lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
From: chows at ozemail.com.au (gregh) Subject: Odd Behavior - Windows Messenger Service > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bojan Zdrnja > To: 'gregh' ; 'Disclosure Full' > Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2003 6:07 PM > Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] Odd Behavior - Windows Messenger Service > There are different levels of "open". Certainly are. In this case the term would be "wide open". Take an easy example. Put a 98 box on your lan with a program on it and go run it from any other machine while it is waiting to be logged onto locally. > My english or understanding is probably way below this. > And I believe you are mixing apples and .. Ummm .. Bananas. OK well I wont be condescending - I'll just say that if Microsoft acknowledge that it is something they will take care of by making it an option in the future as they said when I reported it to them last year, then someone obviously thinks it CAN be a problem. > And what does that have to do with (quoting you): "the company next door and > the people I know dont see a need for a virus program to protect THEIR A$200 > windows boxes so why should I shell out US$35 to protect my A$500,000 a year > business ..." > From your previous post? That was in reference to: >> I don't see a reason on bashing WinXP for starting a RPC service >> automatically when absolutely everything does that (don't mention obsolete >> Oses please). > Allowing any access to sensitive machine and data is, obviously, wrong. But > that has nothing to do with the original post in this thread (which was > about puting a *default* installed machine on the network). Actually, it does. Greg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists