Re: Odd Behavior - Windows Messenger Service

["gregh" <chows () ozemail com au>]

> ----- 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.
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html