| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <200307191649.h6JGn8bF011722@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu) Subject: Fw: Re: Odd Behavior - Windows Messenger Service On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 11:21:57 EDT, Michael Gale <michael@...esuperman.com> said: > Sure it would be great is Microsoft released secured versions of Windows but > then average users like my parents and sales people would require a greater > understanding of computers and security in order to use them because they would > find all these features they so love to be disabled or blocked. Many people in the security field think forcing people to have enough of a clue to find things to enable them would be a Good Thing. How much random scanning on port 135 would there be if Windows simply prohibited wide-open sharing of C$ and anonymous enumeration of accounts? Yes, people would then have to *think* about who they really wanted to share their data with - which is more work than Redmond has traditionally wanted users to do. However, I am of the opinion that the Redmond model is a false time-saver, because it trades the "5 minutes to figure out how to share only the folder you want with only the other machines you want" with the "days lost when you get hacked by something via a wide-open share". -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 226 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20030719/eb9b3298/attachment.bin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists