Let's see how smart you all are.

the_x5the_x5 the Xzianthian Join Date: 2004-03-02 Member: 27041Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">explain this widespread "odd" problem</div><a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=can+still+ping+but+can%27t+connect+in+internet+browser" target="_blank">http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=c...nternet+browser</a>

So many people with the EXACT same symptoms, yet NO uniformity in solutions. Some have played with router firmware, some have bought new routers, some have played with TCP/IP settings, some have done NOTHING at all different to fix it, it just came back. The only uniformity I've seen is that the program

Different OS-es (Win 2000, Win XP, Win Vista, Linux (Mac OSX seems oddly to be missing at first glance, hmm)), different internet browsers (Firefox and Internet Explorer, of different versions too it woud seem), different locations (various states in the US, various nations in the EU), different router manufactures (Linksys, Netgear, D-Link), different weather conditions prior (some even had awesome UPS/BatteryBackup protection), etc... none of those seem be factors.

ALL WITH THE SAME EXACT SYMPTOMS

Yet a uniform solution is nowhere to be seen!


<u>Symtoms</u>:

One computer due to no apparent reason, suddenly fails to connect to HTTP in the web browser program. It would appear to not be resolving DNS the same as if the network cable connecting it to the router (although in some cases there was not a router) and the cable/DSL modem (yes always a broadband ISP). HOWEVER, it IS connected to the internet. Other internet accessing programs like iTunes, anti-virus software updaters, etc. can still access and in Windows OS'es the command prompt's "ping" and "tracert" still work.

Read through some of those posts in the google search results link I posted to see the useless suggestions people come up with.

My first suspect is either corrupted internet browser programs or firewall settings in the router off. But that doesn't seem to fix anything in any of these cases, at least not with understanding why or with any reliability.

Computers are suprisingly litteral machines. If they fail in the same exact way everytime, they have the same causes and solutions. I know personally know of two people who have this same problem. One of which was somebody connecting to my network. In that case I check to make sure the TCP ports 80 and 8080 were open (used by HTTP) and TCP 53 and UDP 53 (used by DNS) were open. They were, not solved. I thought his IE might have been corrupted. Tried installing Firefox, not solved. Tried re-installing IE, temporarily solved. The problem re-occured when he was on a totally different network, installed Webroot's anti-spyware to compliment the anti-virus called Spysweeper and after another IE re-install the problem has not re-occured since. Was it spyware? Glitch in Windows XP? But then why do Linux, Win2000, and Vista users (especially Vista users it seems, more than half of the cases) have the same issue? Maybe it's the routers? But then why different brands and routers and firmware versions and when apparently nothing had been changed on the router prior? What about the people not using a router having this problem? Why can call of these people ping www.google.com and www.yahoo.com?

I would have thought it was user error if I hadn't seen cases of this occuring with my own eyes. Oddly it's only seemed to have started this Summer '07 everywhere. Does that mean traces are being installed in AT&T conquered internet backbone achitecture since they took over bellsouth? But then how does that explain L3 and Bellsouth achitecture.

I am convinced now it has to be the individual computers themselves somehow conflicting with the router, modem, or ISP hardware, and perhaps over a WAN network setting within. Almost all of the cases are Windows XP or Windows Vista. Why is that? You can blame it on Mircosoft having a sucky product, or maybe that's just because Mircosoft is the largest percentage of the market? (although OSX's Safari occurs far less than Linux even) Why? WHY?! There IS a logical reason. Has to be. Something we should be looking for. In my personally solved case why would Spysweeper "prevent" the issue? It doesn't make sense! The OSI model has been around for ages, what could be causing this issue?

I hate being stumped and none of my tech friends have found the silver bullet either. I fully expect most of you to fail to find the secret and post stupid replies, stupid because they have alreadly been proven that it has no effect or uniform effect for all systems.


So, do you feel smart punk? Do ya? Well then, find both the CAUSE and the SOLUTION to this problem.

