 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows Me / Networking / November 2004Networking ME and XP
I am running ME and XP and I can't get them to share files. I am running a Linysys cable modem and Linksys router. I can get the Internet on both computers no problem, they just wont see each other to share files and printers. Is the firewall in XP Service Pak 2 stopping them from anything. I also have Norton Security and Anti-virus on each computer. Any help would be greatly appreciated. if you got as far as the FW settings in XP, you should have seen that when enabled it will stop sharing in most caeses. Especially when using the same nic to access the internet and the lan > I am running ME and XP and I can't get them to share files. I am running a > Linysys cable modem and Linksys router. I can get the Internet on both > computers no problem, they just wont see each other to share files and > printers. Is the firewall in XP Service Pak 2 stopping them from anything. > I also have Norton Security and Anti-virus on each computer. Any help would > be greatly appreciated. >> I am running ME and XP and I can't get them to share files. I am running >a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >enabled it will stop sharing in most caeses. Especially when using the same >nic to access the internet and the lan The Windows Firewall in XP Service Pack 2 is designed to allow file and printer sharing on the local area network. This is different than the Internet Connection Firewall in earlier versions of XP. In the Windows Firewall properties, click the General tab and set the mode to "On (recommended)". Then, click the Exceptions tab and make sure that there's a check mark in the box for File and Printer Sharing.  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 - Windows Networking http://mvp.support.microsoft.com Steve Winograd's Networking FAQ http://www.bcmaven.com/networking/faq.htm >In the Windows Firewall properties, click the General tab and set the >mode to "On (recommended)". Then, click the Exceptions tab and make >sure that there's a check mark in the box for File and Printer >Sharing. On my network here, I had to do this to get a LAN connection even though LAN was unchecked on the advanced tab. I was wanting to enable the firewall only for the dialup interface (a standby Internet connection) but not for the LAN which is already private behind a router. If I leave the advanced tab with just the dialup checked, I can kiss goodbye to LAN connectivity unless I either disable the firewall completely on all interfaces or make file and printer sharing an exception on a (supposedly) already disabled interface. Surely I shouldn't need to do that? Jim. >>In the Windows Firewall properties, click the General tab and set the >>mode to "On (recommended)". Then, click the Exceptions tab and make [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >standby Internet connection) but not for the LAN which is already >private behind a router. It's better to have a software firewall, even with a router. Consider what happens with OUTGOING connections, such as those from spyware. >If I leave the advanced tab with just the dialup checked, I can kiss >goodbye to LAN connectivity unless I either disable the firewall [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Jim. Still, I would never trust the XP firewall. MS is going to put in all the "holes" it wants. Signature76 days until the winter solstice celebration Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com > It's better to have a software firewall, even with a router. Consider > what happens with OUTGOING connections, such as those from spyware. At which the Windows Firewall is as useless as the proverbial screen door on the submarine. Get a software firewall which is designed to control outbound connections, and disable the Windows firewall entirely, if that is your intent. SignatureNorman ~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta ~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain ~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint >> It's better to have a software firewall, even with a router. Consider >> what happens with OUTGOING connections, such as those from spyware. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >connections, and disable the Windows firewall entirely, if that is your >intent. I'm not worried about outbound connections. I just want something to simply block connections to (winxp) open ports on a dialup interface whilst not taking over the machine. I'm not going to install a resource hog to protect a connection I might only use once every few months. Had it been win9x or winme I would have just unbound file and printer sharing from tcp/ip and not bothered with a firewall at all but with winxp it appears to be a little more troublesome with remote procedure calls and all that so a simple firewall looks the way to go. Is it possible to revert to the old winxp firewall? That was fine for blocking on the diakup connection without affecting the LAN. Jim. The WF does a very good job of blocking inbound traffic - look here for details Using programs and hardware with Service Pack 2 http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;ln;xpsp2swhw Some programs seem to stop working after you install Windows XP Service Pack 2 http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=842242 Programs that may behave differently in Windows XP Service Pack 2 http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=884130 Troubleshooting Windows Firewall Settings in WinXP SP2 http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=875357 More MS references: http://forum.aumha.org/viewforum.php?f=44 (with apoloogies to PABear) SignatureNoel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows) Nil Carborundum Illegitemi http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm http://tinyurl.com/6oztj Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's >>> It's better to have a software firewall, even with a router. Consider >>> what happens with OUTGOING connections, such as those from spyware. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Jim. > I'm not worried about outbound connections. I just want something to > simply block connections to (winxp) open ports on a dialup interface > whilst not taking over the machine. > I'm not going to install a resource hog to protect a connection I > might only use once every few months. Had it been win9x or winme I > would have just unbound file and printer sharing from tcp/ip and not > bothered with a firewall at all but with winxp it appears to be a > little more troublesome with remote procedure calls and all that so a > simple firewall looks the way to go. > Is it possible to revert to the old winxp firewall? That was fine for > blocking on the diakup connection without affecting the LAN. Why? The SP2 Windows Firewall is at least as capable as the old ICF. You just have to learn how to configure it. SignatureNorman ~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta ~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain ~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint >>In the Windows Firewall properties, click the General tab and set the >>mode to "On (recommended)". Then, click the Exceptions tab and make [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Jim. Jim, make sure that "Don't allow exceptions" is un-checked on the General tab. That's an all-or-nothing setting. If it's checked, all connections are firewalled, regardless of the settings on the Advanced tab. To enable the firewall on the dial-up connection and disable the firewall on the LAN connection: 1. Go to the Exceptions tab. 2. Un-check all of the boxes. 3. Go to the Advanced tab. 4. Check the dial-up connection and un-check the LAN connection. 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 - Windows Networking http://mvp.support.microsoft.com Steve Winograd's Networking FAQ http://www.bcmaven.com/networking/faq.htm >Jim, make sure that "Don't allow exceptions" is un-checked on the >General tab. That's an all-or-nothing setting. If it's checked, all >connections are firewalled, regardless of the settings on the Advanced >tab. This is unchecked. >To enable the firewall on the dial-up connection and disable the >firewall on the LAN connection: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >3. Go to the Advanced tab. >4. Check the dial-up connection and un-check the LAN connection. It doesn't work doing this, Steve. Even after restoring defaults, starting again and following your instructions to the letter. If file and printer sharing (exceptions) is unchecked, I can't even ping the computer. As soon as I tick this box and click ok it all works. Pinging, browsing et al. That's no use for the dialup connection, though, since file and printer sharing is the main thing I want to block on that interface. Jim. >1. Go to the Exceptions tab. >2. Un-check all of the boxes. >3. Go to the Advanced tab. >4. Check the dial-up connection and un-check the LAN connection. I've resolved the problem but I don't know what was the cause. I system restored to a point prior to installing sp2 and then re-installed sp2. Now the firewall is behaving in the manner you posted. Strange that isn't it? Looks like sp2 is as prone to silent failure as some of the earlier patches. Jim. > > I am running ME and XP and I can't get them to share files. I am running > > a Linysys cable modem and Linksys router. I can get the Internet on both > > computers no problem, they just wont see each other to share files and > > printers. Is the firewall in XP Service Pak 2 stopping them from > > anything. I also have Norton Security and Anti-virus on each computer. > > Any help would be greatly appreciated. > if you got as far as the FW settings in XP, you should have seen that when > enabled it will stop sharing in most caeses. Especially when using the same > nic to access the internet and the lan You can't use the same NIC to access the Internet that you use to access the LAN when you are behind a router. The router sits between the NIC and the Internet; the NIC can only access the router. SignatureNorman ~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta ~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain ~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint >> > I am running ME and XP and I can't get them to share files. I am running >> > a Linysys cable modem and Linksys router. I can get the Internet on both [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >You can't use the same NIC to access the Internet that you use to access the >LAN when you are behind a router. Yes, you can. >The router sits between the NIC and the >Internet; the NIC can only access the router. The NIC accesses the router, and the router gives it access to both the Internet and the LAN. Did I misunderstand what you said? 