Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Speed Test

    My Results
  • Days Won


Everything posted by mudmanc4

  1. Router and Which do I need ?

    How have things been going @Saribabas ?
  2. PC Experts! Need some assistance.

    Been a while since I clocked anything windows through BIOS, so bear with me. Clock down the proc multiplier it directly effects the entire bus (likely not coming close to straining that CPU anyhow), set RAM defaults, and all fans full bore (including case) to eliminate any possibility of a hot Northbridge.
  3. PC Experts! Need some assistance.

    Well you know, I am a collector of tech items that piss off others, tell you what, I've got this Dell D810 running Slacko I'll trade ya straight up for. Seriously though, from what your saying where it performs great under load, have you tried to clock it up a bit, or fool with BIOS settings for the port?
  4. Building my own testmy.net server

    I believe as well, there was an authentication process / access ect involved, which is no longer viable. However as CA3LE stated something is coming down the pipe at some point along these lines.
  5. Building my own testmy.net server

    If your users are mostly windows based, maybe check out https://github.com/ili101/PPerf
  6. Two different test results? B/S going on?

    Both are correct, just switch servers to test
  7. Building my own testmy.net server

    I see, maybe setup an iperf server
  8. PC Experts! Need some assistance.

    I think your spot on about a bunk card. I take it by now you've found something else to put in there? edit: Although that is a strange pattern isn't it
  9. Inconsistent results compared to other speed tests

    @jimerman , I would test some of the other servers in the testmy.net selection for a good start https://testmy.net/mirror
  10. Building my own testmy.net server

