What happened to Blackviper's site?

Status
Not open for further replies.
djnes said:
Now your going to resort to arguing about semantics? Are you kidding me? When I said search I meant on these boards. That's how it works on these forums. Search means search here. Google it, means search on google. Now there's your semantics lesson for the day.
Click to expand...

Arguing about semantics? No.
I was honestly curious if the term QuackViper was regarded as a universal term for BlackViper. So I did what many (not all) people do and searched online for more occurrances of the term.

I apologize if I was unable to ascertain what you meant by the general term "search." Thanks for the lesson on semantics.

[EDIT]
Actually looking back at your original post in this thread I am unable to find anything relating to searching.
For reference:
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1027542840&postcount=13

Merely the statement that it is a universal that the person is known as QuackViper. So now I'm also confused as why you seem to have taken offense as to my efforts to educate myself about a stated fact by giving me a lesson that appears to be unrelated to the topic. You actually ask people to do what I interpted as searching online:
"MajorDomo asked for a maturity upgrade, and that will start by doing some research into the subject before you flame someone."

Odd that you would feel the need to give me a lesson after such a statement.
[/EDIT]

So after my lesson I find I'm still a touch confused by something, looking at this thread, and roughly 4-5 other threads on the services topic, it seems that the term QuackViper isn't as universal as you suggest. Otherwise one might assume that there would be an agreement on the topic and we wouldn't have so many posts about it. It might be even be possible to suggest that you wouldn't need to have the line:
"I'm amazed everyday when I see someone still putting faith in Quackviper. *sighs*"
...in your profile if it was a universal.

So with all that in mind, can you also suggest a possible explaination for this?

Thanks for you time and effort in the matter.
 
The first thing I can explain about this forum in general, is that no topic has agreement, even when facts are presented about it. This service tweaking thing is a prime example. Many of us have done testing to see if disabling services actually makes a performance difference. The results have all said no, and the tests can be repeated, yielding the same results. According to the scientific method, this describes factual information. As one recent post mentions, Blackviper's site has it's !!!!!!s that swear his tweaks make a difference. They can't prove it, other than the "it seems faster" argument. Even when an XP programmer from Microsoft explains that it doesn't affect performance, these !!!!!!s still believe it.

The other reason he is known as Quackviper is because disabling some of the services he suggests can cause a PC to have major problems, in the right situations. That led to many many threads on here with users reporting problems. It got to the point that whenever someone asked a question about an odd problem, the first response was, "have you been to BlackViper's site lately"? He didn't offer any good descriptions, or warnings as to what "could" happen if these services were disabled.

Sorry for the edgy comments, it's just that quite a few of us are tired of seeing these topic raised, then razed, time after time. I realize your just trying to get the facts...this post should have been my first reply.
 
djnes said:
Sorry for the edgy comments, it's just that quite a few of us are tired of seeing these topic raised, then razed, time after time. I realize your just trying to get the facts...this post should have been my first reply.
Click to expand...


Thank you djnes for your reply.
 
Malk-a-mite said:
I relatively new to the OS forum here on [H], and I'm curious about this statement. I've seen the threads on the services debate and I've seen similar statements about "QuackViper" as well.

So why is it that searching for the term QuackViper only gives me links back to this forum?
http://www.google.com/search?q=QuackViper&hl=en&lr=&filter=0
Click to expand...
Because the term was coined here, probably only used here... The fact it's on google when it's only mentioned here tells you something.

Malk-a-mite said:
If possible, avoiding the whole services debate, how can this be universal if it is mostly confined to this forum?
Click to expand...
**Avoiding specific discussion of services**
It's not "universal", quite the contrary it's debated a lot on several forums, even here. But the heart of the matter is what you want to avoid, services. That's what 95% of the site was showing, service tweaks.

Why do a lot of people here disagree? Search "services" in the OS subforum, see also "quackviper". It's been discussed quite a bit, and there's some good reading in those threads.

