 sm5w2
join:2004-10-13
St Thomas, ON | Bell speed-test (unable to connect to test server) Is this the correct URL for Bell's speed/bandwidth test?
»support.bell.ca/Internet/Internet-Speed-Test
I enter some numbers for a phone number, it then displays my IP and something that looks like a tachometer, and after a few seconds I get a message saying "Unable to connect to the test server - A firewall or VPN might be blocking the connection to our speed test server. Please check and try again".
I'm using neither a VPN, proxy, nor a firewall. Does this work for anyone else?
Is this an adobe flash-based test? |
|
 JCohenPremium
join:2010-10-19
Nepean, ON
kudos:2 | I believe that it's flash based as it's hosted by ookla. |
|
Reviews:
 ·WIND Mobile
 ·Bell Sympatico
| It's hosted by Bell, the flash applet is made and licensed by Ookla
»206.47.199.107/speedtest.swf
»toroon63test01.srvr.bell.ca/speedtest.swf |
|
 DKSDamn Kidney StonesPremium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to sm5w2
said by sm5w2:Is this the correct URL for Bell's speed/bandwidth test?
»support.bell.ca/Internet/Internet-Speed-Test
I enter some numbers for a phone number, it then displays my IP and something that looks like a tachometer, and after a few seconds I get a message saying "Unable to connect to the test server - A firewall or VPN might be blocking the connection to our speed test server. Please check and try again".
I'm using neither a VPN, proxy, nor a firewall. Does this work for anyone else?
Is this an adobe flash-based test?
Yes, it's correct. Works for me. A shot in the dark is to confirm you are using the latest version of Flash.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care. |
|
sm5w2
join:2004-10-13
St Thomas, ON | reply to BliZZardX
Regarding this:
»toroon63test01.srvr.bell.ca/speedtest.swf
I got this message: "Wrong License - This speed test is not set up to work at this URL. Please contact the webmaster of this site to let them know".
This URL does work:
»206.47.199.107/speedtest.swf
In as far as I'm asked for a phone number, then I click "Begin test", then a tachometer and a cute example of physical plant is displayed on screen with the word "connecting...", and after a few seconds I still get "unable to connect to the test server" and some nonsense about VPN or firewall.
I have flash version 11.6.602.171 (most current version is 11.6.602.180). Adobe's flash player test page says my flash is working (the ball is moving back and forth). It also says I'm running windows 2k, which is understandable because that's what I modified my registry to report. I'm actually running Firefox 2.0.0.20 under Windows 98se with KernelEx. All other flash content that I come across seems to work just fine... |
|
|
|
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Bell Sympatico
| Maybe try Firefox 19.0.2 with Flash 11.6.602.180, and if that doesn't work the same thing on Windows Vista/7/8 or a recent version of Linux/OS X.
I have OS X 10.8.2 and Windows 8 both the original and IP speedtest links work.
You shouldn't be running Windows 98 btw. It stopped being supported for security updates 7 years ago. |
|
sm5w2
join:2004-10-13
St Thomas, ON | > You shouldn't be running Windows 98 btw. It stopped being
> supported for security updates 7 years ago.
In the summer of 2006 (when win-98 went EOL), Secunia.org reported a grand total of 35 security vulnerabilities for win-98se over it's entire life-span as of that date. At the same time, there were over 240 security vulnerabilities listed for win-xp, with about 5 or 10% of them not as-yet being patched, and some of those were reported as "serious".
The truth is that Win-98 was more secure (in terms of web-exposure) for what ever reason (design or dumb luck) compared to the NT-line of windows (which includes 2k, xp, etc).
Win-2k and XP boxes became spam-emitting zombies by 2004 thanks to that "secure new OS" that you and others crow about. Spam, virus and trojan software became commercially viable as a business thanks to the vulnerabilities built-into 2k and XP during the years that win-98/me was still being used in significant numbers.
With NT, the bloat and vulnerability was built-in before the name went on.