    @Yile Please visit https://testmy.net/mercury
  11. Kernel memory Leaking

    Here is an interesting and possibly informative article: By now, everyone knows that something “big” just got announced regarding computer security. Heck, when the Daily Mail does a report on it , you know something is bad… Anyway, I’m not going to go into the details about the problems being reported, other than to point you at the wonderfully written Project Zero paper on the issues involved here. They should just give out the 2018 Pwnie award right now, it’s that amazingly good. If you do want technical details for how we are resolving those issues in the kernel, see the always awesome lwn.net writeup for the details. Also, here’s a good summary of lots of other postings that includes announcements from various vendors. As for how this was all handled by the companies involved, well this could be described as a textbook example of how NOT to interact with the Linux kernel community properly. The people and companies involved know what happened, and I’m sure it will all come out eventually, but right now we need to focus on fixing the issues involved, and not pointing blame, no matter how much we want to. What you can do right now If your Linux systems are running a normal Linux distribution, go update your kernel. They should all have the updates in them already. And then keep updating them over the next few weeks, we are still working out lots of corner case bugs given that the testing involved here is complex given the huge variety of systems and workloads this affects. If your distro does not have kernel updates, then I strongly suggest changing distros right now. However there are lots of systems out there that are not running “normal” Linux distributions for various reasons (rumor has it that it is way more than the “traditional” corporate distros). They rely on the LTS kernel updates, or the normal stable kernel updates, or they are in-house franken-kernels. For those people here’s the status of what is going on regarding all of this mess in the upstream kernels you can use. Meltdown – x86 Right now, Linus’s kernel tree contains all of the fixes we currently know about to handle the Meltdown vulnerability for the x86 architecture. Go enable the CONFIG_PAGE_TABLE_ISOLATION kernel build option, and rebuild and reboot and all should be fine. However, Linus’s tree is currently at 4.15-rc6 + some outstanding patches. 4.15-rc7 should be out tomorrow, with those outstanding patches to resolve some issues, but most people do not run a -rc kernel in a “normal” environment. Because of this, the x86 kernel developers have done a wonderful job in their development of the page table isolation code, so much so that the backport to the latest stable kernel, 4.14, has been almost trivial for me to do. This means that the latest 4.14 release (4.14.12 at this moment in time), is what you should be running. 4.14.13 will be out in a few more days, with some additional fixes in it that are needed for some systems that have boot-time problems with 4.14.12 (it’s an obvious problem, if it does not boot, just add the patches now queued up.) I would personally like to thank Andy Lutomirski, Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, Dave Hansen, Peter Zijlstra, Josh Poimboeuf, Juergen Gross, and Linus Torvalds for all of the work they have done in getting these fixes developed and merged upstream in a form that was so easy for me to consume to allow the stable releases to work properly. Without that effort, I don’t even want to think about what would have happened. For the older long term stable (LTS) kernels, I have leaned heavily on the wonderful work of Hugh Dickins, Dave Hansen, Jiri Kosina and Borislav Petkov to bring the same functionality to the 4.4 and 4.9 stable kernel trees. I had also had immense help from Guenter Roeck, Kees Cook, Jamie Iles, and many others in tracking down nasty bugs and missing patches. I want to also call out David Woodhouse, Eduardo Valentin, Laura Abbott, and Rik van Riel for their help with the backporting and integration as well, their help was essential in numerous tricky places. These LTS kernels also have the CONFIG_PAGE_TABLE_ISOLATION build option that should be enabled to get complete protection. As this backport is very different from the mainline version that is in 4.14 and 4.15, there are different bugs happening, right now we know of some VDSO issues that are getting worked on, and some odd virtual machine setups are reporting strange errors, but those are the minority at the moment, and should not stop you from upgrading at all right now. If you do run into problems with these releases, please let us know on the stable kernel mailing list. If you rely on any other kernel tree other than 4.4, 4.9, or 4.14 right now, and you do not have a distribution supporting you, you are out of luck. The lack of patches to resolve the Meltdown problem is so minor compared to the hundreds of other known exploits and bugs that your kernel version currently contains. You need to worry about that more than anything else at this moment, and get your systems up to date first. Also, go yell at the people who forced you to run an obsoleted and insecure kernel version, they are the ones that need to learn that doing so is a totally reckless act. Meltdown – ARM64 Right now the ARM64 set of patches for the Meltdown issue are not merged into Linus’s tree. They are staged and ready to be merged into 4.16-rc1 once 4.15 is released in a few weeks. Because these patches are not in a released kernel from Linus yet, I can not backport them into the stable kernel releases (hey, we have rules for a reason…) Due to them not being in a released kernel, if you rely on ARM64 for your systems (i.e. Android), I point you at the Android Common Kernel tree All of the ARM64 fixes