 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows XP / Security and Administration / November 2004XP accessing 224.0.0.2 - advice please
Can I ask you specialists for some advice about my home PC. I run XP Pro with all Microsoft patches except for SP2. I have got only one PC attached to NTL broadband direct via a cable modem. My PC is regularly scanned for viruses and for adware. After booting up, my Sygate personal Firewall has recently been asking me if I wish to allow these following programs to access 224.0.0.2 C:\windows\explorer.exe C:\windows\system32\spoolerv.exe C:\windows\system32\services.exe C:\WINDOWS\System32\csrss.exe also my antivirus program: C:\Program Files\AntiVir PE\AVWIN.EXE When I look up these program names on Google it seems that they are probably not viruses. But why do they want to access 224.0.0.2? And should I let them? I have had some funny behaviour recently on my machine. When I ask the PC to power down from the only open account, the PC says someone else is logged on. But the other two accounts on the system are logged off. Could I have configured a network by mistake and the other account is actually a network connection? How could I check if this is happening. Could this be linked with me plugging in my Canon Powershot/Ixus digital camera recently to my USB port? The camera appeared as if it was an extra drive. Thank you for any help. Zarbol  Signatureposted to ntl.discussion.broadband.cm uk.telecom.broadband comp.security.misc microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin > Can I ask you specialists for some advice about my home PC. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > But why do they want to access 224.0.0.2? And should I let them? It's to do with IP routing. Block and forget. >> Can I ask you specialists for some advice about my home PC. >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > It's to do with IP routing. Block and forget. From grc.com's IDSERVE utility: Initiating server query ... Looking up the domain name for IP: 224.0.0.2 The domain name for the IP address is: ALL-ROUTERS.MCAST.NET Connecting to the server on remote port: 25 [Connected] The remote connection was accepted but the server did not return a connection greeting. Ivor In uk.telecom.broadband Ivor Jones <this.address@notvalid.inv> wrote: >>> Can I ask you specialists for some advice about my home PC. >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> >> It's to do with IP routing. Block and forget. > From grc.com's IDSERVE utility: > Initiating server query ... > Looking up the domain name for IP: 224.0.0.2 > The domain name for the IP address is: ALL-ROUTERS.MCAST.NET > Connecting to the server on remote port: 25 > [Connected] The remote connection was accepted but the server did not > return a connection greeting. Which won't give any useful information as addresses in the 224.0.0.0/24 are used for multicasting. see http://www.cotse.com/CIE/RFC/1700/5.htm In the original posters situation it is safe to either allow or block it according to their own preference. Steve > From grc.com's IDSERVE utility: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Ivor LOL. It's a multicast address, idiot. The guy who said "It's to do with IP routing. Block and forget." was correct. ANY address starting with 224 is not an address for a specific machine - it's a multicast address. In this case, the multicast address that all routers that respond to router discovery multicasts will listen for and respond to. His windows box is running router discovery. 224.0.0.2 is the "all routers on this subnet" multicast address. All IANA assigned multicast addresses can be found here: http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses >> From grc.com's IDSERVE utility: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > LOL. It's a multicast address, idiot. Was there any need for that..? I have never heard of multicast until today so I had no idea what it was. Please don't be offensive. Ivor > Was there any need for that..? I have never heard of multicast until > today so I had no idea what it was. Please don't be offensive. Sounded more like a light hearted jest than an offensive hurl. Idiot ;0) SignatureColin *Drop DEAD from the email address to reply* >> Was there any need for that..? I have never heard of multicast >> until today so I had no idea what it was. Please don't be >> offensive. > > Sounded more like a light hearted jest than an offensive hurl. > Idiot ;0) Calling someone an idiot just because they've never heard of something is offensive. Please don't do it, at least not to me. <Plonk> Ivor > >> Was there any need for that..? I have never heard of multicast > >> until today so I had no idea what it was. Please don't be [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Please don't do it, at least not to me. When you answer questions like these in a technical newsgroup, you're purporting to have some expertise on the subject. When it comes out that you don't know a whole lot about the technology, retorts like that are likely. If you don't like it, don't post to Usenet, because it happens all the time. SignatureBarry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA [snip] > When you answer questions like these in a technical newsgroup, > you're purporting to have some expertise on the subject. When it > comes out that you don't know a whole lot about the technology, > retorts like that are likely. Why..? Why is it necessary to be rude..? Would you call me an idiot to my face..? Or is it only because you're hiding behind a keyboard..? > If you don't like it, don't post to Usenet, because it happens all > the time. Again, why..? Why is it seemingly not possible to have sensible discussion on Usenet..? Why could someone not simply have explained what I did not know, rather than calling me an idiot..? I don't like a lot of things, being called an idiot simply for being unaware of something is one, being told not to post is another. Ivor >[snip] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Why is it necessary to be rude..? Would you call me an idiot to my face..? >Or is it only because you're hiding behind a keyboard..? I would quite possibly have called you an idiot to your face. I'd have been smiling as I did so, and it could well have been taken as a compliment. Unfortunately, on a text only medium, we cannot know how Sean meant it. I can only assume (from the LOL) that it was meant in an equally lighthearted manner. Plonking someone for an even more definitely lighthearted 'idiot!' perhaps deserves the comment in a more serious frame of mind. Oversensitivity on usenet is like using a schmitt trigger[1] to boost a weak audio signal. [1] http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1 861702223 or for more detail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmitt_trigger Dave J. [snip] > I would quite possibly have called you an idiot to your face. I'd > have been smiling as I did so, and it could well have been taken as > a compliment. I can assure you it would not. > Unfortunately, on a text only medium, we cannot know how Sean meant > it. I can only assume (from the LOL) that it was meant in an equally > lighthearted manner. I don't make assumptions. I take what I see at face value. If someone calls me an idiot then to me that indicates they think I am an idiot. > Plonking someone for an even more definitely lighthearted 'idiot!' > perhaps deserves the comment in a more serious frame of mind. > > Oversensitivity on usenet is like using a schmitt trigger[1] to > boost a weak audio signal. If not liking offensive comments is being oversensitive then that's what I am. I don't do it to others and I don't expect it to be done to me. This discussion is becoming tiresome, so I propose to end it here. Just don't be offensive to me is all I ask. Is that *so* unreasonable..? Ivor >If not liking offensive comments is being oversensitive then that's what I >am. I don't do it to others and I don't expect it to be done to me. Before now, I have seen a high proportion of a usenet group (or maybe a mailing list, not sure now), one after the next, call a poster a 'prat' because he threatened to killfile anyone who did so. The thinking being that they would rather not have their messages read by an oversensitive pillock, and that it was his loss anyway. >This discussion is becoming tiresome, so I propose to end it here. Just >don't be offensive to me is all I ask. Is that *so* unreasonable..? Don't take offense over such minor (and friendly) provocation is all I ask. Is *that* so unreasonable..? SignatureDave Johnson - requiem@freeuk.com [snip] > Don't take offense over such minor (and friendly) provocation is > all I ask. Is *that* so unreasonable..? Calling someone an idiot isn't friendly in my book. (Finally) end of discussion. Ivor > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Why is it necessary to be rude..? Would you call me an idiot to my face..? > Or is it only because you're hiding behind a keyboard..? Because many people behave differently online than they do in person. I'm not a psychologist (if you're really interested, read stuff by people like Sherry Turkle), so I don't know *why*. It's simply a fact, and if you don't learn to deal with it you'll be very frustrated in your online experience. > > If you don't like it, don't post to Usenet, because it happens all > > the time. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I don't like a lot of things, being called an idiot simply for being > unaware of something is one, being told not to post is another. You're not an idiot, just less experienced and naturally ignorant of many details. There are plenty of us who know this stuff well, so responses by people like you just add noise and confusion, making it harder for the folks who are trying to find good answers. SignatureBarry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA > You're not an idiot, just less experienced and naturally ignorant of > many details. Thankyou. So don't call me one. Ivor > > You're not an idiot, just less experienced and naturally ignorant of > > many details. > > Thankyou. So don't call me one. I didn't, did I? That was someone else. SignatureBarry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA >>> You're not an idiot, just less experienced and naturally ignorant >>> of many details. >> >> Thankyou. So don't call me one. > > I didn't, did I? That was someone else. I know, I didn't word it well, sorry. Ivor >> Sounded more like a light hearted jest than an offensive hurl. >> Idiot ;0) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Please don't do it, at least not to me. And here's me thinking that the wink right after it would make it blatantly obvious that my comment was a light hearted jest. SignatureColin *Drop DEAD from the email address to reply* >>> Sounded more like a light hearted jest than an offensive hurl. >>> Idiot ;0) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >And here's me thinking that the wink right after it would make it blatantly >obvious that my comment was a light hearted jest. Schmitt trigger time.. Hysteresis is the word that applies.. SignatureDave Johnson - requiem@freeuk.com > Schmitt trigger time.. Hysteresis is the word that applies.. Maybe he's american, they never seem to get the humour of a friendly dig :0) SignatureColin *Drop DEAD from the email address to reply* > The guy who said "It's to do with IP routing. Block and forget." > was correct. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > His windows box is running router discovery. 224.0.0.2 is the > "all routers on this subnet" multicast address. I am using a standalone PC (with no LAN) connected to a cable modem. If I am running this "router discovery" then is it something I should turn off? > All IANA assigned multicast addresses can be found here: > http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses In uk.telecom.broadband Zarbol Tsar <zarbol@tsar.net> wrote: >> The guy who said "It's to do with IP routing. Block and forget." >> was correct. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> His windows box is running router discovery. 224.0.0.2 is the >> "all routers on this subnet" multicast address. > I am using a standalone PC (with no LAN) connected to a cable modem. > If I am running this "router discovery" then is it something I should > turn off? No, you don't need to worry about it in any way. It's just one of those mickysoft things. Steve >In uk.telecom.broadband Zarbol Tsar <zarbol@tsar.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >Steve Its not just an MS thing. I've seen other devices, such as wireless routers, that like to send traffic to multicast addresses. |
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.