I'm glad the site's down. I can only hope it stays that way. The only time I refrenced it was for default service lists, to fix other people's issues with disabling them.

Alternate Service List

 
Phoenix86 said:
fact it's on google when it's only mentioned here tells you something.
Click to expand...

Not really, every non-n00b forum member name here also comes up in google. This area is just google friendly. Searching for a term and getting results doesn't mean its popular, just that its been said, somewhere, by someone.


 
djnes said:
The other reason he is known as Quackviper is because disabling some of the services he suggests can cause a PC to have major problems, in the right situations. That led to many many threads on here with users reporting problems.
Click to expand...
The "many many threads" he refers to?
One guy shut off RPC and then couldn't defrag.
That's it!
Major problems! Instability! Crashes! Blue screens! Hair loss!...
And every other hysterical rambling that you can think of has been blamed on disabling services. How strange then that M$ says you should disable all unused services!
But getting back to reality, there has only ever been one post that was actually traced back to "disabling services". The rest is only designed to make us think some people know what they're talking about, when they don't.
 
O[H]-Zone said:
The "many many threads" he refers to?
One guy shut off RPC and then couldn't defrag.
That's it!
Major problems! Instability! Crashes! Blue screens! Hair loss!...
And every other hysterical rambling that you can think of has been blamed on disabling services. How strange then that M$ says you should disable all unused services!
But getting back to reality, there has only ever been one post that was actually traced back to "disabling services". The rest is only designed to make us think some people know what they're talking about, when they don't.
Click to expand...
Actually, you yourself were quoted in Phoenix86's signature in reference to bad advice on service tweaking! :D Damn, I couldn't have asked for a better response!!!!!!!
 
MeanieMan said:
Not really, every non-n00b forum member name here also comes up in google. This area is just google friendly. Searching for a term and getting results doesn't mean its popular, just that its been said, somewhere, by someone.


Click to expand...
*sigh*

New users show up because every time they post there is a link to their profile. 50 posts = 50 links to a page= good results on google, so it shows.

"quackviper" is mentioned enough, without links (which are rated higher by google than text hits) that it shows. Yes, this site is google friendly, it's a higher rates site.

Are you trying to be obtuse? What's your point? Who's turning this into a flamefest?

 
LOL. I used black vipers step by step to turn off my services and had NO problems. I dont want to get in the middle of a fight, but if there is a better tweak guide...... WHAT IS IT?
Click to expand...

Even if you did not have problems what do you think you benefit from disabling services? It won't increase performance at all. You just wasted your time.

Also there are thousands of tweak guides on the net. Every single one is filled with false information and bad advice. Some may have some good advice, but with all of the bad advice included in them it is not something I would recommend reading.

Also MeanieMan you need to stop. Every time I see you post you do nothing, but start controversy. Even in the topic when we were talking about tweaks you replied with something completely irelevent to the topic at hand. Then you come into this topic and just look for an argument without providing anything of value or informative at all.
 
O[H]-Zone said:
djnes said:
The other reason he is known as Quackviper is because disabling some of the services he suggests can cause a PC to have major problems, in the right situations. That led to many many threads on here with users reporting problems.
Click to expand...
The "many many threads" he refers to?
One guy shut off RPC and then couldn't defrag.
That's it!
Major problems! Instability! Crashes! Blue screens! Hair loss!...
And every other hysterical rambling that you can think of has been blamed on disabling services. How strange then that M$ says you should disable all unused services!
But getting back to reality, there has only ever been one post that was actually traced back to "disabling services". The rest is only designed to make us think some people know what they're talking about, when they don't.
Click to expand...
Might I present to you some "real world" data. MS errors with disabled services.
Sure it's safe to disable *unused* services, but obviously you don't know what the services do. Heck lots of people don't. That's why they disable a service, get errors, and MS makes KBs of those errors.

