[bristols]

I want to allow read-only access in Windows 2000 to an external USB hard drive.

There's a registry setting in Windows XP SP2 that allows this:

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\StorageDevicePolicies]
WriteProtect = 1

Unfortunately it has no effect in Windows 2000. I know of a setting that disables both write and read access, but that does not serve my purpose (to have read-only access).

The hard drive in question is an IDE drive. It has no physical write-protect switch (neither does the external HDD caddy) and, it seems, it does not allow write protection by configuration of its jumpers. As far as I can tell, the host machine provides no BIOS setting for it, either.

Does anyone know if there is an equivalent registry tweak for Windows 2000 to the one above for Windows XP, or any other method to obtain read-only access? For example, is there some third-party software that will achieve it in Windows 2000? Perhaps there is some universal jumper setting that I'm not aware of. More radically, does anyone know if I can achieve it by modifying the IDE cable and / or blocking the connector pins?

This post has been edited by bristols: 29 October 2011 - 05:33 PM

[myselfidem]

Maybe you can try this registry key for USB drive:

WriteProtect.reg

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\StorageDevicePolicies]
@="UserAccountControlSettings"
"WriteProtect"=dword:00000001

This post has been edited by myselfidem: 30 October 2011 - 12:35 AM

[jaclaz]

bristols, on 29 October 2011 - 05:32 PM, said:

More radically, does anyone know if I can achieve it by modifying the IDE cable and / or blocking the connector pins?

I don't think that such a solution exists (by simply modifying the cable).

I mean, in the forensic business, hardware suppliers have been making big bucks for years selling IDE write blockers ...
http://www.forensics.../Write_Blockers

Maybe, just maybe, depending on WHAT is your final goal, you could use a .iso image.

jaclaz

[bristols]

The goal is simply to play MP3s stored on the external drive using the host computer.

[myselfidem]

Your link doesn't work!

[jaclaz]

myselfidem, on 29 November 2011 - 05:15 AM, said:

Your link doesn't work!

WHICH link?

This one works allright here:
http://bristols.zxq....ws2000/updates/

And this one also:
http://www.forensics.../Write_Blockers

jaclaz

[myselfidem]

1

This post has been edited by myselfidem: 08 January 2012 - 05:38 AM

[jaclaz]

myselfidem, on 29 November 2011 - 07:00 AM, said:

Next time I will quote his post!

Yes, this would be advised.

myselfidem, on 29 November 2011 - 07:00 AM, said:

bristols posted "today" an answer with incorrect link for MSFN and now this one doesn't appear!??
You have also received his answer, no?

No, what happened was that a SPAMmer posted on the thread (and there was a link in his post) that post was then removed by an Admin/Mod, probably you mistook that reply as if it was bristols'.

jaclaz

[myselfidem]

Now I think it was a Spammer, but I really see an answer on this topic! Thanks

[bristols]

myselfidem, on 29 November 2011 - 07:00 AM, said:

Weird!!
bristols posted "today" an answer with incorrect link for MSFN and now this one doesn't appear!??

Just to confirm: I did not make any such post. The current post is the first I've made today.

Can anyone confirm whether or not this phantom post was posted from my account? Mods, could you please advise?

[jaclaz]

bristols, on 29 November 2011 - 08:23 AM, said:

Can anyone confirm whether or not this phantom post was posted from my account? Mods, could you please advise?

Relax.
It was a spammer, with user name "harrymark".
I haven't a screenshot of his post, but this should be enough to tranquilize you.

jaclaz

Attached File(s)

•  spammer.jpg (38.37K)
  Number of downloads: 11

[bristols]

jaclaz, on 29 November 2011 - 08:59 AM, said:

It was a spammer, with user name "harrymark".
I haven't a screenshot of his post, but this should be enough to tranquilize you.

Truly, you have sedated me, jaclaz. Thanks.

@myselfidem: be more careful in future before you start making accusations, please.

[myselfidem]

?

This post has been edited by myselfidem: 01 December 2011 - 04:35 PM

[bristols]

myselfidem, on 29 November 2011 - 09:24 AM, said:

Where do you see any accusations?

Relax!

Right there:

myselfidem, on 29 November 2011 - 07:00 AM, said:

bristols posted "today" an answer
(...)

myselfidem, on 29 November 2011 - 09:24 AM, said:

Take it easy and be quiet!

If only you could take your own advice, myselfidem

This post has been edited by bristols: 29 November 2011 - 09:35 AM

[myselfidem]

1

This post has been edited by myselfidem: 08 January 2012 - 05:39 AM

[bristols]

myselfidem, on 29 November 2011 - 09:39 AM, said:

Now it's confirmed it was a spamer using your forum name!
I try only inside this forum to give help. It seems you don't understand!

It seems that it's you who doesn't understand. Please read this again:

jaclaz, on 29 November 2011 - 08:59 AM, said:

It was a spammer, with user name "harrymark".

The spammer did not use my forum name. You saw something that was not there (first mistake) and then posted here what you thought you saw (second mistake).

Just check your facts next time; that's all

This post has been edited by bristols: 29 November 2011 - 09:45 AM

[myselfidem]

Is your question solved about protected files?

[jaclaz]

Actually the only BIG "mistakes" myselfidem made are :

• posting without quoting the reference
  
• actually trying the link posted by the spammer

Attributing the post to bristols was simply a common mistake - it happens all the time, memory can be easily tricked - expecially since you (bristols) have a quite characteristic/visible avatar (whilst the Spammer had none - AFAICR) so that scrolling the thread is likely to have give such a false impression (supreimposing of images).

Anyway, everything is cool, it's a nice day, so let's go on, no need for reciprocal accusations of anything, OK?

jaclaz

[myselfidem]

1

This post has been edited by myselfidem: 08 January 2012 - 05:39 AM

[bristols]

myselfidem, on 29 November 2011 - 09:47 AM, said:

Is your question solved about protected files?

No.

In this regard, I consider XP to have an advantage over 2000.