RE: Wingate?

[James Strompolis <jimst () enteract com>]

On an older version of Wingate, there was a hole that could let anyone in. 
 It was there by design.  I'm a little fuzzy on the details now.  Do a 
search for Wingate on DejaNews in the computer security groups and you will 
find articles relating to this problem.

- James Strompolis
  Aleph Consultants, Inc.
  jimst () enteract com

On Wednesday, December 10, 1997 8:53 AM, -= ArkanoiD =- 
[SMTP:ark () mpak convey ru] wrote:
> nuqneH,
>
> In message <Pine.LNX.3.96.971210110650.344H-100000 () bunuel tii matav hu> 
"Magossa'nyi A'rpa'd" writes:
> [dd]
>
> > > a) security=20
> > Security on a NT box? You should be kidding. Once more:
> > NT IS NOT MATURE ENOUGH. DOT.
>
> [dd]
>
> > If you want a cheap entry level firewall, pick sf1 or fwtk and your 
favouri=
> > te
> > free OS.
>
> Sure i _know_ what to do to build entry level firewall ;) And i _know_ 
that
> NT security is oxymoron. The problem is not here.
>
> I have to _explain_ that to Windoze weenies who say "i have a machine   
with
> Wingate and no dangerous services like Netbios or IIS running. Why should 
i
> think that my network is not secured properly? Denial of service? I don't 
care,
> my network is small, i'll just reboot the thing"
>
> So does anybody know anything about _known_ Wingate security problems?
>
>
> --
>                                        _     _  _  _  _      _  _
>    Must be a visit from the dead..     _| o |_ | | _|| |   / _||_|   |_ 
|_ |_
>    CU in Hell ..........  Arkan#iD    |_  o  _||_| _||_| /   _|  | o 
|_||_||_|