IP connectivity flakiness after applying SP3

  • Thread starter Thread starter BD
  • Start date Start date
B

BD

Hi, all.

I have a PC which had XP SP2 installed, along with several post-SP2
updates.

I applied SP3.

Once SP3 was applied, I noticed that TCP/IP functionality was
extremely flaky - even after shutting down and disabling the Windows
Firewall (I use a 3rd party firewall).

Internet apps fail to connect - no DNS resolution, no nothing.

I did an ipconfig, and I see a valid internal address for the NIC (I'm
running DHCP internally off a D-Link 504 router).

I ping the router's IP, and I get a couple of timeouts - and then a
couple of valid ping responses.

After that point, my client apps can connect.

I let the machine sit idle for a few minutes, and my client apps fail
again.

I ping the router once more - timeouts followed by responses, after
which the apps can connect.

I updated my NIC driver (on-board NForce4 NIC) - behavior is the same.

-just curious if folks have seen similar behavior after applying
SP3...

Thanks!!

BD
 
Hi, all.

I have a PC which had XP SP2 installed, along with several post-SP2
updates.

I applied SP3.

Once SP3 was applied, I noticed that TCP/IP functionality was
extremely flaky - even after shutting down and disabling the Windows
Firewall (I use a 3rd party firewall).

Internet apps fail to connect - no DNS resolution, no nothing.

I did an ipconfig, and I see a valid internal address for the NIC (I'm
running DHCP internally off a D-Link 504 router).

I ping the router's IP, and I get a couple of timeouts - and then a
couple of valid ping responses.

After that point, my client apps can connect.

I let the machine sit idle for a few minutes, and my client apps fail
again.

I ping the router once more - timeouts followed by responses, after
which the apps can connect.

I updated my NIC driver (on-board NForce4 NIC) - behavior is the same.

-just curious if folks have seen similar behavior after applying
SP3...

Thanks!!

BD
Click to expand...

What anti-virus software are you using? I have encountered an anit-
virus software that must be told to trust the router's IP address or
wireless SSID.
 
I think I nailed the problem. I'd been using an old, old (but decent)
3rd party firewall app. I find that when I get this app out of the
picture, all is well.

I may try to reinstall it once everything else look stable, but for
now I'll sit tight with ZoneAlarm's free version.

Thanks!
 
BD said:
I think I nailed the problem. I'd been using an old, old (but
decent) 3rd party firewall app. I find that when I get this app out
of the picture, all is well.

I may try to reinstall it once everything else look stable, but for
now I'll sit tight with ZoneAlarm's free version.
Click to expand...

Given recent events and such - unless you are the more paranoid type - the
built in Windows XP Firewall will grant you the protection you need from the
outside world - especially when combined with a goot NAT system that further
separates you from the actual Internet.

Having the third party firewall solution seems to only satiate those who are
afraid they might be sending information to the Internet unbeknownst to them
(they did not read up on what they were installing before they installed it)
or those who just like to tweak and play with such things. I've ran many
free and otherwise firewalls - when it comes down to my true workhorse
machines (the ones i use daily) - I have found no need for bogging down or
complicating my setup in such a way.
 
Given recent events and such - unless you are the more paranoid type - the
built in Windows XP Firewall will grant you the protection you need from the
outside world - especially when combined with a goot NAT system that further
separates you from the actual Internet.

Having the third party firewall solution seems to only satiate those who are
afraid they might be sending information to the Internet unbeknownst to them
(they did not read up on what they were installing before they installed it)
or those who just like to tweak and play with such things.  I've ran many
free and otherwise firewalls - when it comes down to my true workhorse
machines (the ones i use daily) - I have found no need for bogging down or
complicating my setup in such a way.
Click to expand...

People do not have to be paranoid to want to know what is accessing
Internet out from your PC. People who want to know what is happening
on their PC should be able to know this.
 
BD said:
I think I nailed the problem. I'd been using an old, old (but
decent) 3rd party firewall app. I find that when I get this app out
of the picture, all is well.

I may try to reinstall it once everything else look stable, but for
now I'll sit tight with ZoneAlarm's free version.
Click to expand...

Shenan said:
Given recent events and such - unless you are the more paranoid
type - the built in Windows XP Firewall will grant you the
protection you need from the outside world - especially when
combined with a goot NAT system that further separates you from the
actual Internet.

Having the third party firewall solution seems to only satiate
those who are afraid they might be sending information to the
Internet unbeknownst to them (they did not read up on what they
were installing before they installed it) or those who just like to
tweak and play with such things. I've ran many free and otherwise
firewalls - when it comes down to my true workhorse machines (the
ones i use daily) - I have found no need for bogging down or
complicating my setup in such a way.
Click to expand...
People do not have to be paranoid to want to know what is accessing
Internet out from your PC. People who want to know what is
happening on their PC should be able to know this.
Click to expand...

If people researched before they installed said programs - they would know.

For most home computer users, those who do not maintain computers for a
living - such information mean slittle more than having to click "allow" a
lot more than they would otherwise.

In any case - for most users - making their home setup *more complicated*
than necessary should not be the direction they head in... at least I don't
believe so. Why throw in another variable when you have no need to?
 
If people researched before they installed said programs - they would know.

For most home computer users, those who do not maintain computers for a
living - such information mean slittle more than having to click "allow" a
lot more than they would otherwise.

In any case - for most users - making their home setup *more complicated*
than necessary should not be the direction they head in... at least I don't
believe so.  Why throw in another variable when you have no need to?
Click to expand...

As it happens, I have maintained computers for many years - including
firewalls for government organizations. So I do get kind of curious
about port activity. I prefer more complicated programs that provide
lots of information, over simple black boxes.

I also have TaskInfo running all the time - if something's grabbing
more CPU than it should, I want to know about it.

So yes, I am a tinkerer, and like to know what's going on with my
machine. So part of it is an active-interest kind of thing.

And it's worth noting that during the 15-minutes or so that my machine
was sitting online unprotected while I was between installs, it
rebooted spontaneously. That *never* happens on my machine. Obviously,
leaving it wired but unprotected for even a few minutes was a bad idea
- but given that it's such a rampant Internet out there, I prefer
tools that tell me more about what's going on.

Plus, this firewall app is one of the few that completely passes
grc.com's Shields' Up port scan. Not sure if the best selection for
intrusion detection tests nowadays, as it hasn't been updated for
awhile - but if I run that scan and any of my ports responds at all,
then the firewall isn't good enough.

I wonder how the default Windows firewall holds up against a
methodical port scan like that...?
 
Back
Top