have been merged into the 3.18, 4.4, and 4.9 branches as of this point in time. I would strongly recommend just tracking those branches as more fixes get added over time due to testing and things catch up with what gets merged into the upstream kernel releases over time, especially as I do not know when these patches will land in the stable and LTS kernel releases at this point in time. For the 4.4 and 4.9 LTS kernels, odds are these patches will never get merged into them, due to the large number of prerequisite patches required. All of those prerequisite patches have been long merged and tested in the android-common kernels, so I think it is a better idea to just rely on those kernel branches instead of the LTS release for ARM systems at this point in time. Also note, I merge all of the LTS kernel updates into those branches usually within a day or so of being released, so you should be following those branches no matter what, to ensure your ARM systems are up to date and secure. Spectre Now things get “interesting”… Again, if you are running a distro kernel, you might be covered as some of the distros have merged various patches into them that they claim mitigate most of the problems here. I suggest updating and testing for yourself to see if you are worried about this attack vector For upstream, well, the status is there is no fixes merged into any upstream tree for these types of issues yet. There are numerous patches floating around on the different mailing lists that are proposing solutions for how to resolve them, but they are under heavy development, some of the patch series do not even build or apply to any known trees, the series conflict with each other, and it’s a general mess. This is due to the fact that the Spectre issues were the last to be addressed by the kernel developers. All of us were working on the Meltdown issue, and we had no real information on exactly what the Spectre problem was at all, and what patches were floating around were in even worse shape than what have been publicly posted. Because of all of this, it is going to take us in the kernel community a few weeks to resolve these issues and get them merged upstream. The fixes are coming in to various subsystems all over the kernel, and will be collected and released in the stable kernel updates as they are merged, so again, you are best off just staying up to date with either your distribution’s kernel releases, or the LTS and stable kernel releases. It’s not the best news, I know, but it’s reality. If it’s any consolation, it does not seem that any other operating system has full solutions for these issues either, the whole industry is in the same boat right now, and we just need to wait and let the developers solve the problem as quickly as they can. The proposed solutions are not trivial, but some of them are amazingly good. The Retpoline post from Paul Turner is an example of some of the new concepts being created to help resolve these issues. This is going to be an area of lots of research over the next years to come up with ways to mitigate the potential problems involved in hardware that wants to try to predict the future before it happens. Other arches Right now, I have not seen patches for any other architectures than x86 and arm64. There are rumors of patches floating around in some of the enterprise distributions for some of the other processor types, and hopefully they will surface in the weeks to come to get merged properly upstream. I have no idea when that will happen, if you are dependant on a specific architecture, I suggest asking on the arch-specific mailing list about this to get a straight answer. Conclusion Again, update your kernels, don’t delay, and don’t stop. The updates to resolve these problems will be continuing to come for a long period of time. Also, there are still lots of other bugs and security issues being resolved in the stable and LTS kernel releases that are totally independent of these types of issues, so keeping up to date is always a good idea. Right now, there are a lot of very overworked, grumpy, sleepless, and just generally pissed off kernel developers working as hard as they can to resolve these issues that they themselves did not cause at all. Please be considerate of their situation right now. They need all the love and support and free supply of their favorite beverage that we can provide them to ensure that we all end up with fixed systems as soon as possible. http://kroah.com/log/blog/2018/01/06/meltdown-status/
  12. The memory subsystem I think most researchers would immediately think that reading kernel memory from an unprivileged process cannot work because “page tables”. That is what the Instruction Set Architecture or ISA says. But in order to understand why that was unsatisfactory to me we need to dig a bit deeper and I’ll start at the beginning. When a software running on a Core requires memory it starts a so called “load” command. The load command is then processed in multiple stages until the data is found and returned or an error occurred. The Figure below shows a simplified version of this sub system. Software including operating system uses virtual addressing to start a load (which is what a memory read is called inside the CPU). The first stage of processing is the L1 cache. The L1 cache is split between a data and an instruction cache. The L1 Cache is a so called VIPT or Virtually Indexed, Physically Tagged cache. This means the data can be looked up by directly using the virtual address of the load request. This along with central position in the core makes the L1 incredibly fast. If the requested data was not found in the L1 cache the load must be passed down the cache hierarchy. This is the point where the page tables come into play. The page tables are used to translate the virtual address into a physical