Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2017 June 4
| Computing desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < June 3 | << May | June | Jul >> | June 5 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
June 4
[edit]KB3086255
[edit]What exactly does security update KB3086255 do to Windows 7? And how exactly does it stop the original Call of Duty (the good one) from loading? (Note that I am not asking what to do about it -- I've already figured that part out for myself ;-) .) 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:68C1:51CC:3DC8:E141 (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Have you tried searching the web for "KB3086255"? What do you need in addition to what that reveals? 91.155.195.247 (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- So, to sum it up, this is an update which "addresses" the (non-existent) "security issue" with SafeDisc by disabling it, and this is what's keeping the game from starting? (In which case it would affect not only CoD, but practically every CD game in my collection, including Flight Sim 2004 which is one of my favorites!) Did I get this right? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:31F8:F4C1:54AA:454B (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- No, third party DRM drivers were well known as a big security risk long before this update as they tend to demand high level privilege for reasons of no benefit to the end user. So it isn't true that it's a non-existent issue. Pretty much everyone except for DRM developers and those who chose to force DRM on consumers considered them a bad thing. As for whether it would affect every game in your collection, no one here knows. Many games have moved away from such crappy DRM, including updated versions (e.g. on Steam, Amazon, uPlay, Origin and obviously GOG etc; as well as the occasional old game with a decent patch) of old games so we have no idea and no real desire to know if this is true. However, considering both the question and your response, it wouldn't be particularly surprising if you are wrong on that point as well. Nil Einne (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I don't want to pay a second time for software I already own -- and I suspect that this "vulnerability" was hyped, and the patch ostensibly developed "in response" to it was actually a ploy to force the planned obsolescence of CD-ROM games in order to force gamers to upgrade for extra money, or else go without their favorites! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:31F8:F4C1:54AA:454B (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Take your guess: either Microsoft is bought by big game-making studios hoping to sell tons of "remastered" games by making the original ones unplayable by sneaky security update to a weird-looking part of the operating system, or SafeDisc was a terrible idea to start with and Microsoft decided single-handedly to close the security loophole it introduced. If you want to blame Microsoft and not the game studios, you need to assume the second case, in which you admit the update was needed. TigraanClick here to contact me 10:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- And Microsoft must be very desperate. I can't imagine the studios will make more than $1 million from this which means Microsoft must have been bought for a few hundred k. In any case, the people hyping this vunerability were largely independent security researchers, many of who didn't even like Microsoft. And they definitely did not like game developers, or at least the DRMs they forced on consumers. And they were doing so the time the software was being released. (You could say that's why they're hyping it, but I digress.) Of course, no one is forcing anyone to do anything anyway. You can easily re-enable the dodgy driver if you really want to. P.S. Let's not forget that one thing we know secdrv.sys did do was allowing privilege elevation to give a limited user system level privileges. That specific vunerability was fixed, but it does demonstrate the problem of allowing random crap access to low level high privileges drivers for no good reason Nil Einne (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- You forget the possibility of a third scenario: that Microsoft first bought large amounts of stock in the studios and also in online game stores like Steam, and then released the update in order to drive up their revenue (and thereby also their stock valuation) through third-party planned obsolescence! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:C0E3:5FFE:A7B7:468A (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- And Microsoft must be very desperate. I can't imagine the studios will make more than $1 million from this which means Microsoft must have been bought for a few hundred k. In any case, the people hyping this vunerability were largely independent security researchers, many of who didn't even like Microsoft. And they definitely did not like game developers, or at least the DRMs they forced on consumers. And they were doing so the time the software was being released. (You could say that's why they're hyping it, but I digress.) Of course, no one is forcing anyone to do anything anyway. You can easily re-enable the dodgy driver if you really want to. P.S. Let's not forget that one thing we know secdrv.sys did do was allowing privilege elevation to give a limited user system level privileges. That specific vunerability was fixed, but it does demonstrate the problem of allowing random crap access to low level high privileges drivers for no good reason Nil Einne (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Take your guess: either Microsoft is bought by big game-making studios hoping to sell tons of "remastered" games by making the original ones unplayable by sneaky security update to a weird-looking part of the operating system, or SafeDisc was a terrible idea to start with and Microsoft decided single-handedly to close the security loophole it introduced. If you want to blame Microsoft and not the game studios, you need to assume the second case, in which you admit the update was needed. TigraanClick here to contact me 10:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I don't want to pay a second time for software I already own -- and I suspect that this "vulnerability" was hyped, and the patch ostensibly developed "in response" to it was actually a ploy to force the planned obsolescence of CD-ROM games in order to force gamers to upgrade for extra money, or else go without their favorites! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:31F8:F4C1:54AA:454B (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- No, third party DRM drivers were well known as a big security risk long before this update as they tend to demand high level privilege for reasons of no benefit to the end user. So it isn't true that it's a non-existent issue. Pretty much everyone except for DRM developers and those who chose to force DRM on consumers considered them a bad thing. As for whether it would affect every game in your collection, no one here knows. Many games have moved away from such crappy DRM, including updated versions (e.g. on Steam, Amazon, uPlay, Origin and obviously GOG etc; as well as the occasional old game with a decent patch) of old games so we have no idea and no real desire to know if this is true. However, considering both the question and your response, it wouldn't be particularly surprising if you are wrong on that point as well. Nil Einne (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- So, to sum it up, this is an update which "addresses" the (non-existent) "security issue" with SafeDisc by disabling it, and this is what's keeping the game from starting? (In which case it would affect not only CoD, but practically every CD game in my collection, including Flight Sim 2004 which is one of my favorites!) Did I get this right? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:31F8:F4C1:54AA:454B (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
1) Is this free of charge? - Last time (4 years ago) I done a research and it wasn't...
