Weard files in C:\root

[KG]

I show two files in C:\ which have no extensions. they are
"{7A514B64-62BF-427A-82C3-F8588DCE0748}" and
"{7EDCFB7C-1468-4E17-A5CA-E45F0CA82F85}". They are both about 3 k in
size. Any ideas what and why??
-- \n

To reply to this message please remove the AT
after the kgs in the reply to address.

 

[Paul]

I show two files in C:\ which have no extensions. they are
"{7A514B64-62BF-427A-82C3-F8588DCE0748}" and
"{7EDCFB7C-1468-4E17-A5CA-E45F0CA82F85}". They are both about 3 k in
size. Any ideas what and why??
-- \n

To reply to this message please remove the AT
after the kgs in the reply to address.

You can:

1) Search for more instances of 7A514B64-62BF-427A-82C3-F8588DCE0748 using
the Windows file search. If there are files related to that in the
"store" on C:, then you may be able to figure out whether it is
related to .NET installations or something.

If you have "content searching" via Indexing set up, then the number
may actually be recorded in some .log file. And the .log file could
belong to the installer that made the mess on C: in the first place.

2) Run those GUID numbers through Google, and see if they're mentioned.

For example, there are some famous ones, needed when trying to fix
a non-working optical burner.

http://pcsupport.about.com/od/driverssupport/a/device-class-guid.htm

3) Fire up Regedit, and use the Find command there, and see if that
number shows up. Many things are recorded in Regedit, by GUID.
If you find the GUID there, then look at the other keys in that
area, for evidence of the source.

A GUID can be randomly made, on the spot, with the intention that
it not collide with any other GUID. Some of them are made "systematically",
in that you can find a series of N, N+1, N+2 in actual usage. But the
odds of some software generating identical numbers unintentionally are
pretty low. If some idiot actually copies a GUID that someone else is
using and inserts it in software, then there would be trouble (i.e. if it
is being used as an identifier).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guid

You can also try opening the files with Notepad, in case they're text.

HTH,
Paul

 

[Ken1943]

I show two files in C:\ which have no extensions. they are
"{7A514B64-62BF-427A-82C3-F8588DCE0748}" and
"{7EDCFB7C-1468-4E17-A5CA-E45F0CA82F85}". They are both about 3 k in
size. Any ideas what and why??
-- \n

To reply to this message please remove the AT
after the kgs in the reply to address.

They may have something to do with Windows Update. I have two
partitations on my drive and they always wind up on my 'D' drive.


KenW

 

[VanguardLH]

I show two files in C:\ which have no extensions. they are
"{7A514B64-62BF-427A-82C3-F8588DCE0748}" and
"{7EDCFB7C-1468-4E17-A5CA-E45F0CA82F85}". They are both about 3 k in
size. Any ideas what and why??

These are sometimes created by an installer but not cleaned up after the
installation has completed, or because it was aborted or errored, or it
gets cleaned up after a reboot (which is why config.msi might exist and
then disappear after a reboot if files were inuse during an install when
using the Microsoft installer, especially for an updated version of the
software).

You could look for the class ID (the alphanumeric string inside the
braces) in the registry to see with what software it is associated. You
don't have to search the entire registry. Searching under the
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes should be sufficient.

-- \n

To reply to this message please remove the AT
after the kgs in the reply to address.

That is NOT a proper signature delimiter. When someone tells you the
sig separator line is "-- \n", that means you enter dash, dash, space,
and a newline (line break). The "\n" you used was a string of text
characters, not a control character for the line break.

From what I was told, Forte Agent does not automatically add the sig
separator line when you include a signature. To Agent, it is just a
block of text that you want to add to bottom of your posts and not
really a signature as such. To make it a signature means you have to
add the sigdash line yourself. That means you would enter:

--
To reply via e-mail, remove "AT" in my e-mail address.

The above was indented to eliminate newsreaders that would see it as a
signature and perhaps dim it or strip it out. You'll notice the sigdash
line is a dash, another dash, a space character, and that's it. The
newline (line break) is already there because you hit the Enter key to
start a new line.

Try to keep your [fluff] signatures to a minimum number of lines.
Netiquette says 4 lines maximum but you should eliminate blank lines and
keep to a minimum number of lines. In my example, I gave the same but
more condensed instructions as you did but my version took 1 line
instead of 2 lines (and there was no superfluous blank line).

 

[KG]

These are sometimes created by an installer but not cleaned up after the
installation has completed, or because it was aborted or errored, or it
gets cleaned up after a reboot (which is why config.msi might exist and
then disappear after a reboot if files were inuse during an install when
using the Microsoft installer, especially for an updated version of the
software).

You could look for the class ID (the alphanumeric string inside the
braces) in the registry to see with what software it is associated. You
don't have to search the entire registry. Searching under the
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes should be sufficient.


That is NOT a proper signature delimiter. When someone tells you the
sig separator line is "-- \n", that means you enter dash, dash, space,
and a newline (line break). The "\n" you used was a string of text
characters, not a control character for the line break.

SNIP

1st The two files do not show up on a system search. The only place
the show up is regedit "find" and that is from notepad and agent
RanSack.

and just for the hell of it does this signature fir your requirements?