address. This is essentially how paging is enabled on x64. It is during this translation that privileges are checked. Once we have a physical address, the CPU can query the L2 cache and L3 cache in turn. Both are PITP caches (Physically Indexed, Physically Tagged) thus requiring the translation in the page tables before the lookup can be done. If no data was in the caches then the CPU will ask the memory controller to fetch the data in main memory. The latency of a data load in the L1 cache is around 5 clock cycles whereas a load from main memory is typically around 200 clock cycles. With the security check in the page tables and the L1 located before those we see already at this point that the because “page table” argument is too simple. That said – the intel manuals software developer’s manuals [2] states that the security settings is copied along the data into the L1 cache. Speculative execution In this and the next section I’ll outline the argumentation behind my theory, but only outline. For those a bit more interested it might be worth looking at my talk at HackPra from January [3] where I describe the pipeline in slightly more detail, though in a different context. Intel CPU’s are super scalar, pipelined CPU’s and they use speculative execution and that plays a big role in why I thought it may be possible read kernel memory from an unprivileged user mode process. A very simplified overview of the pipeline can be seen in figure below. The pipeline starts with the instruction decoder. The instruction decoder reads bytes from memory, parse the buffer and output instructions. Then it decodes instructions into micro ops. Micro ops are the building blocks of instructions. It is useful to think of x86 CPU’s as a Complex Instruction Set Computer (CISC) with a Reduced Instruction Set Computer (RISC) backend. It’s not entirely true, but it’s a useful way to think about it. The micro ops (the reduced instructions) are queued into the reordering buffer. Here micro ops is kept it until all their dependencies have been resolved. Each cycle any micro ops with all dependencies resolved are scheduled on available execution units in first in ,first out order. With multiple specialized execution units many micro ops are executing at once and importantly due to dependencies and bottlenecks in execution units micro ops need not execute in the same order as the entered the reorder buffer. When a micro op is finished executing the result and exception status are added to the entry in the reorder buffer thus resolving dependencies of other micro ops. When all Micro ops belonging to a given instruction has been executed and have made it to the head of the reorder buffer queue they enter the retirement processing. Because the micro ops are at the head of the reorder buffer we can be sure that retirement is in the same order in which the micro ops were added to the queue. If an exception was flagged in the reorder buffer for a micro op being retired an interrupt is raised on the instruction to which the micro op belonged. Thus the interrupt is always raised on the instruction that caused even if the micro op that caused the interrupt was executed long before the entire instruction was done. A raised interrupt causes a flush of the pipeline, so that any micro op still in the reorder buffer is discarded and the instruction decoder reset. If no exception was thrown, the result is committed to the registers. This is essentially an implementation of Tomasulo’s algorithm [1] and allows multiple instructions to execute at the same time while maximizing resource use. Abusing speculative execution Imagine the following instruction executed in usermode mov rax,[somekernelmodeaddress] It will cause an interrupt when retired, but it’s not clear what happens between when the instruction is finished executing and the actual retirement. We know that once retired any information it may or may not have read is gone as it’ll never be committed to the architectural registers.. However, maybe we have a chance of seeing what was read if Intel relies perfectly on Tomasulo’s algorithm. Imagine the mov instruction sets the results in the reorder buffer as well as the flag that retirement should cause an interrupt and discard any data fetched. If this is the case we can execute additional code speculatively. Imagine the following code: mov rax, [Somekerneladdress] mov rbx, [someusermodeaddress] If there are no dependencies both will execute simultaneous (there are two execution units for loads) and while the second will never get it’s result committed to the registers because it’ll be discarded when the firsts mov instruction causes an interrupt to be thrown. However, the second instruction will also execute speculatively and it may change the microarchitectural state of the CPU in a way that we can detect it. In this particular case the second mov instruction will load the someusermodeaddress into the cache hierarchy and we will be able to observe faster access time after structured exception handling took care of the exception. To make sure that the someusermodeaddress is not already in the cache hierarchy I can use the clflush instruction before starting the execution. Now only a single step is required for us to leak information about the kernel memory: Mov rax, [somekerneladdress] And rax, 1 Mov rbx,[rax+Someusermodeaddress] If this is executed last two instructions are executed speculatively the address loaded differs depending on the value loaded from somekerneladdress and thus the address loaded into the cache may cause different cache lines to be loaded. This cache activity we can we can observe through a flush+reload cache attack. The first problem we’re facing here is we must make sure the second and third instruction runs before the first one retires. We have a race condition we must win. How