Have you ever uploaded firmware to a router using tftp?
I am having trouble with uploading firmware and logging into a Netgear Nighthawk AC1900 Model R7000 router over Ethernet on Windows 10 using Firefox (version 109.0.1) so I tried 'tftp' but I need to ask for help.
https://www.netgear.com/support/product/r7000.aspx
The first thing I did was press the factory reset button for 7 seconds which is supposed to make the router go back to its initial conditions.
https://kb.netgear.com/9665/How-do-I-perform-a-factory-reset-on-my-NETGEAR-router
The second thing I did (while I was still on the Internet) was download
and extract the latest firmware which is R7000-V1.0.11.136_10.2.120.chk, https://www.netgear.com/support/product/r7000.aspx
Given the router is 192.168.1.1, I then set Windows 10 to 192.168.1.x via the administrator command line after looking up how to do that.
ipconfig /all (The rj45 output is "Ethernet.")
netsh interface ip show interface (The rj45 output is "Ethernet.")
netsh interface ip set address "Ethernet" static 192.168.1.10 255.255.255.0 192.168.1 https://www.windowscentral.com/software-apps/windows-11/how-to-configure-a-static-ip-on-windows-10-or-11
I then rebooted the router, waited a minute, and pinged it from Windows.
ping 192.168.1.1
At this point I tried and failed to log into http://192.168.1.1 using
Firefox 109.0.1 so I looked up how to enable tftp on Windows 10. https://www.thewindowsclub.com/enable-tftp-windows-10
Then I looked up the exact commands for using the Windows 10 tftp
client in the command line to upload the Netgear chk firmware.
tftp -i 192.168.1.1 put R7000-V1.0.11.136_10.2.120.chk
But after a while (couple of minutes) it reported a failure error. https://kb.netgear.com/000059634/How-do-I-upload-firmware-to-my-NETGEAR-router-using-TFTP-from-the-Microsoft-Windows-Command-Prompt
There's no log information so I looked for maybe a better tftp client.
This Netgear article seems to be suggesting the free Tftpd64 client. https://kb.netgear.com/000059633/How-do-I-upload-firmware-to-my-NETGEAR-router-using-a-TFTP-client-on-Microsoft-Windows
Have you ever uploaded firmware using a Windows tftp client?
Is that tftpd64 client the one that you suggest I try next? https://pjo2.github.io/tftpd64/
Have you ever uploaded firmware to a router using tftp?
Start : Run : Control
Programs and Features
Windows Features
Tick the "TFTP Client" box, then wait
I can see that on Windows 11 Home, and Win10 Pro.
That will download and install a tftp for you.
And, it will come from Microsoft and be trusted,
because the package will be signed with SHA2.
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 23:01:09 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <u9536612@gmail.com>
wrote:
Have you ever uploaded firmware to a router using tftp?
I would abandon that plan for your Netgear Nighthawk AC1900 Model R7000
and use http instead. Tftp is going to be problematic for you, while the router's GUI makes firmware updates extremely easy.
Use a web browser and log into the router by visiting one of the
following destinations:
http://192.168.1.1
http://www.routerlogin.net
http://www.routerlogin.com
The user name is admin. The password is the one that you specified the
first time that you logged in. (If this is your first login after doing
a factory reset, you'll be prompted to set a new password.) The user
name and password are case-sensitive.
Next, browse to ADVANCED > Administration > Router Update, and press the Check button. The router will look for an updated firmware and offer to download it for you.
Alternatively, if you've already downloaded the
firmware that you'd like to use, click the Browse button on that page
and navigate to the downloaded firmware. Upload the new firmware to the router and apply it.
I don't blame Firefox because I'm sure I changed settings here and there >based on what was suggested in this newsgroup in the past, but what I will
do next time is switch browsers and tftp clients sooner than I did today.
On 2023-02-04, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:
Use a web browser and log into the router by visiting one of the
following destinations:
http://192.168.1.1
http://www.routerlogin.net
http://www.routerlogin.com
The problem I was having turned out to be, I think, that Firefox was hiding >the dialog box which required an interaction from me, but SRWare Iron
showed it. Without that dialog box, I couldn't log in with Firefox.
The problem was the lack of the "s" in http because the router insisted on >requiring a certificate but Firefox wouldn't let me say OK to anything.