2) Could it be used without an internet connection? - Last time (4 years ago) I done a research and internet connection and e-mail account connectivity wasn't not required. It wass off-line...
116.58.205.18 (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure Xperia Companion was always free. I don't know why your research 4 years ago found out it was not. Maybe you were mislead by some dodgy site trying to get you to pay for it. Nil Einne (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
1 USB front port out of 4 works
[edit]I have 2x USB 3.0 ports and 2x USB 2.0 ports, but only one 3.0 is working. These are front ports.
Any causes? I have tried re-installing the chipset drivers. Also tried resetting the BIOS, and checking any relevant option therein. I don't remember if they ever worked, it's a relatively new PC (a few days), which I did not build myself.
Loose cable maybe? Mobo limitation? Sorry I'm not really enough savvy to check this myself. Definitively know someone who can, though.
I'm suspecting it's because (this might be a stupid hypothesis) because I'm using the x62 Kraken and the Maximus had only one 2.0 header?
Full specs:
i7 7700k
1080Ti
ROG Maximus IX Hero
EVGA G2 850W
32GB DDR4
X62 Kraken
Creative Soundblaster Zx
Windows 10 Pro x64
Phanteks Primo
Matt714 (talk) 10:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Have you tried switching it off and on again? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 15:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- :) Does it have a CD or DVD drive? If so you can run Tails (operating system) off of a disk and see if it can access the USB ports. If it can't, you have a hardware problem. Tails never makes any changes to your hard disk. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- See piture of ROG Maximus IX Hero. The USB-3.0 pinheater sould support two ports. Check for proper seat of the connector. Your PC case should have a adapter similar to DELOCK 84836 already installed. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 21:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
So that means that if it worked, I would sacrifice the two 2.0 ports? Does that mean I should purchase this thing? https://www.amazon.ca/USB-Hub-interno-nuevo-modelo/dp/B01IFGFTJ2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1496623427&sr=8-1&keywords=nzxt+hub — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt714 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- No, before You buy, You wanna have full functional front side USB ports. See, there are already four USB3.0 ports onboard, accessible from the backside of the computer. The dual-USB2.0-pinheader is a 9-pin, in size of a 10-pin one. The cable, I refered is a dual-USB3.0-adapter from onboard pinheader to USB-3.0-Port, similar the one already installed in the case of Your computer. Check for proper seat first. Then check cable for any damage. Note: some motherboard manuals provide a detailed list of pinheaders. USB provides 5 volts, usually fused to prevent cable burn on shortcut. Check the presence of the 5 volts and the compatibility of the pin headers. It is known on former RS-232 COM-ports there were different pinheader layouts used due manufacturing cost of cables. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 07:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Here's the manual, page 1-21 shows the USB3.0-pinout. Verify it to the one from Your computer case. An additional USB hub causes costs and delay. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 08:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- USB3.x is downward compatible to USB2.0, but using additional twisted pairs for an optional data transfer at the same time in USB3.x protocol. Careful with pluging anyting there without checking the pinheader layouts. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 12:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
The 2.0 pinheader is used by my Kraken. Thanks for the info though, someone will check the connections for me on Wednesday. But due to using the 2.0 for the AIO heatsink, this means I will only have two 3.0 ports usable from the front (assuming this is fixed), compared to 2x 2.0 and 2x 3.0? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt714 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- If you are using both 2.0 front ports for something else then yes you will not be able to connect them to a front header. Nil Einne (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)