Comments

  • GwahirGwahir Join Date: 2002-04-24 Member: 513Members, Constellation
    My vote:
    Corrupted protocol stack
    reinstall the protocol stack.
  • TychoCelchuuuTychoCelchuuu Anememone Join Date: 2002-03-23 Member: 345Members
    My vote:

    Your ISP's DNS servers are down.
  • FaskaliaFaskalia Wechsellichtzeichenanlage Join Date: 2004-09-12 Member: 31651Members, Constellation
    Hmm after 5 minutes of reading here goes my guess/vote:

    Cause: NAT buffer overflow, thanks to botnet or POD.

    Solution: Clean PC from spy/malware, make sure that PC/router discards pinging from WAN side. Reconnect and get a new IP.
  • GwahirGwahir Join Date: 2002-04-24 Member: 513Members, Constellation
    I also agree with Tycho, but that's less likely if this is frequent across multiple ISPs
    Also, if the guy on your network did not have access while you did, then that's not it, unless you only went to cached pages.
  • FaskaliaFaskalia Wechsellichtzeichenanlage Join Date: 2004-09-12 Member: 31651Members, Constellation
    Hmm, I finished reading a few of those linked forum posts and I came along people claiming that I worked, after they uninstalled Norton. While this is certainly a possible explanations it is a rather unsatisfying one, especially considering that it is highly unlikely that lot of people messed up their Norton Internet Security really bad.
  • RedfordRedford Monorailcatfjord Join Date: 2002-04-28 Member: 528Members, NS1 Playtester
    edited August 2007
    Statement: Norton firewall is useless. How do I know it was useless? My old computer came with it. Oddly enough, it came uninstalled. I wondered why. After installing it, I found out why. It constantly complained, about everything. And then, one day, all my icons stopped working. They displayed the generic "exe program without a special icon" symbol instead. It turned out that norton firewall was the problem, because the moment I turned it off all my icons came back. I turned it back on, all my icons vanished again. I ended up having to uninstall it. Apparently securing my computer aginst hackers ACTUALLY means "randomly make all icons stop working as they may be a security threat".

    I just don't know what to say, folks.
  • ScytheScythe Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 46NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation, Reinforced - Silver
    Norton products are for stupid people that don't know better.

    Kerio personal firewall (or Sygate) and AVG antivirus. A winning combination.

    --Scythe--
  • SkulkBaitSkulkBait Join Date: 2003-02-11 Member: 13423Members
    edited August 2007
    Never seen it before myself, but my gut would say its a problem at the hardware/data link level (thats layers 1 and 2 of the OSI model, respectively, and layer 1 of the TCP/IP model). Specifically, I'm guessing the trouble lies with frame sizes. DNS and ICMP typically use very small frames and so don't trigger the issue, but web traffic is often much larger. This would also explain why one sufferer said he could get google to partially load, since google's html is unusually small. Dialup users are unaffected since they use a serial connection and not ethernet, and since its a hardware/firmware problem it occurs independently of the OS. The interesting question is: what causes the dropping of larger frames, and what causes the problem to fix itself? Perhaps its a firmware error on the ethernet card. I would guess that all the affected user's ethernet cards are related in some way (manufacture, chipset).
  • puzlpuzl The Old Firm Join Date: 2003-02-26 Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
    These symptoms ( from the google ) are really broad and it is entirely plausible that the collection of problem reports are multiple issues manifesting with some common symptoms.
  • OmegamanOmegaman Join Date: 2004-01-11 Member: 25239Members
    <!--quoteo(post=1641698:date=Aug 1 2007, 06:21 PM:name=SkulkBait)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SkulkBait @ Aug 1 2007, 06:21 PM) [snapback]1641698[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
    Never seen it before myself, but my gut would say its a problem at the hardware/data link level (thats layers 1 and 2 of the OSI model, respectively, and layer 1 of the TCP/IP model). Specifically, I'm guessing the trouble lies with frame sizes. DNS and ICMP typically use very small frames and so don't trigger the issue, but web traffic is often much larger. This would also explain why one sufferer said he could get google to partially load, since google's html is unusually small. Dialup users are unaffected since they use a serial connection and not ethernet, and since its a hardware/firmware problem it occurs independently of the OS. The interesting question is: what causes the dropping of larger frames, and what causes the problem to fix itself? Perhaps its a firmware error on the ethernet card. I would guess that all the affected user's ethernet cards are related in some way (manufacture, chipset).
    <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    I feel so proud of myself for completely understanding what you said. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
  • SkulkBaitSkulkBait Join Date: 2003-02-11 Member: 13423Members
    Buh? I just typed out random technobable...
  • douchebagatrondouchebagatron Custom member title Join Date: 2003-12-20 Member: 24581Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
    may sound like a silly question, but is there an ip conflict?
  • FaskaliaFaskalia Wechsellichtzeichenanlage Join Date: 2004-09-12 Member: 31651Members, Constellation
    <!--quoteo(post=1641714:date=Aug 2 2007, 05:54 AM:name=6john)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(6john @ Aug 2 2007, 05:54 AM) [snapback]1641714[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
    may sound like a silly question, but is there an ip conflict?
    <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Inside the LAN: Yes, quite possible.
    On the WAN side: No way!