 

[VanguardLH]

The two files do not show up on a system search. The only place the
show up is regedit "find" and that is from notepad and agent RanSack.

Is there any info in regedit to show what those entries might be for?
If these strings are found by regedit then what did it find? Registry
keys by that name? If so, what subkeys did it have and what data items
and their values were under them? Did you only find a data item with
that string (and not a registry key by that name)? Export what you
found from regedit and post here.

Since the files (or are they folders?) were 3K in size (instead of a
zero-bit sized file), can you look at them with Notepad? If so, what's
inside? There might be recognizable text strings within.

That the files aren't found by Vista/7 search isn't a new defect. That
started back in Windows XP when Microsoft changed how they searched for
files and their content. Agent Ransack (aka Filelocator Lite) will
find files that XP/Vista/7 search won't.

If you delete, move, or renamed these files, do they reappear by the
same name sometime later?

and just for the hell of it does this signature fir your requirements?

Yep, now you actually have a signature (but it could be shortened). I
didn't define the standard for identifying a signature delimiter line.
In fact, I don't think it's defined in an RFC for Internet Message
Format or NNTP. It's a de facto standard (i.e., through common usage)
that started a couple decades ago and is usually supported by most
newsreaders. Apparently Forte Agent is the exception and doesn't
actually do signatures. Instead it lets you define a post-appended
block of text that you can decide will be a signature or not. Forte
assumed its users knew how to correctly delimit signatures. Other
newsreaders add the sigdash line themself.

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Yep, now you actually have a signature (but it could be shortened).
I
didn't define the standard for identifying a signature delimiter
line.
In fact, I don't think it's defined in an RFC for Internet Message
Format or NNTP. It's a de facto standard (i.e., through common
usage)
that started a couple decades ago and is usually supported by most
newsreaders. Apparently Forte Agent is the exception and doesn't
actually do signatures. Instead it lets you define a post-appended
block of text that you can decide will be a signature or not. Forte
assumed its users knew how to correctly delimit signatures. Other
newsreaders add the sigdash line themself.

Never defined in an official RFC, but the son-of-rfc1036
(http://www.chemie.fu-berlin.de/outerspace/netnews/son-of-1036.html
among others) and the GNKSA (Good Net Keeping Seal of Approval,
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/software/good-netkeeping-seal/)
establish the accepted standard, if the OP is interested in where it
is (at least unofficially) defined.

I do wonder about your statement "it could be shortened". It meets
the generally accepted standard of 4 lines or less, 80 columns or less
(the so-called McQuary limit). What exactly is the issue you have
with the length of the OP's current sig?

 

[G. Morgan]

VanguardLH wrote:

From what I was told, Forte Agent does not automatically add the sig
separator line when you include a signature. To Agent, it is just a
block of text that you want to add to bottom of your posts and not
really a signature as such.

That is correct. Agent users must manually enter the
dash-dash-space-enter to properly work.


--

"I don't like to discriminate against terrorists based on nationality.
If you declare war on the United States and you want to kill us,
We're going to kill you first, period."

October 19, 2011 - Ali Soufan (Colbert Report)

 

[gufus]

Hello, Paul!

Paul

Say Paul

Can we chat via emaiil about SSD's

email me at:

gufus[at]shaw[dot]ca

Kevin

--
-gufus
Thou Shalt NOT excessively annoy others or
allow Thyself to become excessively annoyed

Message-ID: [email protected] Sent at 16:42

 

[Paul]

Hello, Paul!

Paul

Say Paul

Can we chat via emaiil about SSD's

email me at:

gufus[at]shaw[dot]ca

Kevin

Pop a post into alt.comp.hardware ?

I'm really bad at email.

It's much better if more people get a shot at your
question. I don't own an SSD yet, so I can't offer any
first hand experiences with them (like how to do migration
or alignment).

Paul

 

[VanguardLH]

Never defined in an official RFC, but the son-of-rfc1036
(http://www.chemie.fu-berlin.de/outerspace/netnews/son-of-1036.html
among others) and the GNKSA (Good Net Keeping Seal of Approval,
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/software/good-netkeeping-seal/)
establish the accepted standard, if the OP is interested in where it
is (at least unofficially) defined.

I do wonder about your statement "it could be shortened". It meets
the generally accepted standard of 4 lines or less, 80 columns or less
(the so-called McQuary limit). What exactly is the issue you have
with the length of the OP's current sig?

No point in bloating the signature if not required. If the OP wants a
blank line, it should be before the sigdash delimiter (to help separate
the signature rather than smack it up against the last line in the body
of their post). There's no point and it looks lazy or fluffy to be
adding blank lines in the signature. That's a readability issue; i.e.,
how easy is it for your eyes to differentiate the signature at a glance.

Yes, the OP could suck up 4 lines in sig, like:

--
To send me e-mail or continue this discussion offline via e-mail,
remove the "AT" in my e-mail address (not the "@" character but the
"AT" string itself). Be aware that this is a special-use account and
is not often monitored so it may be awhile before I reply, if at all.