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 - Windows Networking http://mvp.support.microsoft.com Steve Winograd's Networking FAQ http://www.bcmaven.com/networking/faq.htm > >You can't use the same NIC to access the Internet that you use to access the > >LAN when you are behind a router. > Yes, you can. > >The router sits between the NIC and the > >Internet; the NIC can only access the router. > The NIC accesses the router, and the router gives it access to both > the Internet and the LAN. > Did I misunderstand what you said? Probably. The NIC in the computer can only access the router. The router uses NAT to pass packets between the WAN port of the router and the LAN port of the router, which is connected to the NIC in the computer. Nobody on the WAN side of the router can have direct access to the NIC. Take my rig as a case in point. My NIC can directly access the gateway IP address at 192.168.102.1. It can't directly access anything beyond that IP address; that is the job of the NAT function in the router. While NAT is a transparent function, it does isolate the NIC from the Internet. Going the other way, you can directly access my router at 64.174.90.87, but not my NIC; not unless I have forwarded a port to my computer. Again, the NAT function of the router isolates the networks. SignatureNorman ~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta ~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain ~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint >> >You can't use the same NIC to access the Internet that you use to access the >> >LAN when you are behind a router. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >not my NIC; not unless I have forwarded a port to my computer. Again, the >NAT function of the router isolates the networks. I'm still not sure that I understand your point. You can indeed use the same NIC to access the Internet that you use to access the LAN when you are behind the router. By that, I mean that the computer's NIC, when connected to the router, can access other computers on the LAN, and it can also access sites on the Internet. The fact that Internet access passes through the router's WAN interface and NAT program before it reaches the NIC is irrelevant. Other computers on the LAN can access your NIC. Other people on the Internet can't access your NIC, because the router's NAT function acts as a firewall. Do we agree on those points? 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 - Windows Networking http://mvp.support.microsoft.com Steve Winograd's Networking FAQ http://www.bcmaven.com/networking/faq.htm > Other computers on the LAN can access your NIC. Other people on the > Internet can't access your NIC, because the router's NAT function acts > as a firewall. That is because there is no direct connection between the NIC and the Internet; but... > Do we agree on those points? Okay. I can agree to the fact that you can reach the Internet from your NIC. Even if only through a transparent hardware proxy. SignatureNorman ~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta ~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain ~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint >> Other computers on the LAN can access your NIC. Other people on the >> Internet can't access your NIC, because the router's NAT function acts [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Okay. I can agree to the fact that you can reach the Internet from your NIC. >Even if only through a transparent hardware proxy. You've had three goes at it and you still haven't corrected or clarified what you originally said. The bottom line is you said you CAN'T "use the same NIC to access the Internet that you use to access the LAN when you are behind a router" when in fact you CAN. Forget about transparent hardware proxies and such red herrings. The Internet access facility is not in doubt with a single nic. Using the same nic the computer can ALSO access and be accessed by other machines on the LAN. Jim. > You've had three goes at it and you still haven't corrected or > clarified what you originally said. Fine. I am a stupid idiot. I'll go hide in the corner and forget I even have an Internet connection. Who needs it, anyway... SignatureNorman ~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta ~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain ~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint I know exactly what you feel like. No good deed goes unpunished. We should start a club: People who get abused in exchange for offering to help people for free. Carey >> You've had three goes at it and you still haven't corrected or >> clarified what you originally said. > > Fine. I am a stupid idiot. I'll go hide in the corner and forget I even > have > an Internet connection. Who needs it, anyway... > You've had three goes at it and you still haven't corrected or > clarified what you originally said. Okay, I will try it one more time. I suppose it all comes down to "access" versus "connect". I was thinking "connect" when I wrote that. My NIC is not connected directly to the Internet. Satisified? SignatureNorman ~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta ~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain ~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint >> You've had three goes at it and you still haven't corrected or >> clarified what you originally said. > >Okay, I will try it one more time. I suppose it all comes down to "access" >versus "connect". I was thinking "connect" when I wrote that. My NIC is not >connected directly to the Internet. Satisified? It's not really a matter of me being satisfied. The only reason I commented in the first place was because the original poster was wondering why his LAN connection wasn't working and your post (without clarification) appeared to be telling him that the only way he was going to communicate with his LAN was to add a second