructions. They are in the VALUEADD folder. Dick > > > I had two win98 computers connected via a crossover cable with no > > > problems. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Dick Thanks. Adding NETBEUI allows file and printer sharing in both directions. I'm still having problems sharing the internet connection. John >> > > I had two win98 computers connected via a crossover cable with no >> > > problems. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >John A network with both TCP/IP and NetBEUI will probably prove to be unreliable in the long run. I recommend removing NetBEUI from both computers and configuring TCP/IP properly. A firewall program on the XP computer is probably causing the original problem. Make sure that any firewall program is configured to allow File and Printer Sharing on the local area network. SignatureBest Wishes, Steve Winograd, MS-MVP (Windows Networking) Please post any reply as a follow-up message in the news group for everyone to see. I'm sorry, but I don't answer questions addressed directly to me in E-mail or news groups. Microsoft Most Valuable Professional Program http://mvp.support.microsoft.com > >> > > I had two win98 computers connected via a crossover cable with no > >> > > problems. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > problem. Make sure that any firewall program is configured to allow > File and Printer Sharing on the local area network. Thanks for the help. I removed all NETBEUI protocols. ZoneAlarm was blocking access. Setting Internet and Trusted zones to low(off) allows it to work. Adding the XP "Sues" to the trusted zone in zonealarm (Firewall/Zones) allows it to work with High and Medium settings. I still can't get access to the internet from the XP via the Win98 dial-up modem. Trying to access with Outlook Express gives the error message "The host mail.btinternet.com could not be found...." John >> A network with both TCP/IP and NetBEUI will probably prove to be >> unreliable in the long run. I recommend removing NetBEUI from both [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >John You're welcome, John. Nice job of figuring out the firewall settings. Both Windows 98 Second Edition and Windows XP can share their dial-up modem connection with another computer on the local network using Internet Connection Sharing. If possible, I recommend making XP the host computer (the one with the modem) and making 98 the client computer. I've written some web pages showing how to set it up: ICS Installation [Win98SE] http://www.practicallynetworked.com/sharing/ics/icsinstall.htm Windows XP Internet Connection Sharing http://www.practicallynetworked.com/sharing/xp_ics SignatureBest Wishes, Steve Winograd, MS-MVP (Windows Networking) Please post any reply as a follow-up message in the news group for everyone to see. I'm sorry, but I don't answer questions addressed directly to me in E-mail or news groups. Microsoft Most Valuable Professional Program http://mvp.support.microsoft.com > >> A network with both TCP/IP and NetBEUI will probably prove to be > >> unreliable in the long run. I recommend removing NetBEUI from both [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Windows XP Internet Connection Sharing > http://www.practicallynetworked.com/sharing/xp_ics Come back NETBEUI all is forgiven. With just the TCP/IP protocol installed; The win98 can share files and access the internet. The xp can share files but only if every time I switch on I go into ZoneAlarm (free) and install "sues" in the trusted zone or change the ethernet from internet to trusted zone. The xp can't share the internet. If I follow the instructions http://www.practicallynetworked.com/sharing/ics/icsinstall.htm it installs Internet Connection Sharing items in the network configuration panel creates a floppy disk and requires me to restart. The win98 can then no longer access the internet. Is it possible to have the modem in the win98 and have the xp share it? I don't remember having ICS installed when The two win98s were sharing the connection. John >> Both Windows 98 Second Edition and Windows XP can share their dial-up >> modem connection with another computer on the local network using [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >John The free version of ZoneAlarm is incompatible with Internet Connection Sharing on the host computer. To use XP as the host, you'll have to uninstall ZoneAlarm on XP. XP's built-in Windows Firewall gives the protection you need. Yes, you can have the modem in the Win98 computer. Win98 doesn't have a built-in Internet sharing capability -- that requires ICS or a similar third-party program. SignatureBest Wishes, Steve Winograd, MS-MVP (Windows Networking) Please post any reply as a follow-up message in the news group for everyone to see. I'm sorry, but I don't answer questions addressed directly to me in E-mail or news groups. Microsoft Most Valuable Professional Program http://mvp.support.microsoft.com Ah sorry Steve, not challenging you or anything, but you indicate XP's firewall is enough. It doesn't appear to be: http://www.firewallleaktester.com/index.html There are several other testing sites that rank XP's firewall poorly on their lists as well. SignatureMEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com _________ | >> Both Windows 98 Second Edition and Windows XP can share their dial-up | >> modem connection with another computer on the local network using [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] | a built-in Internet sharing capability -- that requires ICS or a | similar third-party program. > Ah sorry Steve, not challenging you or anything, but you indicate XP's >firewall is enough. It doesn't appear to be: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > There are several