ddnsclient SvchoST.ExE

[Goldberg]

The service as defined by the ServiceMain function of the Win32 executable it is derived from is svchost.exe. This is an essential program for the operation of most windows systems it is used for the Server service the Workstation service and a few others, you will see in task manager that there are multiple instances of svchost.exe.

All valid words, but in an order that turns them into utter nonsense.

The svchost.exe acts as a stub that provides network services to other "applications" these are denoted by parameters that are passed to the svchost service.

Make up your mind - is svchost.exe a service, a service table entry, a stub, a program, or an appliacation?

When writing a new service and instantiating a new service, it is added to the service table which is managed by the SCM (service control manager). Well at least that was my understaning when I was writing C++ MS services using Visual Studio over the 4/5 years that I did it, it might well all of changed by now of course.

None of that matters, because you wrote this:

I disabled the service

So you disabled something that you've since said is "fundamental to the operation of the PC". Regardless of your bizarre description of the Windows SCM, there's absolutely no reason for not removing the thing that you've disabled.

 

[EddieM]

I've disabled that particular instance of a service that uses svchost.exe. That's all. You cannot disable all services (entries) that use svchost.exe nor can you remove svchost.exe.

 

[EddieM]

The service as defined by the ServiceMain function of the Win32 executable it is derived from is svchost.exe. This is an essential program for the operation of most windows systems it is used for the Server service the Workstation service and a few others, you will see in task manager that there are multiple instances of svchost.exe.

All valid words, but in an order that turns them into utter nonsense.

The svchost.exe acts as a stub that provides network services to other "applications" these are denoted by parameters that are passed to the svchost service.

Make up your mind - is svchost.exe a service, a service table entry, a stub, a program, or an appliacation?

I don't have to. svchost.exe is indeed a service which is a stub an application and a program. It also has an entry in the SCM service table, as services are registered.

When writing a new service and instantiating a new service, it is added to the service table which is managed by the SCM (service control manager). Well at least that was my understaning when I was writing C++ MS services using Visual Studio over the 4/5 years that I did it, it might well all of changed by now of course.

None of that matters, because you wrote this:

I disabled the service

So you disabled something that you've since said is "fundamental to the operation of the PC". Regardless of your bizarre description of the Windows SCM, there's absolutely no reason for not removing the thing that you've disabled.

You are getting confused, a service is an entry in the Service table, controlled by the SCM it uses an executable whose behviour will be altered by the paramters that it is passed, this service entry which by dint instantiates a new instance of svchost.exe (an essential Windows executable) has been disabled problem solved

 

[Goldberg]

I disabled the service

the service was not removed as the service is svchost.exe just taking ddnsclient as a parameter.

you can remove or disable the service table entry for the offending usage of svchost.exe.

I've disabled that particular instance of a service that uses svchost.exe.

I give in. You're either stupid, or drunk, or a wind-up merchant.

 

[EddieM]

Fair enough you look like you wanted a battle of wits, but I'd never fight an unarmed man.

 

[Goldberg]

You are getting confused

Nope - you diabled the service, and you refuse to remove it. You're a fool.

a service is an entry in the Service table

No it isn't.

... has been disabled problem solved

Nope - the problem is merely disabled. The situation that led to the creation of the service has not been identified, and the service has not been removed.

 

[Goldberg]

Fair enough you look like you wanted a battle of wits

Nope - I merely asked why you didn't remove the thing that you were happy to disable. Your answers are completely illogical and mostly nonsensical.

If your original post was supposed to guide people in removing the same, or a similar, problem, then it was woefully inadequate. If it had another point, then exactly what that was remains a mystery.

 

[Igorian]

Softus clone?