    What could make bigger fragments drop is quite easily explained (I even suffered from it myself <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />)

    Interference.
    When you have a high demand and a low demand connection lying on pipes, in the same cable, next to each other you will usually have the high frequency connection getting interference from the low frequency connection.

    If this occurs in a non random pattern it will mean that all packages that are bigger than X will be dropped due to corruption.

    In my case, I changed from 4Mbit to 16Mbit and my interet just did not work on a stable basis. Everytime my neighbor (who lay on the same cable) connected his 2Mbit pipe he utterly destroyed most of my connection. This was solved by a ISP-tech transferring me to a different cable.

    Problem with this solution: There can only be interference, when both pipes are used. So your neighbor has to be online and if you have probs 24/7 he has also to be online 24/7.
  • OmegamanOmegaman Join Date: 2004-01-11 Member: 25239Members
    edited August 2007
    <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wow.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":0" border="0" alt="wow.gif" />

    I am shocked to hear that the problem could be inadequate cable shielding on the ISP's side, but that sounds like a pretty legit reason.

    Edit: Reread your post...Both connections are in the same cable? Cable sheilding wouldn't stop interference in that case...I'm sligtly confused and pretty unaware of what exactly the connection from the user to the ISP is. I take it this is on the ISP's side, past the demarc*? Can you elaborate?

    *demarcation point: the point where the portion of a network owned by a user and the portion owned the by the ISP meet
  • the_x5the_x5 the Xzianthian Join Date: 2004-03-02 Member: 27041Members, Constellation
    edited August 2007
    I thought I'd update to say I solved the problem.

    First, let me say that haven't been able to see your feedback until now. (been out on a double date after the tech work actually) But I must say you guys are way smarter than the average tech forum part of the internet. You all are uber geeks and should be commended for it! *the internet bows to you NSF people* I don't see many other google topics with this issue discussed so eloquently. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />

    Second, how I solved it:

    This was actually a compound problem. I realized that DHCP was resolving all verbose hostnames as 192.168.1.254, which was infact the LAN IP of the DSL modem itself. So first I had to get the modem connected to the internet using an alternate computer RJ-45 wired into it directly. (FYI: the DSL modem was in PPPoE mode).

    With that solved, I asked a Geek Squad DA (Double Agent, senior agents who do the in-homes) who is a good friend of mine on his work cell no less if he's heard of anything like this and described the symptoms. He said yes, it was often caused by spyware infecting the computer and corrupting the WinSock stack. So thus on the XP system I used a Win Socket repair utility from <a href="http://www.majorgeeks.com" target="_blank">MajorGeeks</a> which solved the problem like magic. Apparently this utility wouldn't run on the Vista machine (Suprised? I didn't think so...) so for that I eventually figured out that on the versions of Vista that weren't Vista Basic, it would try to rebuild it using the built in uber vista diagnostic wizard. No visible luck (perhaps although I imagine it helped), but when I updated the NIC's drivers and re-installed its protocols as a byproduct it solved the problem. Still kind of confused on that one.

    To both systems I installed Webroot's anti-spyware called SpySweeper, a really damn good anti-spyware (which I could get at a very nice price too) which should prevent future issues. I went ahead and upgraded the routers firmware, set the modem to always on, upgraded the wireless security from WEP to WPA Personal, and ran CCleaner. Those were two much happier computers in that office.