other testing sites that rank XP's firewall poorly on >their lists as well. I'd like to kknow more about this. Where do I go on that site to find information about XP's firewall? SignatureBest Wishes, Steve Winograd, MS-MVP (Windows Networking) Please post any reply as a follow-up message in the news group for everyone to see. I'm sorry, but I don't answer questions addressed directly to me in E-mail or news groups. Microsoft Most Valuable Professional Program http://mvp.support.microsoft.com | > Ah sorry Steve, not challenging you or anything, but you indicate XP's | >firewall is enough. It doesn't appear to be: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | I'd like to kknow more about this. Where do I go on that site to find | information about XP's firewall? Pick which group of tests you wish to view on the side panel, view the testing procedure page, and then click the provided link to view the results. Note, you must allow a cookie. As an alternative, you can download the test tools -click the tool wanted - and produce your own results [IIRC]. SignatureMEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com _________ > Ah sorry Steve, not challenging you or anything, but you indicate XP's >firewall is enough. It doesn't appear to be: > >http://www.firewallleaktester.com/index.html That's hardly a fair statement since the test is only of outbound blocking capability which the xp firewall doesn't even attempt. They don't even try to test the firewall capability of the firewall since it is assumed it works okay on all of them. Windows firewall is a just that. A simple firewall like the one that ships with linux or FreeBSD. It accepts or drops incoming packets based on configured criteria. It works fine for what it does and it doesn't pretend to be something it isn't. If outbound blocking is detected then you are already infected and it's not the "job" of a firewall to deal with that. Jim. > If outbound blocking is detected then you are already infected and > it's not the "job" of a firewall to deal with that. You fail to understand the importance of egress filtering, without it your network security is incomplete. John | > If outbound blocking is detected then you are already infected and | > it's not the "job" of a firewall to deal with that. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | | John Taking this a bit farther,,, One doesn't necessarily need to be 'already infected' for these types of attacks to occur. The tools used to test the firewalls are designed to mimic know usage one is likely to encounter on the Internet. Yes, firewalls were once thought to not need these types of additional protections, however, a good one already monitors application usage in its rules, is already loaded, and is the application which first processes IP requests and seems prime candidate to provide this final outbound "selective" service. Anti-SpyWare programs and Anti-Virus programs remain a second layer, or as we now see, are being integrated into almost every firewall application or visversa. . Has anyone failed to notice that packet filtering is now being used everywhere. If one has kept up with the capabilities {and potential mis-use} and vulnerabilities of Flash, Java, DirectX, SSI, php scripts, Cold Fusion hacks, Apache hacks, Windows Server hacks; issues in: Web 2.0, HTML 5, and other aspects including browser, mail client, ADOBE Reader and other standard Internet application vulnerabilities; and yes even IPv6 and WIFI's WEP and WPA; reliance upon one way (or non-monitoring) firewalls regardless of supposed additional protection via router IMO is not conducive to what we are supposedly here to provide. The more selective the rule set, the greater the protection. One doesn't need to be 'already infected', one only needs to contact the Internet in some form and make the mistake of visiting some malicious site [and they certainly aren't going to have flashing signs which pop-up YOU ARE BEING HACKED], or open some innocuous email, or be subjected to some hackers new and unknown piggy-backed DNS or other hack while connecting to their supposedly secure and monitored ISP, or merely leaving their WIFI transmitter turned on.. Taken in conjunction with the massed attacks of worms, Trojans, email hacks, dozens of new virus and new variants of old viruses, SpyWare, rootkits, etc.and vulnerabilities in VPN, SSL, and other supposed secured communications that anyone and EVERYONE on the Internet is subjected to; and when almost every site now has several Adverti$ing links or other off-site materials loaded with their page, increases the chance that those other sites may have been hacked or were highjacked on the way to the site being viewed. There has never been a time when LAYERED security has been more important, and ANYTHING done to increase a segment of that security layering is one more step to providing protection. As the saying goes, 'the strength of a chain is determined by its weakest link' so having the weakest link as the first link, just doesn't seem very smart to me. SignatureMEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com _________ > One doesn't necessarily need to be 'already infected' for these types of >attacks to occur. It depends how you define infection. If an unwanted outbound communication is detected, then some windows process must be running to instigate it. That process, if it is malware, might already (since it is loaded and running in memory) have zapped your personal firewall or whatever "security" software you are running. Last time I looked, a simple wm_destroy signal was enough to get rid of zonealarm. Outbound protection like that mentioned could be considered useful to stop programs like realplayer phoning home with your usage profile but anything that seriously wants to get out can get out. It would be far more useful to monitor outbound traffic from a device which hasn't already been compromised. Jim. | > One doesn't necessarily need to be 'already infected' for these types of | >attacks to occur. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] | | Jim. I would tend to agree as far the above goes, particularly as router manufacturers are now attempting to add firewall applications "into" the router itself.. I see the potential for failure there as well. Just as a software firewall or a dedicated firewall server needs manually configured and updated [what's the newest attack sequence, what's the newest way to shut off the firewall, what's the newest highjack, etc.], so would the router's embedded firewall. Moreover, the very design of the router would by necessity be multiplied hence ending up being much the same as a standalone server in both complexity and size. And how would those updates be received and implemented,, by the manufacturer directly to the router, so the router's interface is basically waving to the Internet? By manual downloads or automatic updates then uploaded to the router? There you run into the same issues as any software applied firewall has, the router is no longer HARDWARE but merely software on a separate device. And a device which would not normally monitored by anything else, so compromise there is disaster.. As you indicate, a separate monitoring device and application would be best, however, as the major networks have found out, once those devices are compromised then it is as if they are worthless, or perhaps worse. Network administrators tend to rely on these devices/applications for network monitoring. Any compromise here may pass until literally to late. Does anyone think that single servers, devices, and/or applications are used by the major players after Microsoft, Google, the major banks, and even the government's servers have been hacked? No, multiple redundant applications and servers constantly monitor these networks. The point for the consumer/home user is where does one begin and where does one end... they don't have the deep pockets of major businesses or commercial establishments and they certainly don't have a staff of profession network specialists constantly working to plug the holes and catch intruders, so what do we recommend? Is it a known inferior firewall which rates basically last in every test but incoming, just because its Microsoft's and available? Do we say don't worry about highjacks or other hacks because your system is already compromised so who cares what gets out? I think that hardly suits the needs of those parties, anymore than recommending they don't use anti-virus and anti-SpyWare applications and the additional monitoring they provide would. SignatureMEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com _________ > Is it a known inferior firewall which rates basically last in every test >but incoming, just because its Microsoft's and available? It would be an inferior firewall if its ability to block incoming traffic didn't work as satisfactorily as other third party firewalls. On that aspect the xp firewall performs well without gulching system resources and creating more problems than it solves. The secondary aspect of monitoring outgoing traffic is of infinitely less importance and significance than the primary task of filtering incoming traffic. Some people put a lot of value in this additional capability. For reasons explained earlier I personally don't. I think you get notification about programs which don't mind getting "caught" but anything seriously wanting to get out undetected could easily spoof itself to be permitted traffic. Overall it's a trade off. If you don't mind the hassle of some big brother security system taking over your machine and everything running slow as a result then fine. I prefer low resource horses for courses. A minimal firewall to do the firewall's job. A non resident dedicated antivirus (run overnight) and similar for spyware. Jim. | > Is it a known inferior firewall which rates basically last in every test | >but incoming, just because its Microsoft's and available? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | On that aspect the xp firewall performs well without gulching system | resources and creating more problems than it solves. Oh come on, as if when monitoring the networking groups doesn't turn up every third or fourth post as an issue with XP's firewall... generally due to the same issues caused by third party firewalls, improper configuration [unless it Norton/Symantec]. So your take on this is that just an incoming firewall is needed with no Anti-Virus and Anti-SpyWare because they take up valuable resources. Moreover, basicly what your stating is that just a router is need then, nothing else... and hey, that basically takes no resources so even XP's firewall resources can be released for other important use, right? | The secondary aspect of monitoring outgoing traffic is of infinitely | less importance and significance than the primary task of filtering | incoming traffic. Following your previous reasoning, why bother with Windows firewall when a router would suffice. Or if you're not concerned with what makes it out, why bother with any protection at all. Just image your disk and replace it when it gets too filled with scumsucking hacks and viruses. That makes about as much sense. | Some people put a lot of value in this additional capability. For | reasons explained earlier I personally don't. I think you get | notification about programs which don't mind getting "caught" but | anything seriously wanting to get out undetected could easily spoof | itself to be permitted traffic. Then I would say that you have failed to keep abreast the changes in the applications now available, and what is now found on the Internet. I also see you didn't bother to go to the link I provided or otherwise bothered to check these issues, because if you had, you wouldn't have made this statement. | Overall it's a trade off. If you don't mind the hassle of some big | brother security system taking over your machine and everything [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | | Jim. I would highly recommend doing some research. You may be satisfied with your arrangement, but it is hardly the best option or even remotely secure. So the next question for you would be, just how good is that anti-v program you rely so heavily on? http://www.av-comparatives.org/ not there? Google for more sites like it. Of course I would tend to agree, I HATE the massive applications and memory usage, but since I actually still USE the Internet and download applications for testing, were I to follow your ideas I WOULD be a carrier of viruses and hacks infecting others. There isn't a question of whether I would be, I KNOW and have proof that I WOULD BE. My collection of these hacks grows with every passing week, or daily at times. Then again, why should that bother me,, I'll never see the people I would infect or effect ... I'd never know, when after contacting that site for the file, my system or email was temporarily being used to send hundreds of Spam mails or some torrent while I download that file, or all my email addresses had just been stolen .. or any of the other temporary outgoing hacks/highjacks now being used .. however, I do have concern for others, not just those I know but those who might be reading this post.... Of course your opinion apparently sounds viable to you, but frankly, sticking your head in the sand doesn't make you invisible, it just makes you a meal. SignatureMEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com _________ > So your take on this is that just an incoming firewall is needed with no >Anti-Virus and Anti-SpyWare because they take up valuable resources. Oh! I didn't realise I thought that. >>Is it a known inferior firewall which rates basically last in every test >>but incoming, just because its Microsoft's and available? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > courses. A minimal firewall to do the firewall's job. A non resident > dedicated antivirus (run overnight) and similar for spyware. Everything doesn't run slow as a result of the firewall that I use and malware cannot easily spoof themselves as other things because the firewall that I use does MD5 signatures/hash of the allowed applications, with MD5 signature checks the firewall even catches valid processes when they are updated and asks if you want to allow it through. Malware might get through with code injection but firewall technology is not at a standstill, it too evolves and the better firewalls can detect various injection methods, like anything else with virus and malware it is a constant to keep up with these pests but good firewalls do keep up with newer methods used by malware. To paraphrase the sayings of one of the MVP's sometime ago, "In the Windows firewall Microsoft designed a shirt without sleeves. When the customers told Microsoft that they wanted a shirt with sleeves Microsoft embarked on a crusade to tell people that sleeve were no good!" Of course we all know that to err is human but that to blame it on others is even more human! So who do you think spearheaded the "Sleeves are no good" effort? Why, nobody else but the person who was responsible for designing the sleeveless shirt in the first place, that's who! Of course if you don't care if your private data is flying out the backdoor well then you don't need sleeves... And while we are on the subject, if you get a cold then you should go out and sneeze on everybody to help spread the cold even faster to even more people, then these other folks can in turn go out and sneeze on others... And if you see "dancing pigs" don't worry, that is just caused by the fever that accompanies the cold. But then maybe you are right, egress filtering at the firewall is so useless that Microsoft decided that the Vista firewall should do it. John >Everything doesn't run slow as a result of the firewall that I use and >malware cannot easily spoof themselves as other things because the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >virus and malware it is a constant to keep up with these pests but good >firewalls do keep up with newer methods used by malware. If you can use your installed web browser, so can a spuriously running process. It doesn't have to instigate communication using its own identity when it can use yours. >To paraphrase the sayings of one of the MVP's sometime ago, "In the >Windows firewall Microsoft designed a shirt without sleeves. When the >customers told Microsoft that they wanted a shirt with sleeves Microsoft >embarked on a crusade to tell people that sleeve were no good!" Wow! I find myself agreeing with Microsoft. That doesn't happen very often. Jim. >>Everything doesn't run slow as a result of the firewall that I use and >>malware cannot easily spoof themselves as other things because the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > process. It doesn't have to instigate communication using its own > identity when it can use yours. Good firewalls can detect that, the claim that you guys make is that it absolutely cannot be detected isn't true. >>To paraphrase the sayings of one of the MVP's sometime ago, "In the >>Windows firewall Microsoft designed a shirt without sleeves. When the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Wow! I find myself agreeing with Microsoft. That doesn't happen very > often. Then we know where you are coming