I guess this is going to degenerate into a service debate anyways...

 
djnes said:
Actually, you yourself were quoted in Phoenix86's signature in reference to bad advice on service tweaking! :D Damn, I couldn't have asked for a better response!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Actually, me myself was quoted out of context in Phoenix86's sig, and yet it still stands up, thus making someone-who-isn't-me look totally foolish. And once again, we see standard djnes...have no answer for what someone says? Attack their credibility!
So...can we assume you were blowing wind when you said there are "many many threads on here with users reporting problems"?
Can we see some links? If there are "many many" problems being caused, obviously you could provide...oh, let's say 10 links to threads that describe problems that were ultimately cured by re-enabling services. If you can, I will apologise profusely.
If you can't, we then we will know that you are full of a brown squishy substance.
 
O[H]-Zone said:
Well, the discussion here was about the "many many threads" indicating people have had problems disabling services. Where are these many many threads?
Click to expand...
What's the difference? The point is disabling services has side-effects.

No one needs to link to 10 threads. I just have you hundreds of results from the MS KB.

The quote was not taken out of context. But since you want to call out my ethics...
Thread. Post #18.

 
O[H]-Zone said:
Actually, me myself was quoted out of context in Phoenix86's sig, and yet it still stands up, thus making someone-who-isn't-me look totally foolish. And once again, we see standard djnes...have no answer for what someone says? Attack their credibility!
So...can we assume you were blowing wind when you said there are "many many threads on here with users reporting problems"?
Can we see some links? If there are "many many" problems being caused, obviously you could provide...oh, let's say 10 links to threads that describe problems that were ultimately cured by re-enabling services. If you can, I will apologise profusely.
If you can't, we then we will know that you are full of a brown squishy substance.
Click to expand...
What answer do you want? That your too lazy to search for yourself? Look at my posts per day. I respond to and answer a ton of questions. You tend to remember patterns when you see them. Someone who provides good support remembers these patterns and solutions, so when the subject arises again, you have good suggestions to post. I've been on here for over 5 years.....the concept of disabling services has been mentioned quite a bit. I don't know how much simpler you want me to make it. Or, in choosing the path you followed, is this just typical O[H]-Zone, arguing for the sake of causing problems, despite being wrong?
 
So no links then...you're admitting that you're full of a brown squishy substance?
 
Phoenix86 said:
The quote was not taken out of context. But since you want to call out my ethics...
Thread. Post #18.
Click to expand...
PLEASE leave the quote in your sig. It makes one of us look foolish and brother...it ain't me!
 
MeanieMan said:
Where did you get that from?
I saw a new user ask where the name came from and why.
Then I saw you freak out cause someone popped holes in your argument.

No one even mentioned or hinted at semantics
:rolleyes:


Click to expand...

So true... it was funny watching him go off like that huh? :D
 
I never said "there are no problems associated with shutting off services". What I said was that I doubt djnes statement that there are "many many" posts on this site asking with help for problems caused by disabling services. Since I was talking about this site, your link is irrelevant. So, for clarity, here we go again:
Djnes said there are "many many" posts here that describe problems caused by disabling services. I've been here a number of years, and I've done a search, and I come up with one. Just one. Not "many many". So, once again for the faint-of-understanding, where are the links to these posts? Or are they a figment of somebody's imagination. There are over 8,000 peole registered here, the sum-total of problems from disabling services seems to be...one. That's .00125%. Not a day goes by that someone on the Video card forum reports problems with an overclocked vid card...
Conclusion? Overclocking your video card is many orders of magnitude riskier than disabling services. Yet plenty of people here do it.
So...where are the links, djnes?
 
O[H]-Zone said:
So no links then...you're admitting that you're full of a brown squishy substance?
Click to expand...
The proof has been laid before you, in the form of links, and suggested search topics for this forum alone. If your incapable of grasping the proof in front of you, don't fault anyone else. You can only muster the effort to argue, not to do any reading and learn.
 
So no links then...we can assume you are full of a brown squishy substance. I figured as much...
 