Two hardware questions that came up in this effort are about the USB ports >and about the lack of an Ethernet port on my thin laptop.
For the Ethernet port, is there a way to convert the USB-A or USB-C or HDMI >port into an Ethernet port so that I could have used that to log in?
And for the two USB ports on the router, one is USB 2.0 and the other is
USB 3.0 where I seem to recall a security threat on them years ago.
Is it safe nowadays to put a USB stick into one of those two router ports
so that I can access files from the Internet or is it still too dangerous?
Two hardware questions that came up in this effort are about the USB ports and about the lack of an Ethernet port on my thin laptop.
For the Ethernet port, is there a way to convert the USB-A or USB-C or HDMI port into an Ethernet port so that I could have used that to log in?
And for the two USB ports on the router, one is USB 2.0 and the other is USB 3.0 where I seem to recall a security threat on them years ago.
Is it safe nowadays to put a USB stick into one of those two router ports
so that I can access files from the Internet or is it still too dangerous?
Incubus wrote:
I think, that Firefox was hiding the dialog box which required an
interaction from me, but SRWare Iron showed it. Without that dialog
box, I couldn't log in with Firefox.
That sounds like a Firefox misconfiguration. Correcting that, or using
any other browser, should have worked.
Have you ever uploaded firmware to a router using tftp?
On 2023-02-04, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
It could be my Firefox settings though, but what happened was a dialog box asking for an "OK" popped up in SRWare Iron, but not in Firefox.
I think, that Firefox was hiding the dialog box which required an
interaction from me, but SRWare Iron showed it. Without that dialog
box, I couldn't log in with Firefox.
That sounds like a Firefox misconfiguration. Correcting that, or using
any other browser, should have worked.
In general I agree ... if you do anything (such as adblock, disabling javascript, changing settings like force https, etc) you have to be
alert to the possibility that if something breaks, it's you that have
broken it, and e.g. try firefox with a totally clean profile before
blaming the router.
A company named ASIX makes USB to Ethernet chips. There is
a USB2 version of chip and a USB3 version of chip. The USB3 version
would be the more flexible version.
Is it safe nowadays to put a USB stick into one of those two router ports
so that I can access files from the Internet or is it still too dangerous?
There are stories about sharing from the router being exploited too.
You have to check in Google, whether your router has a known issue with
this or not.
Just about anything that opens the NAT shielding on your IPV4
router, is a bad idea.
Whether it is Port Forwarding to a designated
machine inside your LAN, or it is the Port Forwarding that makes
the USB stick visible from the WAN.
Sharing your NAS outside on the WAN, is also a bad idea. With Shodan
around, snooping is practically automated, and your "secrets" don't
stay secret for very long.
On 2023-02-04, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
A company named ASIX makes USB to Ethernet chips. There is
a USB2 version of chip and a USB3 version of chip. The USB3 version
would be the more flexible version.
I like it! Thank you very much for that wonderful suggestion! https://www.amazon.it/TRENDnet-TU3-ETG-Adattatore-USB-3-0/dp/B00FFJ0RKE/
That $22 part can give my "thin" laptop Ethernet but what I'd like to ask
you to help me understand is how USB3 will be more flexible than USB2.
I won't know ahead of time if any given USB port will be USB2 or USB3, so if it "only" works with USB3 ports, isn't it _less_ flexible?
On the other hand, if it works with _both_ USB2 and USB3 ports when it says in the description that it's a USB3 device, then it _is_ more flexible.
But that's why I'm confused.
Does that handy USB3-to-Ethernet device _also_ work with USB2 ports?
Is it safe nowadays to put a USB stick into one of those two router ports >>> so that I can access files from the Internet or is it still too dangerous? >>There are stories about sharing from the router being exploited too.
You have to check in Google, whether your router has a known issue with
this or not.
Good advice. I always take people up on any good advice they suggest.
Unfortunately, I'm "mad" at you for suggesting that advice, but only
because I found out exactly what I did NOT want to find out about it!
The router is a Netgear R7000 which uses what they call "ReadySHARE", which is implicated in the NetUSB flaw based on this Netgear flaw page.
http://kb.netgear.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/28393
Luckily, DD-WRT isn't implicated, so I could solve this problem by flashing DD-WRT. But Netgear says their latest firmware fixes it.