do we engineer that? We fill the reorder buffer with dependent instructions which use a different execution unit than the ones we need. Then we add the code listed above. The dependency forces the CPU to execute one micro op at a time of the filling instructions. Using an execution unit different than the one we used in the leaking code make sure that the CPU can speculatively execute these while working on the fill pattern. The straight forward fill pattern I use is 300 add reg64, imm. I choose add rax, 0x141. I chose this because we have two execution units that are able to execute this instruction (Integer alus) and since they must execute sequentially one of these units will always be available to my leakage code (provided that another hardware thread in the same core isn’t mixing things up). Since my kernel read mov instruction and my leaking mov instruction must run sequentially and that the data fetched by the leaking instruction cannot be in the cache the total execution time would be around 400 CLK’s if not the kernel address isn’t cached. This is a pretty steep cost given that an add rax, 0x141 cost around 3 CLK’s. For this reason, I see to it that the kernel address I’m accessing is loaded into the cache hierarchy. I use two different methods to ensure that. First, I call a syscall that touches this memory. Second, I use the prefetcht0 instruction to improve my odds of having the address loaded in L1. Gruss et al [4] concluded that prefetch instructions may load the cache despite of not having access rights. Further they showed that it’s possible for the page table traverse to abort and that would surely mean that I’m not getting a result. But having the data already in L1 will avoid this traverse. All said and done there are a few assumptions I made about Intels implementation of Tomasulo’s algorithm: 1) Speculative execution continues despite interrupt flag 2) I can win the race condition between speculative execution and retirement 3) I can load caches during speculative execution 4) Data is provided despite interrupt flag Evaluation I ran the following tests on my i3-5005u Broadwell CPU. I found no way I could separately test assumption 1,2 and 3. So I wrote up the code I outlined above and instead of code above I used the following code: Mov rdi, [rdi]; where rdi is somekernelmodeaddress mov rdi, [rdi + rcx+0]; where rcx is the Someusermodeaddress Then I timed accessing the Someusermodeaddress after an exception handler dealt with the resulting exception. I did 1000 runs and sorted out the 10 slowest out. First I did a run with the 2nd line above present with the value at the kernel mode address 0. I then did a second run with the second line commented out. This allows me test if I have a side channel inside the speculative execution. The results is summarized in the below histogram (mean and variance respectively: mean= 71.22 std = 3.31; mean= 286.17 std = 53.22). So obviously I have a statistic significant covert channel inside the speculative execution. In a second step I made sure that the kernel address I was trying to read had the value 4096. Now if I’m actually reading kernelmode data the second line will fetch a cache line in the next page. Thus I would expect a slow access to Someusermodeaddress. As the speculative fetch should access a cache line exactly one page further. I selected the offset 4096 to avoid effects due to hardware prefetchers I could’ve added the size of a cache line. Fortunately I did not get a slow read suggesting that Intel null’s the result when the access is not allowed. I double checked by accessing the cache line I wanted to access and indeed that address was not loaded into the cache either. Consequently it seems likely that intel do process the illegal reading of kernel mode memory, but do not copy the result into the reorder buffer. So at this point my experiment is failed and thus the negative result. Being really curious I added an add rdi,4096 instruction after the first line in the test code and could verify that this code was indeed executed speculatively and the result was side channeled out. Pandoras box While I did set out to read kernel mode without privileges and that produced a negative result, I do feel like I opened a Pandora’s box. The thing is there was two positive results in my tests. The first is that Intel’s implementation of Tomasulo’s algorithm is not side channel safe. Consequently we have access to results of speculative execution despite the results never being committed. Secondly, my results demonstrate that speculative execution does indeed continue despite violations of the isolation between kernel mode and user mode. This is truly bad news for the security. First it gives microarchitecture side channel attacks additional leverage – we can deduct not only information from is actually executed but also from what is speculatively executed. It also seems likely that we can influence what is speculative executed and what is not through influencing caches like the BTB see Dmitry Evtyushkin and Dmitry Ponomarev [5] for instance.It thus add another possibility to increase the expressiveness of microarchitecture side channel attacks and thus potentially allow an attacker even more leverage through the CPU. This of cause makes writing constant time code even more complex and thus it is definitely bad news. Also it draws into doubt mitigations that rely on retirement of instructions. I cannot say I know how far that stretches, but my immediate guess would be that vmexit’s is handled on instruction retirement. Further we see that speculative execution does not consistently abide by isolation mechanism, thus it’s a haunting question what we can actually do with speculative execution. https://cyber.wtf/2017/07/28/negative-result-reading-kernel-memory-from-user-mode/
  13. Kernel memory Leaking

