Shared - what is going on
Lynn W
that looked like computer monitors all with different peoples names except
for 2 that said Workshop and acer and what I presume is a computer name. I
have no idea what they are or where they came from. The only think I can
think off is I was using a wireless network while I was at the Garage the
other day could this have anything to do with it? Quite worried about this!
Lynn
Graeme Wood
They will be all the computers that are on the same network as you.
Restart the Finder and they will probably disappear. If they don't, then
your network is insecure and you have lots of people stealing your
bandwidth.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
"Workshop" as a name for one of those remote computers certainly makes
it likely.
With other Macs on the network, Finder usually removes them as soon as
they disappear off the network. Windows machines stay shown for quite
a long time.
You can test if they're really there just by clicking on them. If
Finder wedges up for a while and then doesn't show anything, they're
just leftover ghosts.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"January 1, 2000 might well be the first day in over six years that
is _not_ in September 1993..." - M Grant in afp
But unfortunately, he was later found to be wrong.
Lynn W
"Jaimie Vandenbergh" <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:16:19 +0000, Lynn W
> <lynn.wi...@FOREVERREDbtinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Just clicked on Finder and 'Shared' was showing and open there were 6 icons
>> that looked like computer monitors all with different peoples names except
>> for 2 that said Workshop and acer and what I presume is a computer name. I
>> have no idea what they are or where they came from. The only think I can
>> think off is I was using a wireless network while I was at the Garage the
>> other day could this have anything to do with it? Quite worried about this!
>> Lynn
>
> "Workshop" as a name for one of those remote computers certainly makes
> it likely.
>
> With other Macs on the network, Finder usually removes them as soon as
> they disappear off the network. Windows machines stay shown for quite
> a long time.
>
> You can test if they're really there just by clicking on them. If
> Finder wedges up for a while and then doesn't show anything, they're
> just leftover ghosts.
>
> Cheers - Jaimie
If I click on one of the names it says connecting then connection failed.
Does it mean that they had access to my machine, I have never seen this
before whenever I have used wi-fi other than my own. I can't really see how
they could have accessed my machine I do have secure WPA but I suppose
that's for my network when using my wireless connection but I don't really
understand these sort of things fully.
Lynn
Richard Tobin
Lynn W <lynn.wi...@FOREVERREDbtinternet.com> wrote:
>If I click on one of the names it says connecting then connection failed.
That's becasuse it's not there any more.
>Does it mean that they had access to my machine,
Not unless you had file sharing enabled.
>I have never seen this
>before whenever I have used wi-fi other than my own.
Presumably there weren't any machines making files available
over those networks.
It's nothing to worry about. If connect to a network that has
file servers on it, you will see them in the finder.
-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
>In article <C72CBB5F.1EBF8%lynn.wi...@FOREVERREDbtinternet.com>,
>Lynn W <lynn.wi...@FOREVERREDbtinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>If I click on one of the names it says connecting then connection failed.
>
>That's becasuse it's not there any more.
>
>>Does it mean that they had access to my machine,
>
>Not unless you had file sharing enabled.
And unless there were Macs on the network, *Windows* file sharing, at
that. Which takes an intentional dig into the "options" button of the
Sharing/File Sharing prefs.
>>I have never seen this
>>before whenever I have used wi-fi other than my own.
>
>Presumably there weren't any machines making files available
>over those networks.
That's normally the case - with commercial open-use wifi routers
(hotels, airports etc) each user is walled off from all the others.
If you go to someone using a domestic-class wifi router, like the
garage was, then you see the other machines on the network. *All*
Windows machines are file servers of admin-level shares for each hard
drive, it's the (ridiculously insecure) default.
>It's nothing to worry about. If connect to a network that has
>file servers on it, you will see them in the finder.
Yup.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
...most SF writers are small blokes; they spent a lot of time grubbing
around on the floor for old SF mags, not stretching up to the top shelf
for pornography... As an aside, Douglas Adams is quite tall.
- Terry Pratchett
Lynn W
"Richard Tobin" <ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> In article <C72CBB5F.1EBF8%lynn.wi...@FOREVERREDbtinternet.com>,
> Lynn W <lynn.wi...@FOREVERREDbtinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> If I click on one of the names it says connecting then connection failed.
>
> That's becasuse it's not there any more.
>
>> Does it mean that they had access to my machine,
>
> Not unless you had file sharing enabled.
>
How do I find out if I have file sharing enabled. I take it I shouldn't
have?
Lynn W
"Jaimie Vandenbergh" <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
Can I get rid of the list? Thanks to everyone for their help.
Lynn
Jim
> How do I find out if I have file sharing enabled. I take it I shouldn't
> have?
It's not enabled by default.
Go into System Preferences->Sharing and see if anything is ticked.
If there is, let us know. If there isn't then you're fine.
Jim
--
"Microsoft admitted its Vista operating system was a 'less good
product' in what IT experts have described as the most ambitious
understatement since the captain of the Titanic reported some
slightly damp tablecloths." http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
Lynn W
"Jim" <j...@magrathea.plus.com> wrote:
> Lynn W <lynn.wi...@FOREVERREDbtinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> How do I find out if I have file sharing enabled. I take it I shouldn't
>> have?
>
> It's not enabled by default.
>
> Go into System Preferences->Sharing and see if anything is ticked.
>
> If there is, let us know. If there isn't then you're fine.
>
> Jim
Nothing ticked - thanks.
Lynn
Peter Ceresole
> > Go into System Preferences->Sharing and see if anything is ticked.
> >
> > If there is, let us know. If there isn't then you're fine.
> >
> > Jim
> Nothing ticked - thanks.
Even if you had ticked 'Personal file sharing', for instance to be able
to transfer files between two Macs connnected to a router, the default
still requires the remote user to enter your password, or to have it in
their keychain. It's not so terribly insecure.
--
Peter
Jaimie Vandenbergh
<lynn.wi...@FOREVERREDbtinternet.com> wrote:
>Can I get rid of the list? Thanks to everyone for their help.
They *should* fall off by themselves, but Finder is ... a bit funny.
You can restart Finder (Apple menu, Force Quit), log out/in, or
reboot. Any of these should clear the ghosts.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
A: Think about it. Come on, you can figure it out.
A:>> When half the group posts top and the other half posts bottom.
Q:>>> What's even more annoying than topposting?
Q:> Why would that be annoying?
Lynn W
"Peter Ceresole" <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:
That's good news then as nobody would know that except my son!
Lynn
Lynn W
"Jaimie Vandenbergh" <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:58:24 +0000, Lynn W
> <lynn.wi...@FOREVERREDbtinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Can I get rid of the list? Thanks to everyone for their help.
>
> They *should* fall off by themselves, but Finder is ... a bit funny.
> You can restart Finder (Apple menu, Force Quit), log out/in, or
> reboot. Any of these should clear the ghosts.
>
> Cheers - Jaimie
Thank you they didn't appear to be going by themselves so I rebooted and now
they've gone. Thanks for your help as always.
Lynn
Rowland McDonnell
[snip]
> If you go to someone using a domestic-class wifi router, like the
> garage was, then you see the other machines on the network. *All*
> Windows machines are file servers of admin-level shares for each hard
> drive,
MS Windoze v1-3 had no concept of `admin-level' permissions, did they?
So it's not all versions of Windoze that do this. Is it possible to get
an MS Windoze v1 box on the 'net, even hypothetically?
[snip]
Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland....@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
Graham J
"Rowland McDonnell" <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote in
message
news:1j9malz.qw3j2k1rkxzofN%real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid...
> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> If you go to someone using a domestic-class wifi router, like the
>> garage was, then you see the other machines on the network. *All*
>> Windows machines are file servers of admin-level shares for each hard
>> drive,
>
> MS Windoze v1-3 had no concept of `admin-level' permissions, did they?
> So it's not all versions of Windoze that do this. Is it possible to get
> an MS Windoze v1 box on the 'net, even hypothetically?
My recollection is that "Windows for Workgroups" around 1990 had
peer-to-peer networking using NetBIOS. There was a bolt-on extra for TCP/IP
so it could network with file shares on a Unix system.
The place where I worked at the time had an internet connection but I've no
idea how it was achieved.
--
Graham J
Jaimie Vandenbergh
real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> If you go to someone using a domestic-class wifi router, like the
>> garage was, then you see the other machines on the network. *All*
>> Windows machines are file servers of admin-level shares for each hard
>> drive,
>
>MS Windoze v1-3 had no concept of `admin-level' permissions, did they?
>So it's not all versions of Windoze that do this.
Thank you for your valuable pedantry.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"If we do not change the direction we are going, we are likely to
end up where we are headed." - anon
Rowland McDonnell
> "Rowland McDonnell" <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
> > Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> If you go to someone using a domestic-class wifi router, like the
> >> garage was, then you see the other machines on the network. *All*
> >> Windows machines are file servers of admin-level shares for each hard
> >> drive,
> >
> > MS Windoze v1-3 had no concept of `admin-level' permissions, did they?
> > So it's not all versions of Windoze that do this. Is it possible to get
> > an MS Windoze v1 box on the 'net, even hypothetically?
>
> My recollection is that "Windows for Workgroups" around 1990 had
> peer-to-peer networking using NetBIOS. There was a bolt-on extra for TCP/IP
> so it could network with file shares on a Unix system.
Hmm - so with additions, Windoze back then /could/ understand file
permissions, even if it didn't use file permissions locally?
> The place where I worked at the time had an internet connection but I've no
> idea how it was achieved.
Righto.
Graham J
"Rowland McDonnell" <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote in
message
> Graham J <gra...@nospam.zen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> "Rowland McDonnell" <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
>> > Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> >> If you go to someone using a domestic-class wifi router, like the
>> >> garage was, then you see the other machines on the network. *All*
>> >> Windows machines are file servers of admin-level shares for each hard
>> >> drive,
>> >
>> > MS Windoze v1-3 had no concept of `admin-level' permissions, did they?
>> > So it's not all versions of Windoze that do this. Is it possible to
>> > get
>> > an MS Windoze v1 box on the 'net, even hypothetically?
>>
>> My recollection is that "Windows for Workgroups" around 1990 had
>> peer-to-peer networking using NetBIOS. There was a bolt-on extra for
>> TCP/IP
>> so it could network with file shares on a Unix system.
>
> Hmm - so with additions, Windoze back then /could/ understand file
> permissions, even if it didn't use file permissions locally?
I think "understand" is a bit strong!
For example if the foreign file system was read-only and Windows tried to
write to it, the operation would fail without giving any useful error
message. Similarly, unless the foreign file system was made "readable by
everybody" it would simply not appear in "File Manager" (is that what is was
called before Explorer? - can't remember) view.
In summary I think it's fair to say that Windoze **did not** understand file
permissions.
Any sort of local file permissions did not enter the scene until Windows NT.
Most authors of software for PCs still appear to write their applications
without any understanding that there could be some sort of security, so
things like accounts programs where security might actually be important
have to be run by users with full administrative rights!
--
Graham J
Rowland McDonnell
> "Rowland McDonnell" <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
> > Graham J <gra...@nospam.zen.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> "Rowland McDonnell" <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
> >> > Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > [snip]
> >> >
> >> >> If you go to someone using a domestic-class wifi router, like the
> >> >> garage was, then you see the other machines on the network. *All*
> >> >> Windows machines are file servers of admin-level shares for each
> >> >> hard drive,
> >> >
> >> > MS Windoze v1-3 had no concept of `admin-level' permissions, did
> >> > they? So it's not all versions of Windoze that do this. Is it
> >> > possible to get an MS Windoze v1 box on the 'net, even
> >> > hypothetically?
> >>
> >> My recollection is that "Windows for Workgroups" around 1990 had
> >> peer-to-peer networking using NetBIOS. There was a bolt-on extra for
> >> TCP/IP so it could network with file shares on a Unix system.
> >
> > Hmm - so with additions, Windoze back then /could/ understand file
> > permissions, even if it didn't use file permissions locally?
>
> I think "understand" is a bit strong!
Ah.
> For example if the foreign file system was read-only and Windows tried to
> write to it, the operation would fail without giving any useful error
> message. Similarly, unless the foreign file system was made "readable by
> everybody" it would simply not appear in "File Manager" (is that what is was
> called before Explorer? - can't remember) view.
What's Explorer? File Manager is the Windoze thingy for, erm, managing
files (and folders). I've not learnt to use Windoze beyond v.3.11 for
Workgroups.
> In summary I think it's fair to say that Windoze **did not** understand file
> permissions.
Righto.
> Any sort of local file permissions did not enter the scene until Windows NT.
Oh! No permissions in Win 95, then?
> Most authors of software for PCs still appear to write their applications
> without any understanding that there could be some sort of security, so
> things like accounts programs where security might actually be important
> have to be run by users with full administrative rights!
<heh>
Woody
> Most authors of software for PCs still appear to write their applications
> without any understanding that there could be some sort of security, so
> things like accounts programs where security might actually be important
> have to be run by users with full administrative rights!
I think that was possibly true up until a few years ago, when XP was the
current release, but I find it less common now, especially since vista
for it to be the case in new software.
--
Woody
Graham J
"Woody" <use...@alienrat.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1j9q99s.a2upoj14tecdcN%use...@alienrat.co.uk...
Try installing Sage for use by a user with limited permissions. It is
possible, but Sage support can't tell you how to do it!
--
Graham J
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1j9q99s.a2upoj14tecdcN%use...@alienrat.co.uk>):
Software written by certain companies (yes, I'm thinking of _you_, Intuit,
and _you_, H&R Block) has problems working properly in accounts which do not
have full admin rights on Windows (XP and Vista) and Mac. This can only be
because the idiots in charge in those companies want it that way. H&R Block's
tax-prep software ('TaxCut') won't install properly except using an admin
account; the updates required to properly file taxes won't install, period,
except when using an admin account. And the app itself misbehaves something
awesome... except when using an admin account. Intuit's stuff is more subtle,
but has it's moments if not run from admin accounts. Exactly why tax-prep and
accounting software has to have full admin rights is something unclear to me.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Graham J
"J.J. O'Shea" <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote in message
news:hej85...@news4.newsguy.com...
Experience with Intuit is that using several utilitities from SysInternals
allowed me to identify which registry keys needed to be changed to allow
access by the "limited user" - this then allowed me to run Quickbooks on a
terminal server without the users needing to have Admin rights.
It took all day to work out what changes to make !!!
--
Graham J
Woody
Well, yes, mostly new software has been written properly now. It seems
very common with financial software that it barely acknowledges the
operating system it is on.
--
Woody