    In conclusion of this trouble shooting, I'm still suprised at how widespread this issue seems to be. With 1.4 million hits on Google, you'd think this would have been more heard of! Moreover, I'd love to know what the spyware is that specifically causes this corruption issue, why Firefox browser programs are sometimes effected too when it's a registry issue, why Mac OSX systems seem to be immune (Is it Safari or the OS itself?), and how the corruption happens spefically to yield said symptoms. Especially that last part, how is it corrupting and why does it show the symptoms that way.


    This is one of those cases where the answers raise more questions.
  • ShockehShockeh If a packet drops on the web and nobody&#39;s near to see it... Join Date: 2002-11-19 Member: 9336NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
    <!--quoteo(post=1641736:date=Aug 2 2007, 09:02 AM:name=the_x5)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_x5 @ Aug 2 2007, 09:02 AM) [snapback]1641736[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
    This was actually a compound problem. I realized that DHCP was resolving all verbose hostnames as 192.168.1.254, which was infact the LAN IP of the DSL modem itself. So first I had to get the modem connected to the internet using an alternate computer RJ-45 wired into it directly. (FYI: the DSL modem was in PPPoE mode). <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    DNS, not DHCP.

    I'm with puzl on this. The symptoms are so broad and undefined, there's hundreds of potentially similar issues that could have brought about a similar experience, especially when we consider how much we trust the veracity of information given by users.

    9 times out of 10? PEBKAC.
  • tjosantjosan Join Date: 2003-05-16 Member: 16374Members, Constellation
    Always check for differential diagnosis.
  • ShockehShockeh If a packet drops on the web and nobody&#39;s near to see it... Join Date: 2002-11-19 Member: 9336NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
    <!--quoteo(post=1641736:date=Aug 2 2007, 09:02 AM:name=the_x5)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_x5 @ Aug 2 2007, 09:02 AM) [snapback]1641736[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
    This was actually a compound problem. I realized that DHCP was resolving all verbose hostnames as 192.168.1.254, which was infact the LAN IP of the DSL modem itself. So first I had to get the modem connected to the internet using an alternate computer RJ-45 wired into it directly. (FYI: the DSL modem was in PPPoE mode). <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    DNS, not DHCP.

    I'm with puzl on this. The symptoms are so broad and undefined, there's hundreds of potentially similar issues that could have brought about a similar experience, especially when we consider how much we trust the veracity of information given by users.

    9 times out of 10? PEBKAC.
  • RellixRellix Join Date: 2003-02-15 Member: 13572Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
    Iv had this, randomly for no aparent reason for 1 month on my main PC, the other PCs on my home network had no problems.

    Cause: Unknown
    Solution: Unknown
  • the_x5the_x5 the Xzianthian Join Date: 2004-03-02 Member: 27041Members, Constellation
    edited August 2007
    Yes, yes DNS, my bad. And yes Puzl does make a good point, but I still think there persists a lot of uncanny similarities -- too similar to be a fluke. My personality is just curious, I like to investigate for answers and truth -- always pulled to seeking to learn why. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />

    PS: Gwahir gave me the soultion to the Vista machine: <!--QuoteBegin-Gwahir+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Gwahir)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For windows it's pretty simple (just delete all the options within the network window and then reinstall them) outside of windows I don't have much experience with this procedure.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thanks! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
  • GwahirGwahir Join Date: 2002-04-24 Member: 513Members, Constellation
    Does this mean I win?
  • the_x5the_x5 the Xzianthian Join Date: 2004-03-02 Member: 27041Members, Constellation
    <!--quoteo(post=1642100:date=Aug 4 2007, 01:51 PM:name=Gwahir)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Gwahir @ Aug 4 2007, 01:51 PM) [snapback]1642100[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Does this mean I win?
    <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Quite possibly, if one wishes to define solving a part of a problem as winning. Whatever floats your boat m8. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
  • GwahirGwahir Join Date: 2002-04-24 Member: 513Members, Constellation
    /me does the nonexistent dance

    specifically reserved for meaningless victories.
  • BlackMageBlackMage [citation needed] Join Date: 2003-06-18 Member: 17474Members, Constellation
    i smell either misconfigured or toasted DNS servers
Sign In or Register to comment.