10/07/2019 CVE vulnerability: CVE-2015-3036.
Just about anything that opens the NAT shielding on your IPV4
router, is a bad idea.
I don't remember the flaw from long ago so I googled for what it may be.
This first article I found says it's in ReadySHARE (also known as NetUSB) which incorporates the KCodes NetUSB software which has the flaw in it.
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2938477/the-netusb-router-flaw-part-2-detection-and-mitigation.html
Which says "You can't tell if a router is vulnerable from its specs."
Whether it is Port Forwarding to a designated
machine inside your LAN, or it is the Port Forwarding that makes
the USB stick visible from the WAN.
Googling further, I seem to remember a WAN flaw (open to the Internet), and not just a LAN flaw as the ReadyShare/NetUSB flaw above first seems to be.
Something like this is a LAN flaw only, but that's in an Archer router. https://www.tenable.com/security/research/tra-2020-60
"When a USB drive is plugged into the router, several services boot up to share the contents of the drive. By default, SMB, FTP, and DLNA all boot
up. If an attacker were to craft the USB drive contents such that it
contains symbolic links to locations on disk, these symbolic links can be followed using the appropriate client."
Googling more, I see the Readyshare/NetUSB flaw also affects the WAN. https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2022/01/11/home-routers-with-netusb-support-could-have-critical-kernel-hole/
Sharing your NAS outside on the WAN, is also a bad idea. With Shodan
around, snooping is practically automated, and your "secrets" don't
stay secret for very long.
For now, even after Googling, I can't tell if there are known flaws
in USB implementation on a router, so I'll assume they've all been fixed. https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/netusb-flaw-touches-26-router-makers-a-8246
Since this router has both a USB3 and USB2 port, which would you use?
I would abandon that plan for your Netgear Nighthawk AC1900 Model R7000
and use http instead. Tftp is going to be problematic for you, while the router's GUI makes firmware updates extremely easy.
Use a web browser and log into the router by visiting one of the
following destinations:
http://192.168.1.1
http://www.routerlogin.net
http://www.routerlogin.com
Afaics(or know)...not a single one of the 4 browsers I have(Edge, Chrome, Firefox and SeaMonkey - all latest version) support using https to logon
to my Netgear Nighthawk AC 1900 Model 7000 router.
Note: There are some business branded Netgear router's that have a option
to 'Always use HTTPS to access router'
- A KB article indicates that the KB does(may?) apply to AC 1900 R7000 but....no such setting to 'always use https to access router' exists in this(my) Nighthawk.
A quick look at R7000 1900 manuals - all indicate as you noted - http or
ip address - is the correct route - no mention of those same urls for
using https.
Char Jackson wrote on 2/3/2023 7:53 PM:
I would abandon that plan for your Netgear Nighthawk AC1900 Model R7000
and use http instead. Tftp is going to be problematic for you, while the
router's GUI makes firmware updates extremely easy.
Use a web browser and log into the router by visiting one of the
following destinations:
http://192.168.1.1
http://www.routerlogin.net
http://www.routerlogin.com
+1
Afaics(or know)...not a single one of the 4 browsers I have(Edge, Chrome, >Firefox and SeaMonkey - all latest version)
When I posted this thread, my plan was to log into the R7000 with tftp because I couldn't log into the router with http://192.168.1.1 because
that one-time-only login referenced that https page, which Firefox wouldn't bring up the OK boxes to get past that Netgear inserted encumbrance.
But now that I've used tftp once, I think tftp does NOT log into the
router. It just pushes new firmware to the router WITHOUT a log in.
On 2023-02-05 17:11, Incubus wrote:
When I posted this thread, my plan was to log into the R7000 with tftp
because I couldn't log into the router with http://192.168.1.1 because
that one-time-only login referenced that https page, which Firefox wouldn't >> bring up the OK boxes to get past that Netgear inserted encumbrance.
But now that I've used tftp once, I think tftp does NOT log into the
router. It just pushes new firmware to the router WITHOUT a log in.
tftp doesn't push. It sits there, waiting. It is the client, ie, the router, who asks to download something from a tftp server (typically any one in the LAN).
AFAIK there is no login/pass in the protocol. Insecure.