Microsoft's motto: If it works, it's not complicated enough.
So you can keep drinking the Macro$haft Coolaid about each new OS being better than the last. Keep being afraid of the "end of support" boogeyman that they keep scaring you with. Some of us know better, and we've known for a long time. |
|
kovy
join:2009-03-26
kudos:8 | said by sm5w2:> You shouldn't be running Windows 98 btw. It stopped being
> supported for security updates 7 years ago.
In the summer of 2006 (when win-98 went EOL), Secunia.org reported a grand total of 35 security vulnerabilities for win-98se over it's entire life-span as of that date. At the same time, there were over 240 security vulnerabilities listed for win-xp, with about 5 or 10% of them not as-yet being patched, and some of those were reported as "serious".
The truth is that Win-98 was more secure (in terms of web-exposure) for what ever reason (design or dumb luck) compared to the NT-line of windows (which includes 2k, xp, etc).
Win-2k and XP boxes became spam-emitting zombies by 2004 thanks to that "secure new OS" that you and others crow about. Spam, virus and trojan software became commercially viable as a business thanks to the vulnerabilities built-into 2k and XP during the years that win-98/me was still being used in significant numbers.
With NT, the bloat and vulnerability was built-in before the name went on.
Microsoft's motto: If it works, it's not complicated enough.
So you can keep drinking the Macro$haft Coolaid about each new OS being better than the last. Keep being afraid of the "end of support" boogeyman that they keep scaring you with. Some of us know better, and we've known for a long time.
Budy, we're just 2013 here.... what's the update on your 35 security holes ? |
|
sm5w2
join:2004-10-13
St Thomas, ON | > Budy, we're just 2013 here.... what's the update your 35 security holes ?
None of them have any relation to being remotely exploitable. They are all trivial in nature. Apparently 3 of them remain unpatched:
Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition:
=======================
»secunia.com/advisories/product/1···visories
Affected By:
33 Secunia advisories
22 Vulnerabilities
Unpatched:
9% (3 of 33 Secunia advisories)
Most Critical Unpatched:
The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Less critical.
========================
Compare that to XP:
========================
»secunia.com/advisories/product/2···visories
Affected By: 413 Secunia advisories
602 Vulnerabilities
Unpatched: 11% (44 of 413 Secunia advisories)
Most Critical Unpatched:
The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows XP Professional, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Highly critical.
========================
What a joke.
XP has more unpatched vulnerabilities than Win-98 has ever had total vulnerabilities. And XP is still in it's support phase. |
|
kovy
join:2009-03-26
kudos:8 | Oh, well in that case you should use window 95. |
|
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to sm5w2
I never said try Windows XP. I just said try one of the newest OS. Windows XP support ends April 2014 so those vulnerabilities may never be patched. This is what the current version looks like:
Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Windows 8
Affected By 17 Secunia advisories
84 Vulnerabilities
Unpatched 0% (0 of 17 Secunia advisories) |
|
sm5w2
join:2004-10-13
St Thomas, ON | > I just said try one of the newest OS. This is what the current version looks like: > Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Windows 8 Having some exposure to Windoze 7 (ever try editing the hosts file in windoze 7?) I can tell you that I would rather slide down the sharp end of a razor blade than own / use any version of Windoze beyond XP. So you can forget Windoze 8. I've got enough hardware that is win-98/XP compatible to last me the rest of my life. And have you seen the number of upatched vulnerabilities for Windoze 7? ================= Windows 7 Affected By: - 133 Secunia advisories - 279 Vulnerabilities - Unpatched 5% (6 of 133 Secunia advisories) Most Critical Unpatched: The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows 7, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Highly critical. » secunia.com/advisories/product/2···visories================== So keep drinking that Micro$haft coolaid that says you should be afraid of Win-98 because it's not supported anymore - just pay no attention to the fact that Windows 7 already has about 8 times as many vulnerabilities than Win-98 ever had -> and 5% of them have yet to be patched. |
|