Yeah, it's under the 4-line limit but it's super fluffy. That there is
a signature at all is itself already fluff. This is Usenet, not mailing
lists. If the conversation starts here then it should stay here, not
get taking offline via e-mail.

So, in counterpoint, what exactly is the issue you have with the length
of my modified and much shorter example signature (sigdash line and just
one signature line)? How much public stroking is needed for a sig?
That the de facto netiquette standard says to keep the signature length
(not including the sig separate line) to 4 lines, or less, doesn't mean
you should be filling it out as much as possible.

 

[Stan Brown]

I show two files in C:\ which have no extensions. they are
"{7A514B64-62BF-427A-82C3-F8588DCE0748}" and
"{7EDCFB7C-1468-4E17-A5CA-E45F0CA82F85}". They are both about 3 k in
size. Any ideas what and why??
-- \n

To reply to this message please remove the AT
after the kgs in the reply to address.

Were they recovered during a CHKDSK operation? When I ran CHKDSK it
recovered a fragment with a name like that.

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

No point in bloating the signature if not required. If the OP wants
a
blank line, it should be before the sigdash delimiter (to help
separate
the signature rather than smack it up against the last line in the
body
of their post). There's no point and it looks lazy or fluffy to be
adding blank lines in the signature. That's a readability issue;
i.e.,
how easy is it for your eyes to differentiate the signature at a
glance.

Yes, the OP could suck up 4 lines in sig, like:

--
To send me e-mail or continue this discussion offline via e-mail,
remove the "AT" in my e-mail address (not the "@" character but the
"AT" string itself). Be aware that this is a special-use account
and
is not often monitored so it may be awhile before I reply, if at
all.

Yeah, it's under the 4-line limit but it's super fluffy. That there
is
a signature at all is itself already fluff. This is Usenet, not
mailing
lists. If the conversation starts here then it should stay here,
not
get taking offline via e-mail.

So, in counterpoint, what exactly is the issue you have with the
length
of my modified and much shorter example signature (sigdash line and
just
one signature line)? How much public stroking is needed for a sig?
That the de facto netiquette standard says to keep the signature
length
(not including the sig separate line) to 4 lines, or less, doesn't
mean
you should be filling it out as much as possible.

I have no issue with your modified / shorter example at all, and don't
advocate expanding the sig to fill up 4 lines of 80 columns either.
On the other hand, I also don't worry about the sig content or size as
long as it isn't excessive and don't worry about blank lines in the
sig either (as evidenced by some of mine). As long as the poster uses
proper sig separator and doesn't go off the deep end with length, I'm
not even likely to notice. And even if I do notice (like that Ant
character with the 20 line sig for a single line post in another
thread) I'm not likely to whinge about it unless I'm just in a grumpy
mood. I suppose my point is, it is a *sig* after all, it isn't a part
of the post and so should be allowed some leeway. I'd rather reserve
that level of scrutiny for more important things - OT and SPAM posts,
etc.

 

[VanguardLH]

As long as the poster uses
proper sig separator and doesn't go off the deep end with length, I'm
not even likely to notice.

Well, it is a sig ... now. Wouldn't have been unless KG had been
notified that "\n" meant a newline (line break), not a text string.

And even if I do notice (like that Ant
character with the 20 line sig for a single line post in another
thread) I'm not likely to whinge about it unless I'm just in a grumpy
mood. I suppose my point is, it is a *sig* after all, it isn't a part
of the post and so should be allowed some leeway.

Sometimes I'll complain about the ridiculously long signature assuming
that poster hasn't already befallen to my killfile (if they exhibit one
bad but repeated behavior then they'll likely have other bad behaviors).
If the signature size is lopsided over the body, I might prod by noting
"{name} sent a post of xx% body text and XX% signature text. <rolleyes>
The body was hidden by all the signature noise. Post skipped."

My primary point was to get KG to actually use a signature for his
fluff. He could be new to Usenet ("KG" is too cryptic to waste the
bother of doing an archive search to find his posts and everyone else
having that string somewhere in their nym) and didn't know how to
properly identify a signature. Now he does.

I think we can conclude this tangent subthread (after your reply, if
any).

I'd rather reserve that level of scrutiny for more important things -
OT and SPAM posts, etc.

I now see few spam posts. Between blocking Google Groups, web-based
forums leeching from Usenet using an HTTP-to-NNTP gateway, and looking
keywords or phrases, including posts announced as off-topic, I don't see
much of that crap anymore. I figure KG was a noob and now he knows
better.

Besides, complaining to spammers has absolutely no effect. You think
they really read any replies to their multi-posted crap? Posters like
Ant, evident that they won't comply with netiquette after repeated
requests, won't change, will ignore any requests to change, and are
content to continue behaving like childish anarchists. Yeah, you often
get accused of being a Net Cop when you suggest but anarchists buck
anyone telling them what is proper since that's not their goal.

 

[gufus]

Hello, Paul!

Pop a post into alt.comp.hardware ?

Sounds good.

--
-gufus
Thou Shalt NOT excessively annoy others or
allow Thyself to become excessively annoyed

Message-ID: [email protected] Sent at 12:59