On 2/5/2023 2:24 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-02-05 17:11, Incubus wrote:
When I posted this thread, my plan was to log into the R7000 with tftp
because I couldn't log into the router with http://192.168.1.1 because
that one-time-only login referenced that https page, which Firefox
wouldn't
bring up the OK boxes to get past that Netgear inserted encumbrance.
But now that I've used tftp once, I think tftp does NOT log into the
router. It just pushes new firmware to the router WITHOUT a log in.
tftp doesn't push. It sits there, waiting. It is the client, ie, the
router, who asks to download something from a tftp server (typically
any one in the LAN).
AFAIK there is no login/pass in the protocol. Insecure.
https://kb.netgear.com/000059633/How-do-I-upload-firmware-to-my-NETGEAR-router-using-a-TFTP-client-on-Microsoft-Windows
   "Turn your router back on.
    Wait for the Power LED to light orange and start flashing.
    When the Power LED is flashing, click Put in Tftpd64 to initiate the firmware upload.
                                          ^^^
    The upload might take a few minutes.
    If the firmware upload is successful, a dialog box appears to confirm the
    blocks transferred, with a 0 block retransmitted message and a MD5 checksum.
    If the firmware upload fails, repeat steps 8-11.
   "
This means the router has a TFTP daemon that runs during boot up.
If an incoming TFTP connection is detected, the router knows
you are attempting to "put" a file to it. That file, as long
as certain details of it check out, will then be accepted.
Using the client tftp program which is part of Windows,
would do the same thing.
*******
The thing that threw me off, is TFTPD64 is actually a dual mode program.
It contains a server daemon, as well as a TFTP client. Normally, you
only name daemons with the letter D and my assumption was that the program was purely a TFTP server (a TFTPD).
It is running in client mode, as described in the procedure.
  Paul
Just curious, why do you have four [browsers] installed? I have only two: Firefox (my favorite), and Edge, which I hate, but sometimes use when
a site doesn't work with Firefox.
Just this morning I was on a web site with Firefox and needed to go to another page on that site. It didn't work and had to switch to Edge.
On 2/5/2023 2:53 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
Just curious, why do you have four [browsers] installed? I have only two: >> Firefox (my favorite), and Edge, which I hate, but sometimes use when
a site doesn't work with Firefox.
Just this morning I was on a web site with Firefox and needed to go to
another page on that site. It didn't work and had to switch to Edge.
You install as many as it takes :-)
I think this whole https thing is a Netgear-only encumbrance which Netgear >seems to have inserted into the initial login process that occurs only once
- which is the first login after you perform the 7-second factory reset.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 192.168.11.1
User-Agent: curl/7.55.1
Accept: */*
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 16:37:52 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On 2/5/2023 2:53 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
Just curious, why do you have four [browsers] installed? I have only two: >>> Firefox (my favorite), and Edge, which I hate, but sometimes use when
a site doesn't work with Firefox.
Just this morning I was on a web site with Firefox and needed to go to
another page on that site. It didn't work and had to switch to Edge.
You install as many as it takes :-)
Sure, but I've never needed more than two: Firefox and (rarely) Edge.
I was curious as to why anyone would need more than Edge and whatever preferred browser he had.
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 03:55:22 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <u9536612@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2023-02-04, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:
Use a web browser and log into the router by visiting one of the
following destinations:
http://192.168.1.1
http://www.routerlogin.net
http://www.routerlogin.com
The problem I was having turned out to be, I think, that Firefox was hiding >> the dialog box which required an interaction from me, but SRWare Iron
showed it. Without that dialog box, I couldn't log in with Firefox.
That sounds like a Firefox misconfiguration. Correcting that, or using
any other browser, should have worked.
snip <
On 2/5/2023 6:04 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 16:37:52 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On 2/5/2023 2:53 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
Just curious, why do you have four [browsers] installed? I have only two: >>>> Firefox (my favorite), and Edge, which I hate, but sometimes use when
a site doesn't work with Firefox.
Just this morning I was on a web site with Firefox and needed to go to >>>> another page on that site. It didn't work and had to switch to Edge.
You install as many as it takes :-)
Sure, but I've never needed more than two: Firefox and (rarely) Edge.
I was curious as to why anyone would need more than Edge and whatever
preferred browser he had.
You've covered the two major families (mozilla/google)
so you're well covered.
Other browsers don't have the share or the rendering
capability.
