full-disclosure - Can DCOM be disabled safely?

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <000501c358d5$27e4a4c0$0100a8c0@cp30f99b0ae7a6>
From: cheekypeople at sec33.com (CHeeKY)
Subject: Can DCOM be disabled safely?

As previously discussed with you Paul, I am sorry but your policy of how you
update and what you do seems somewhat backward, havent you ever heard of
third party software or even weirder, making your own.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM!
Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter
http://mail.giantcompany.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Schmehl" <pauls@...allas.edu>
To: <full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 4:00 AM
Subject: [Full-Disclosure] Can DCOM be disabled safely?


> Earlier today I posted some preliminary research that I had been doing
into
> the ramifications of disabling DCOM.  I reported that SMS was affected by
> it and several other things may be, including SUS, Group Policies and the
> Management Snap-in.  Since then, I have been corresponding with a
gentleman
> who has been testing disabling DCOM in a test environment.
>
> So far it appears that disabling DCOM will *not* impact the snap-ins, SUS
> or policies.  It also appears that it *may* not impact SMS either,
although
> testing is ongoing.  I just wanted to clarify this in case some had taken
> my comments to be the final word.
>
> Obviously everyone's environment is different, and what works in one might
> not work in another.  So proceed carefully.
>
> With regard to my comments about SUS using Windows Update technology to
> verify patches (and therefore being subject to false positives), I quote
> from Microsoft:
>
> "Software Update Services is based on the same back-end technology used on
> the public Windows Update site that has been servicing Windows customers
> since mid-1998."
> <http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/windowsupdate/sus/suscomponents.asp>
>
> Paul Schmehl (pauls@...allas.edu)
> Adjunct Information Security Officer
> The University of Texas at Dallas
> AVIEN Founding Member
> http://www.utdallas.edu
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
>
>