from, we shall agree to disagree. Firewall egress filtereing isn't perfect, but in computer security nothing is. AV and anti-spyware programs don't catch all pests, should we also stop using them? John >> If outbound blocking is detected then you are already infected and >> it's not the "job" of a firewall to deal with that. > >You fail to understand the importance of egress filtering, without it >your network security is incomplete. If you consider egress filtering of importance then you can attempt to run something to monitor it. That is not to say the windows firewall doesn't work properly which is the intimation earlier in the thread. Jim. > >> Both Windows 98 Second Edition and Windows XP can share their dial-up > >> modem connection with another computer on the local network using [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > a built-in Internet sharing capability -- that requires ICS or a > similar third-party program. Steve - thanks for the help and the website John > > >> A network with both TCP/IP and NetBEUI will probably prove to be > > >> unreliable in the long run. I recommend removing NetBEUI from both [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > John I have 8 pcs networked together right now. A real mish mash of 98se, XP-Home & Pro. I have only dialup available in my rural area. I have one of the 98se boxes running a simple little proxy server found on AnalogX's web site (google the name). On the boxes I want to access the internet thru this proxy server I have no connection except for the Lan connection set to the approriate ip and port. It has all worked flawlessly for years now. I had a reason to test could I change the proxy server to the XP Pro machine as I installed a second nic in it for hooking up satalitte high speed access. Figured the XP box was easier install than two nics under 98SE. (newer pc also). The proxy server doesn't seem to want to work properly even though I've done what I thought right for firewall, open ports etc. I've bought a router to add to system instead and just connected the existing ethernet switch to it. Alls working just waiting now for dish installer. >> > I had two win98 computers connected via a crossover cable with no >> > problems. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Dick I strongly recommend NOT installing NetBEUI (NetBios Extended User Interface) in XP: 1. It's an unsupported protocol. Microsoft hasn't tested it and doesn't guarantee that it will work. 2. All networking functions in Windows 98 and XP work fine using TCP/IP. 3. Using more than one protocol on a network can make it function unreliably, especially when XP is involved. SignatureBest Wishes, Steve Winograd, MS-MVP (Windows Networking) Please post any reply as a follow-up message in the news group for everyone to see. I'm sorry, but I don't answer questions addressed directly to me in E-mail or news groups. Microsoft Most Valuable Professional Program http://mvp.support.microsoft.com > > I had two win98 computers connected via a crossover cable with no > > problems. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Repost back here with results. 1. I assume the win98 is correctly set up since connecting to the old win98 allows file/printer sharing in both directions. The 2 computers are named "sues" and "zeus" and both are in "WORKGROUP". 2. I assume the hardware is ok since the win98 can share the xp files. 3. I had already run the Network Wizard on th xp/ created the floppy; 4. and run it on the win98. ------------------ Done it. Added NETBEUI protocol and it now works. (NETBEUI had to be installed on both win98 computers for those to network.) It seems a bit slow! They now share files and printers but not the internet connection. John >Done it. > >Added NETBEUI protocol and it now works. (NETBEUI had to be installed on >both win98 computers for those to network.) It seems a bit slow! > >They now share files and printers but not the internet connection. That's because NetBEUI is but tcp/ip isn't configured properly (yet). If tcp/ip is configured properly you won't need NetBEUI. I would advise you to follow the recommendations of Steve Winograd and don't use it. Jim. hey there is no problem in connection the net on the win 98 and win xp. i have also the same position in my own location i have 8 pcs out of 2 are on win98 and one is win 2000 and others are on the win xp. you just have to do is to configure through the tcp/ip settings in the lan card settings. in that you have to provide the ip address on the win 98 pc and and then you have to provide the subnet mask. after that provide the gatway that allows you to share the net on the win 98 pc and if your have configured for the DNS settings then you also have to provide for the DNS details on the system on which you whant to run the internet sharing. then you must check that where you were trying to access the internet connection: is it a dialup connection Then you have to do is that share that internet connection and it will set the system on which there is internet conncetion installed, and it will make the ip address of your pc to 192.168.0.1. this ip address is provided as the Default Gateway on win 98 pc so that that win98 access the internet from here. If you are using through Network Switch or directly through Modem then there is little bit different setting. i have told you about the dial up setting of broad band which need authentication. i hope this information will resolve your problem or in you need any othe clarification do tell me. SignatureRegards, Vijesh Bhola Punjab, India. > > > I had two win98 computers connected via a crossover cable with no > > > problems. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > John |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.