When I was using Safari in my Mac days, it would
only do about 70% of the web pages, so I used to
run Firefox there too, as a second browser.
Paul
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 20:52:43 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On 2/5/2023 6:04 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 16:37:52 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On 2/5/2023 2:53 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
Just curious, why do you have four [browsers] installed? I have only two:
Firefox (my favorite), and Edge, which I hate, but sometimes use when >>>>> a site doesn't work with Firefox.
Just this morning I was on a web site with Firefox and needed to go to >>>>> another page on that site. It didn't work and had to switch to Edge.
You install as many as it takes :-)
Sure, but I've never needed more than two: Firefox and (rarely) Edge.
I was curious as to why anyone would need more than Edge and whatever
preferred browser he had.
You've covered the two major families (mozilla/google)
so you're well covered.
Yes, I agree. But I was curious about why Winston had four, when I
would think two was sufficient. Perhaps he knows something I don't.
Other browsers don't have the share or the rendering
capability.
When I was using Safari in my Mac days, it would
only do about 70% of the web pages, so I used to
run Firefox there too, as a second browser.
Paul
Ken Blake wrote on 2/6/2023 8:41 AM:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 20:52:43 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On 2/5/2023 6:04 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 16:37:52 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote: >>>>
On 2/5/2023 2:53 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
Just curious, why do you have four [browsers] installed? I have only two:You install as many as it takes :-)
Firefox (my favorite), and Edge, which I hate, but sometimes use when >>>>>> a site doesn't work with Firefox.
Just this morning I was on a web site with Firefox and needed to go to >>>>>> another page on that site. It didn't work and had to switch to Edge. >>>>>
Sure, but I've never needed more than two: Firefox and (rarely) Edge.
I was curious as to why anyone would need more than Edge and whatever
preferred browser he had.
You've covered the two major families (mozilla/google)
so you're well covered.
Yes, I agree. But I was curious about why Winston had four, when I
would think two was sufficient. Perhaps he knows something I don't.
Other browsers don't have the share or the rendering
capability.
When I was using Safari in my Mac days, it would
only do about 70% of the web pages, so I used to
run Firefox there too, as a second browser.
Paul
There are occasions where I'm pinged or read comments(general to group >members or myself) on questions in private(groups/listservers)and
password or moderated(nntp groups) about browsers or site access problems.
A variety may be unique to a specific browser, thus having the most
common installed(Edge, Chrome, Firefox) relative to the questions makes >validating a symptom(prove, disprove, duplicate, etc.) easier.
- in many cases, though - it's not a browser issue, just the end-user
attempted explanation and/or only local to that user's device.
Why the other(4th browser) - I like SeaMonkey for plain-text nntp >groups(like this one) - SeaMonkey is a browser and mail/news(both install >only client). Never liked Thunderbird, still don't.
From a suite perspective current SeaMonkey(2.53.x) is still based on
Firefox 102.6(Dec 2022) security code/fixes and the same >backend(browser/mail/news) as earlier Firefox/TBird 60.8(circa July 2019)
- thus security wise you get current Firefox ESR/Tbird security, but
program code with less(and unneeded) bloat than current Firefox 109/TBird >102.
- The disadvantage is SeaMonkey using the older Firefox(Mozilla) code
isn't seen as current on many web sites which require current >Chromium/Mozilla code but since I don't use SeaMonkey for browsing(only
nntp and occasionally Gmail) not an issue[1]
Browser wise, like you...I primarily for personal usage just two - Edge >(preferred) and Chrome.
Only one site that I routinely access doesn't like Edge(minor text
wrapping and scroll issue) where Chrome works better.
[1]One exception for using SeaMonkey browser
My HP All-in-one print/scan/fax web device based control panel(via my
printer router's assigned ip address) can be accessed in SeaMonkey
without having to tweak my preferred browsers' Edge(using IE Mode with
safe listing the assigned ip address) or Chrome(using Developer
mode/tools). That control panel is necessary for configuring/modifying
Scan to network/folder across any connected lan or wifi device and a >variety of other Printer configuration and diagnostic options(many not >present on the printer's own built in control panel small window).
