Trix Posted November 11, 2005 Report Posted November 11, 2005 I still get this TCP/IP has reached the security limit imposed on the number of concurrent TCP connect attempts. Error showing up quite a bit in XP SP2.
DomZ Posted November 11, 2005 Report Posted November 11, 2005 Theres a Patch to stop that? Search google
Animorc Posted November 11, 2005 Report Posted November 11, 2005 If you end up without finding anything, this is the page where you can download the patch:http://www.lvllord.de/?url=downloads
Trix Posted November 11, 2005 Author Report Posted November 11, 2005 Patching windows itself shouldn't be a solution, many argue against patching it, for it is indeed a smart thing to have, it is debateable though. Just wondering what setting can calm this.
Firon Posted November 11, 2005 Report Posted November 11, 2005 It's not a problem if you don't notice it affecting your internet.
Animorc Posted November 11, 2005 Report Posted November 11, 2005 You can reduce the setting "net.max_halfopen" a bit to get rid of that error-log, but that would make µTorrent connect to peers a little slower if I've gotten it right.
Intangir Posted November 11, 2005 Report Posted November 11, 2005 It's just saying you've maxed out your half-open TCP connections and it is placing all the extras in a queue to be processed later (I believe it's 10 per sec unpatched).It's not really an error message so much as just informing you what's happening. The reason behind the limit is to slow down worm/malware propogation although, to my knowledge, this hasn't been proven to have a positive effect. It's more of a minor nuisance to P2P and BitTorrent. Patching is typically unnecessary, but if the nagging eventlog gets to you, it's easy enough to patch.
ColdArmor Posted November 11, 2005 Report Posted November 11, 2005 I patched and set my max TCP/IP per sec from 10 to 1500 and then halfopen to 12 and it works great I never get the error anymoreIf you think 1500 is too high on SP1 the limit was 65000.
jroc Posted November 11, 2005 Report Posted November 11, 2005 All I know is ppl using any p2p app from SP1 to SP2 noticed the difference in speeds and/or connections when SP2 came out. Alot ppl cant be wrong.
ColdArmor Posted November 11, 2005 Report Posted November 11, 2005 All I know is ppl using any p2p app from SP1 to SP2 noticed the difference in speeds and/or connections when SP2 came out. Alot ppl cant be wrong.It's possible.*cough* Bush Administration *cough*
Firon Posted November 11, 2005 Report Posted November 11, 2005 1500 is still too high, the point of reducing it was to help stop the spread of worms and whatnot... What the hell do you need 1500 for? To connect to 100 peers in 50 msec? 100 is way more than enough, especially since you shouldn't be using more than 150 peers/torrent anyway ;p
ColdArmor Posted November 11, 2005 Report Posted November 11, 2005 I haven't gotten a virus in over a year, and since in SP1 to was 40x that, I figured what the hell.
Trix Posted November 11, 2005 Author Report Posted November 11, 2005 Hmm... I guess I could patch. It just seems like a strange solution, very debatable, I mention patching to someone "You are stupid, Microsoft did it for a reason." or "SP1's limit was higher, so SP2 can be a bit higher, you won't affect anything."
boo Posted November 11, 2005 Report Posted November 11, 2005 the limit is there to slow down the spread of worms + the unofficial reason to cause trouble for p2p users.
Inacurate Posted November 11, 2005 Report Posted November 11, 2005 Is there any reason why avast! finds a Trojan in the lvllord's patch? The one I downloaded a week ago and the one I just got from that link. :|Someone tell me that is just a false positive, someone who sounds like they know what they are talking about! Inac
boo Posted November 11, 2005 Report Posted November 11, 2005 Is there any reason why avast! finds a Trojan in the lvllord's patch? The one I downloaded a week ago and the one I just got from that link. :|Someone tell me that is just a false positive, someone who sounds like they know what they are talking about! Inacits a false positive. Avast most likely check if the tcpip.sys is modified, which it is when you use lvllords patch. They possibly added that incase of future worms/viruses tries to modify the tcpip.sys.
r00ted Posted November 11, 2005 Report Posted November 11, 2005 Panda Antivirus labeled lvllord's patch EXE (not the .SYS file tho! just the exe...lol) as a "HackTool"
ColdArmor Posted November 11, 2005 Report Posted November 11, 2005 The only reason that firewalls and virus detection programs detect it as a negative app is because it attempts to change a system file.
torrentU Posted November 12, 2005 Report Posted November 12, 2005 I set my tcpip limit to 10,000 without any probs. why? for unpnp port mapping reasons. Router has never crashed, even when I was using bittornado & had 10 torrents open
Firon Posted November 12, 2005 Report Posted November 12, 2005 You should set it to 100. It's not maximum CONNECTIONS, it's maximum connection ATTEMPTS!
lister Posted November 12, 2005 Report Posted November 12, 2005 Is there any reason why avast! finds a Trojan in the lvllord's patch? The one I downloaded a week ago and the one I just got from that link. :|Someone tell me that is just a false positive, someone who sounds like they know what they are talking about! InacI agree, it is a false positive - nevertheless, getting avast to leave the file alone is a pain.Download 'XP-Antispy' - http://www.xp-antispy.org/It uses the same code (with permission) to increase the connection limit.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.