nic. We both know he doesn't need to do that. "Satisfied" is getting to the point where the original poster understands it. As far as Carey's comments are concerned, he likes to wallow in self pity and can't differentiate between constructive criticism and trolling. Hopefully you can. Jim. > It's not really a matter of me being satisfied. The only reason I > commented in the first place was because the original poster was > wondering why his LAN connection wasn't working and your post (without > clarification) appeared to be telling him that the only way he was > going to communicate with his LAN was to add a second nic. > We both know he doesn't need to do that. "Satisfied" is getting to the > point where the original poster understands it. He only doesn't need a second NIC if he is using a shared ***connection***. In the case of an Internet connected computer which will be a gateway, he may need a second NIC; if the computer will be connecting to the Internet via an Ethernet broadband modem, and sharing that connection with other computers, a second NIC, for an Ethernet LAN, will be necessary (unless the modem/HSI account has a provision to supply multiple WAN IP addresses). But the whole thing centered on the difference between access and connect. Behind a router, the NIC does not directly connect with the Internet, only with the router (or gateway computer). SignatureNorman ~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta ~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain ~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint >I am running ME and XP and I can't get them to share files. I am running a >Linysys cable modem and Linksys router. I can get the Internet on both >computers no problem, they just wont see each other to share files and >printers. Is the firewall in XP Service Pak 2 stopping them from anything. >I also have Norton Security and Anti-virus on each computer. Any help would >be greatly appreciated. If the XP computer is running Norton Internet Security, you must disable the built-in Windows Firewall. Running both of them will cause network problems. Configure Norton to allow access by other computers 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 - Windows Networking http://mvp.support.microsoft.com Steve Winograd's Networking FAQ http://www.bcmaven.com/networking/faq.htm > If the XP computer is running Norton Internet Security, you must > disable the built-in Windows Firewall. Running both of them will > cause network problems. > > Configure Norton to allow access by other computers on the local area > network. Geez, even better ... if you have XP SP2, dump Norton Internet Security completely. > > If the XP computer is running Norton Internet Security, you must > > disable the built-in Windows Firewall. Running both of them will > > cause network problems. > > Configure Norton to allow access by other computers on the local area > > network. > Geez, even better ... if you have XP SP2, dump Norton Internet > Security completely. Does NIS not block outbound traffic? Windows Firewall, the Windows XP SP2 firewall application does not stop outbound traffic. Between Windows Firewall and a third party firewall, I would only choose Windows Firewall if the third party firewall didn't do more than Windows Firewall. Admittedly, though, there are about a half dozen excellent free software firewalls which outperform both WF and NIS. One of them is an ancient one which I still use: Kerio Personal Firewall 2.1.5. SignatureNorman ~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta ~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain ~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint I also use Kerio 2.1.5 - as well as the WF (at least that way I only have to worry about outbound traffic!<g>) SignatureNoel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows) Nil Carborundum Illegitemi http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm http://tinyurl.com/6oztj Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's > Admittedly, though, there are about a half dozen excellent free software > firewalls which outperform both WF and NIS. One of them is an ancient one > which I still use: Kerio Personal Firewall 2.1.5. >> Admittedly, though, there are about a half dozen excellent free software >> firewalls which outperform both WF and NIS. One of them is an ancient one >> which I still use: Kerio Personal Firewall 2.1.5. > >I also use Kerio 2.1.5 - as well as the WF (at least that way I only have to >worry about outbound traffic!<g>) Hi, Noel. Do you use Kerio and Windows Firewall at the same time? If so, why? I don't think that it gives more protection than using just Kerio, and Microsoft says that it can cause problems. XP Service Pack2 has a Help and Support topic ("Why you should only use one firewall") that says "Two firewalls turned on at the same time can cause compatibility problems that result in some programs not working correctly." If you enable Windows Firewall and then install a recent firewall program, like Kerio Personal Firewall 4, the Windows Security Center automatically gives a warning message and points to that Help and Support topic. 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 - Windows Networking http://mvp.support.microsoft.com Steve Winograd's Networking FAQ http://www.bcmaven.com/networking/faq.htm I've had absolutely no problems running both in tandem, Steve. Note that the version of Kerio I'm running is an old one (2.1.5), so isn't as pervasive as the more recent v4. Basically, I don't trust myself not to do stupid things, and the WF helps me keep clean <g> - and Kerio I use to check what's actually going out from my PC, in case I screw up. I make the (probably false) assumption that Kerio will alert me if anything new is trying to access the real world, and I can then backtrack to find out WTF is happening. I've had no issues between the two whatever - I can't even recall if Kerio came up with the usual 'changed versions' warning after installing XP (during which both Kerio and AVG were live and operating, BTW), but ASSume that it must have. SignatureNoel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows) Nil Carborundum Illegitemi http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm http://tinyurl.com/6oztj Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's >>> Admittedly, though, there are about a half dozen excellent free software >>> firewalls which outperform both WF and NIS. One of them is an ancient [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > automatically gives a warning message and points to that Help and > Support topic. > I also use Kerio 2.1.5 - as well as the WF (at least that way I only have to > worry about outbound traffic!<g>) I would not. Indeed, I only keep KPF 2.1.5 for some odd outbound connections that I want control over. My Netgear FR114P includes SPI filters which act as a firewall, both on inbound, and on outbound connections; but not by application on the individual computer. SignatureNorman ~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta ~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain ~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint >> If the XP computer is running Norton Internet Security, you must >> disable the built-in Windows Firewall. Running both of them will [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Geez, even better ... if you have XP SP2, dump Norton Internet >Security completely. Or ,even better than that ... turn off the (nearly useless) XP firewall and use Norton. >>> If the XP computer is running Norton Internet Security, you must >>> disable the built-in Windows Firewall. Running both of them will [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Or ,even better than that ... turn off the (nearly useless) XP >firewall and use Norton. Have you looked at the new Windows Firewall in Service Pack 2? It's much better than the Internet Connection Firewall in earlier versions of Windows XP. 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 - Windows Networking http://mvp.support.microsoft.com Steve Winograd's Networking FAQ http://www.bcmaven.com/networking/faq.htm >>>> If the XP computer is running Norton Internet Security, you must >>>> disable the built-in Windows Firewall. Running both of them will [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >much better than the Internet Connection Firewall in earlier versions >of Windows XP. Irrelevant. It's still a bad idea to trust MS here. A lot of the undesirable connections are originated by Windows. Signature76 days until the winter solstice celebration Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com > Have you looked at the new Windows Firewall in Service Pack 2? It's > much better than the Internet Connection Firewall in earlier versions > of Windows XP. If NIS can control outbound connections, it is better to keep NIS and disable Windows Firewall. Whatever improvements MSFT made in Windows Firewall over Internet Connection Firewall, they did not add outbound control of connections. SignatureNorman ~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta ~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain ~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint Make sure that the ME computer doesn't have NetBEUI or IPX installed (network protocols). If it does, get rid of them on all the computers. TCP/IP is not only "enough" it is often necessary that it be "alone". You must have the same protocol working for file sharing, etc. From experience, I believe that installing NetBEUI on an ME machine (that already has TCP/IP) will cause an XP machine with only TCP/IP installed to disappear from the ME machine's network neighborhood. It's as if NetBEUI has taken priority for being the protocol of choice and, since it doesn't exist on the XP machine, can't share. Removing NetBEUI is much preferable to having it installed all over the place. Fred >I am running ME and XP and I can't get them to share files. I am running a > Linysys cable modem and Linksys router. I can get the Internet on both [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > would > be greatly appreciated. > Make sure that the ME computer doesn't have NetBEUI or IPX installed > (network protocols). [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > would > > be greatly appreciated. I noticed no one mentioned the workgroup names on your network ideally should be the same. Also enable netbios over TCP-IP on the XP box. The Win ME workgroup name change can be done by rt clicking on network places, select properties then identification. WinXP is similar , just click on the network ID button and you will find where to change the workgp name. To enable Netbios on the XP box get into control panel - select network, rt click on LAN connection , click on TCP-IP - select properties. click the ADVANCED button select the WINS tab. Near the bottom of this window is a tick to enable netbios. Good luck www.careyholzman.com/netfixes.htm Carey >> Make sure that the ME computer doesn't have NetBEUI or IPX installed >> (network protocols). [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Good luck |
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.