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 16:51:58 -0700, ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote:
Ken Blake wrote on 2/6/2023 8:41 AM:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 20:52:43 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On 2/5/2023 6:04 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 16:37:52 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote: >>>>>
On 2/5/2023 2:53 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
Just curious, why do you have four [browsers] installed? I have only two:You install as many as it takes :-)
Firefox (my favorite), and Edge, which I hate, but sometimes use when >>>>>>> a site doesn't work with Firefox.
Just this morning I was on a web site with Firefox and needed to go to >>>>>>> another page on that site. It didn't work and had to switch to Edge. >>>>>>
Sure, but I've never needed more than two: Firefox and (rarely) Edge. >>>>> I was curious as to why anyone would need more than Edge and whatever >>>>> preferred browser he had.
You've covered the two major families (mozilla/google)
so you're well covered.
Yes, I agree. But I was curious about why Winston had four, when I
would think two was sufficient. Perhaps he knows something I don't.
Other browsers don't have the share or the rendering
capability.
When I was using Safari in my Mac days, it would
only do about 70% of the web pages, so I used to
run Firefox there too, as a second browser.
Paul
There are occasions where I'm pinged or read comments(general to group
members or myself) on questions in private(groups/listservers)and
password or moderated(nntp groups) about browsers or site access problems. >> A variety may be unique to a specific browser, thus having the most
common installed(Edge, Chrome, Firefox) relative to the questions makes
validating a symptom(prove, disprove, duplicate, etc.) easier.
- in many cases, though - it's not a browser issue, just the end-user
attempted explanation and/or only local to that user's device.
Why the other(4th browser) - I like SeaMonkey for plain-text nntp
groups(like this one) - SeaMonkey is a browser and mail/news(both install
only client). Never liked Thunderbird, still don't.
From a suite perspective current SeaMonkey(2.53.x) is still based on
Firefox 102.6(Dec 2022) security code/fixes and the same
backend(browser/mail/news) as earlier Firefox/TBird 60.8(circa July 2019)
- thus security wise you get current Firefox ESR/Tbird security, but
program code with less(and unneeded) bloat than current Firefox 109/TBird
102.
- The disadvantage is SeaMonkey using the older Firefox(Mozilla) code
isn't seen as current on many web sites which require current
Chromium/Mozilla code but since I don't use SeaMonkey for browsing(only
nntp and occasionally Gmail) not an issue[1]
Browser wise, like you...I primarily for personal usage just two - Edge
(preferred) and Chrome.
Only one site that I routinely access doesn't like Edge(minor text
wrapping and scroll issue) where Chrome works better.
[1]One exception for using SeaMonkey browser
My HP All-in-one print/scan/fax web device based control panel(via my
printer router's assigned ip address) can be accessed in SeaMonkey
without having to tweak my preferred browsers' Edge(using IE Mode with
safe listing the assigned ip address) or Chrome(using Developer
mode/tools). That control panel is necessary for configuring/modifying
Scan to network/folder across any connected lan or wifi device and a
variety of other Printer configuration and diagnostic options(many not
present on the printer's own built in control panel small window).
OK, thanks for the explanation. I'll stick with my two.
Just curious, why do you have four installed? I have only two:
Firefox (my favorite), and Edge, which I hate, but sometimes use when
a site doesn't work with Firefox.
Just this morning I was on a web site with Firefox and needed to go to >another page on that site. It didn't work and had to switch to Edge.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 12:53:00 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
wrote:
Just curious, why do you have four installed? I have only two:
Firefox (my favorite), and Edge, which I hate, but sometimes use when
a site doesn't work with Firefox.
Just this morning I was on a web site with Firefox and needed to go to >>another page on that site. It didn't work and had to switch to Edge.
I do the same with Chrome and Firefox and keep Edge in solely
for apps
that require it none of which seem to be written by anyone other than >Microsoft.
(Kind of like the old America Online browser way back when!)
I think Edge is the worst of all browsers
Ken Blake wrote:
I think Edge is the worst of all browsers
I don't normally use Edge, but occasionally it forces its way in, I knew >there was some "AI chat" functionality from Bing included, but in the
past it wanted me to create a MS account, but this time it seems to let
me ask a few questions per day without an account
"What is the best browser?"
It gave a reasonable answer, saying there is no one answer, firefox is
best for this, chrome is best for that, opera is best for the other, but
it didn't say that edge was best for anything!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 02:14:37 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,335,600 |
