full-disclosure - Why does a home computer user need DCOM?

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: <3F610DD7.11922.23B12BF@localhost>
From: nick at virus-l.demon.co.uk (Nick FitzGerald)
Subject: Why does a home computer user need DCOM?

hobbit@...an.org (*Hobbit*) wrote:

> Once again, I wouldn't mind a way to turn off *ALL* the RPC stuff,
> including the RPC service itself, without paying the price of having
> almost everything I do afterward just sit there and stupidly wait for it
> to respond.  A box with it disabled *will* run, just barely, it'll just
> be sluggish as hell.
> 
> Or at the very least a way to run it so it doesn't listen on a socket
> bound to *.  How 'bout localhost-only, or the equivalent of unix-domain
> pipes, or *something* to keep it insulated from the network??  How 'bout
> the same for SMB/tcp 445?
> 
> Argh.  There's probably some registry hack that *could* do that.

Yes, yes and yes (well, to many of your wishes and depending on which 
Windows flavour you have...).

How many times do I have to post the following link???

Perhaps the best article on making sense of the (idiotic) default MS 
service binding mess is:

   http://www.hsc.fr/ressources/breves/min_srv_res_win.en.html.en

Regards,

Nick FitzGerald