    https://newsroom.intel.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2018/01/Intel-Analysis-of-Speculative-Execution-Side-Channels.pdf This is interesting: Not new https://web.archive.org/web/20170505011705/http://blog.stuffedcow.net:80/2015/08/pagewalk-coherence/ So why then did he sell at that point, no one in his position could be that numb to repercussions. It's been known for many years. Why was the data released now? There's more to this story, innovation is forced by requirement.And it's well known the industry has been stagnate for quite some time, Moors law is no longer in effect. I think we will be moving into a completely new realm of computing very soon.
  14. Router and Which do I need ?

    @Saribabas , Are you using this strictly as a wireless router, or do you have something wired? What devices are being used ie: cell device, laptop, desktop ect.. And what plan do you currently have with your ISP Upload/ Download maximums.
  15. Poor Uploading Speed

    @Avneez , !dea is a large cellular provider in India, over 38 million subscribers. I would check upload speeds at different times of the day, as the network might be very congested when you are trying to upload something. Work to find the best times the content can be transferred.
  16. Kernel memory Leaking

    Spector & Meltdown Reading privileged memory with a side-channel Posted by Jann Horn, Project Zero We have discovered that CPU data cache timing can be abused to efficiently leak information out of mis-speculated execution, leading to (at worst) arbitrary virtual memory read vulnerabilities across local security boundaries in various contexts. Variants of this issue are known to affect many modern processors, including certain processors by Intel, AMD and ARM. For a few Intel and AMD CPU models, we have exploits that work against real software. We reported this issue to Intel, AMD and ARM on 2017-06-01 [1]. So far, there are three known variants of the issue: Variant 1: bounds check bypass (CVE-2017-5753) Variant 2: branch target injection (CVE-2017-5715) Variant 3: rogue data cache load (CVE-2017-5754) Before the issues described here were publicly disclosed, Daniel Gruss, Moritz Lipp, Yuval Yarom, Paul Kocher, Daniel Genkin, Michael Schwarz, Mike Hamburg, Stefan Mangard, Thomas Prescher and Werner Haas also reported them; their [writeups/blogposts/paper drafts] are at: Spectre (variants 1 and 2) Meltdown (variant 3) During the course of our research, we developed the following proofs of concept (PoCs): A PoC that demonstrates the basic principles behind variant 1 in userspace on the tested Intel Haswell Xeon CPU, the AMD FX CPU, the AMD PRO CPU and an ARM Cortex A57 [2]. This PoC only tests for the ability to read data inside mis-speculated execution within the same process, without crossing any privilege boundaries. A PoC for variant 1 that, when running with normal user privileges under a modern Linux kernel with a distro-standard config, can perform arbitrary reads in a 4GiB range [3] in kernel virtual memory on the Intel Haswell Xeon CPU. If the kernel's BPF JIT is enabled (non-default configuration), it also works on the AMD PRO CPU. On the Intel Haswell Xeon CPU, kernel virtual memory can be read at a rate of around 2000 bytes per second after around 4 seconds of startup time. [4] A PoC for variant 2 that, when running with root privileges inside a KVM guest created using virt-manager on the Intel Haswell Xeon CPU, with a specific (now outdated) version of Debian's distro kernel [5] running on the host, can read host kernel memory at a rate of around 1500 bytes/second, with room for optimization. Before the attack can be performed, some initialization has to be performed that takes roughly between 10 and 30 minutes for a machine with 64GiB of RAM; the needed time should scale roughly linearly with the amount of host RAM. (If 2MB hugepages are available to the guest, the initialization should be much faster, but that hasn't been tested.) A PoC for variant 3 that, when running with normal user privileges, can read kernel memory on the Intel Haswell Xeon CPU under some precondition. We believe that this precondition is that the targeted kernel memory is present in the L1D cache. For interesting resources around this topic, look down into the "Literature" section. A warning regarding explanations about processor internals in this blogpost: This blogpost contains a lot of speculation about hardware internals based on observed behavior, which might not necessarily correspond to what processors are actually doing. We have some ideas on possible mitigations and provided some of those ideas to the processor vendors; however, we believe that the processor vendors are in a much better position than we are to design and evaluate mitigations, and we expect them to be the source of authoritative guidance. The PoC code and the writeups that we sent to the CPU vendors will be made available at a later date. Tested Processors Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-1650 v3 @ 3.50GHz (called "Intel Haswell Xeon CPU" in the rest of this document) AMD FX(tm)-8320 Eight-Core Processor (called "AMD FX CPU" in the rest of this document) AMD PRO A8-9600 R7, 10 COMPUTE CORES 4C+6G (called "AMD PRO CPU" in the rest of this document) An ARM Cortex A57 core of a Google Nexus 5x phone [6] (called "ARM Cortex A57" in the rest of this document) https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2018/01/reading-privileged-memory-with-side.html
  17. how to make my internet faster?

    @tt1411 , The average for the ISP your using in Hungary is as follows, for your reference: https://testmy.net/hstats Can you use any wired device to test with?
  18. @Aalnius , We can find results by checking the header, where auto RT is performed to the users default server: And as well on the test server selection page, just give it a minute to test on it's own and report back:
  19. Everyone have a good sense going into the next year &
  20. Cut to the chase on ISP??

    I would imagine everything depends on the provider and region as you are already aware. As far as a page to search <my town or city> & <results> have you used https://testmy.net/list ? Search for the town and go from there. Sure it takes a bit of 'footwork' to get the data extracted the way we want to see it. Though if I'm gathering mental data correctly, we should be seeing new features soon here at testmy.net.
  21. Greetings from Trinidad, West Indies.

    @Avitar , I've been thinking about flooding the network in a reciprocal manner for some time myself. Though generally 'upload and download' are rarely the same in the general, pushing the test connection to the max would render interesting results certainly. Concerning repeating the tests until the user physically halts testing would not be a great idea for anyone, taking into consideration data caps on most peoples contracts. However have you used the testmy.net autotest feature? Simulates much the same idea, yet has limits for obvious reasons.
  22. Good Day from Don in Wales UK

    Is the test sequence completing? Have you ever been logged out like this before? It is possible the forum software was restarted for one reason or another, this would likely log everyone off.
  23. :::.. testmy.net test results ..::: Download Connection is:: 20655 Kbps about 20.66 Mbps (tested with 25600 kB) Download Speed is:: 2521 kB/s Upload Connection is:: 711 Kbps about 0.7 Mbps (tested with 1496 kB) Upload Speed is:: 87 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net (Main) Test Time:: 2009/02/04 - 1:06pm D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-AJB92SDR6 U-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-735RPYKBG User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_5_6; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.27.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.2.1 Safari/525.27.1 [!]
  24. Good Day from Don in Wales UK

    @Doned , First place to look would be the crash logs in firefox. You can get to said logs by typing: about:crashes If that does not work, you can visit the logs outside of Firefox: If you can't use the above method because Firefox crashes when it starts, you can also view the reports in files on your computer with the following steps: Press +R on the keyboard. A Run dialog will open. In the Run dialog, type %APPDATA%\Mozilla\Firefox\Crash Reports\ and press Enter. The Crash Reports folder will contain two subfolders: pending and submitted. The submitted folder contains text files for each crash report submitted, with each file containing a crash report ID. For example, a file named bp-031b02bb-26b6-4168-ac0e-2de492090531.txt will contain the following text: Crash ID: bp-031b02bb-26b6-4168-ac0e-2de492090531 Visit: https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/ and copy the Crash ID into the search field to view the report. Per Firefox site
Speed Test Version 15.9
© 2017 TestMy Net LLC - TestMy.net - Terms & Privacy
© 2017 TestMy Net LLC - TestMy.net - Forum - Terms & Privacy