O[H]-Zone said:
So no links then...we can assume you are full of a brown squishy substance. I figured as much...
Click to expand...
On the contrary, I'm not the one ignoring the proof. Common sense my brother, common sense. The more you ignore it, the more ridiculous you look. Keep it up, you bring humor to my lunch break.
 
So no links then...you're admitting that you are full of a brown squishy substance...
Figured.
 
O[H]-Zone said:
So no links then...you're admitting that you are full of a brown squishy substance...
Figured.
Click to expand...
Do a search on your own...you have to be the laziest person ever. I just did a search and found 85 threads just in the OS forum.
 
I have...I found one post. Where are the "many many" posts? I think we all agree one isn't "many many"...
 
O[H]-Zone said:
I have...I found one post. Where are the "many many" posts? I think we all agree one isn't "many many"...
Click to expand...

Not to interrupt your guys' arugment, but..

Why don't you post proof of these service tweaks giving your system extra performance? If they are such a necessity as you claim, users should be able to notice some difference, and you should be able to benchmark it. And "I disabled secondary logon service so now I can't be h4x0rd." doesn't count. lol :p

No one has been able to do this yet. "I can tell it's faster." doesn't count either.
 
S1nF1xx said:
Not to interrupt your guys' arugment, but..

Why don't you post proof of these service tweaks giving your system extra performance? If they are such a necessity as you claim, users should be able to notice some difference, and you should be able to benchmark it. And "I disabled secondary logon service so now I can't be h4x0rd." doesn't count. lol :p

No one has been able to do this yet. "I can tell it's faster." doesn't count either.
Click to expand...
Well, I've never said that service tweaks yield more performance...I leave that to others. My point is, was and always has been that disabling services means better security, and no drawbacks. I linked to an M$ technet article that says just that.
Djnes says "many many" people on these forums have had problems when disabling services...so where are they? I see one.
And since M$ suggests disabling unneeded services to "reduce the attack surface" and to "improve security", the simple fact is that my box, running a firewall, anti-spyware and anti-virus, all up-to-date and patched, is more secure than anyones with the default services enabled. M$ said so...
lol :p
 
O[H]-Zone said:
Well, I've never said that service tweaks yield more performance...I leave that to others. My point is, was and always has been that disabling services means better security, and no drawbacks. I linked to an M$ technet article that says just that.
Djnes says "many many" people on these forums have had problems when disabling services...so where are they? I see one.
And since M$ suggests disabling unneeded services to "reduce the attack surface" and to "improve security", the simple fact is that my box, running a firewall, anti-spyware and anti-virus, all up-to-date and patched, is more secure than anyones with the default services enabled. M$ said so...
lol :p
Click to expand...
And once again, I will state that the discussion isn't about security. The entire friggin point of this thread is about performance in relation to disabling services. Do you want me to write that in crayon and scan it in so you get it?
doh.jpg
 
O[H]-Zone said:
I have...I found one post. Where are the "many many" posts? I think we all agree one isn't "many many"...
Click to expand...

I think you need to brush up on your searching skills a bit since I found these within a couple minutes.....

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=872223
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=805003
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=854803
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=826703
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=791138
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=872734
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=807236

The search does not go back prior to 2004, so results are limited to this year and last year.
 
SJConsultant said:
I think you need to brush up on your searching skills a bit since I found these within a couple minutes.....

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=872223
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=805003
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=854803
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=826703
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=791138
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=872734
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=807236

The search does not go back prior to 2004, so results are limited to this year and last year.
Click to expand...

Thank you SL for helping out with the searches.

... edit: I'm curious how the thread on defragging (last one I think) is useful? Granated I'm only on page 3 of the 5 so far. NM - found it.
 
O[H]-Zone said:
Well, I've never said that service tweaks yield more performance...My point is, was and always has been that disabling services means better security, and no drawbacks.
Click to expand...

Ok. If there are no performance benifits why do it? For security reasons? Ok. Let's understand services shall we? To use any local services you have to be AUTHENTICATED LOCALLY. Once that happens, as GreNME said it so perfectly I will quote him:

GreNME said:
IF SOMEONE CANNOT AUTHENTICATE TO YOUR COMPUTER, THEY CANNOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SUCH SERVICES. IF THEY CAN ALREADY AUTHENTICATE, THEN YOUR ASS HAS BEEN 0WN3D ALREADY AND YOUR SECURITY IS SHIT.
Click to expand...

There is no point to disabling default Windows services to be more secure. IIS would be another point all together, but it isn't a default service.
 
S1nF1xx said:
There is no point to disabling default Windows services to be more secure. IIS would be another point all together, but it isn't a default service.
Click to expand...

Would that statement apply to Windows XP prior to SP2 as well?
 
Malk-a-mite said:
Would that statement apply to Windows XP prior to SP2 as well?
Click to expand...
I believe it applies before SP2, but I'm not 100% sure.
 
djnes said:
I believe it applies before SP2, but I'm not 100%.
Click to expand...

Is the messenger fix (they did turn it off in SP2 right?) then considered a security fix or just an annoyance fix?
 
Malk-a-mite said:
Is the messenger fix (they did turn it off in SP2 right?) then considered a security fix or just an annoyance fix?
Click to expand...
I'd consider it more of an annoyance fix because it was meant to stop the broadcast "net send insert ad message here" pop-ups.
 
Malk-a-mite said:
Would that statement apply to Windows XP prior to SP2 as well?
Click to expand...

No. :eek:
The messenger service would be one you want to turn off. But since everybody has SP2 I left it out. :p
 
S1nF1xx said:
Ok. If there are no performance benifits why do it? For security reasons? Ok. Let's understand services shall we? To use any local services you have to be AUTHENTICATED LOCALLY. Once that happens, as GreNME said it so perfectly I will quote him:



There is no point to disabling default Windows services to be more secure. IIS would be another point all together, but it isn't a default service.
Click to expand...
And once again, I'm left with a decision...who do I believe? M$ says disabling services reduces the attack surface, for greater security...should I believe you, or should I believe M$? Are you trying to claim that you know more about WindowsXP than M$ does?
Don't think so...
 
O[H]-Zone said:
And once again, I'm left with a decision...who do I believe? M$ says disabling services reduces the attack surface, for greater security...should I believe you, or should I believe M$? Are you trying to claim that you know more about WindowsXP than M$ does?
Don't think so...
Click to expand...

The whole point is this. For someone to be able to exploit these services, such as secondary logon, THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO AUTHENTICATE TO YOUR MACHINE. If anyone does this it doesn't matter what services you disabled. You are owned. They have control and they can enable whatever services they want. Even ones you disabled. So it doesn't matter.
 
O[H]-Zone said:
And once again, I'm left with a decision...who do I believe? M$ says disabling services reduces the attack surface, for greater security...should I believe you, or should I believe M$? Are you trying to claim that you know more about WindowsXP than M$ does?
Don't think so...
Click to expand...
Welcome to O[H]-Zone's game of moving targets.

Several posts about "WAH! you can't show me disabling services=bad" I post a SLEW of errors (from MS). You respond with "but those aren't forum posts" which is very irrelevant. Then SJConsultant fills your whiny requests and posts several forum links. You STFU and move on to security, where MS recommends disabling services.

The security argument isn't the strongest, but at least valid.

All of that is of course irrelevant to the topic. As you may or may not recall, BVs site was a performance tuning site, not security.

 
S1nF1xx said:
The whole point is this. For someone to be able to exploit these services, such as secondary logon, THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO AUTHENTICATE TO YOUR MACHINE. If anyone does this it doesn't matter what services you disabled. You are owned. They have control and they can enable whatever services they want. Even ones you disabled. So it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
That assumes the service isn't being exploited (which has been done) and is being used as intended. That isn't always the case. There is an argument for seciruty, though I would say it's mitigated by layered security, IE firewall. Ex., don't want telnet traffic, close it's port.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top