From: Kenneth E. Lussier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My Firewall Breach. A concern.
>Whoa there, nelly......... You can do an SMB mount and mount the C:\
>drive, copy a binary over, then use the remote registry administration
>tools so that every time the machine boots up it executes the binary.
>That is just one example. If SMB is filtered on the router level, then
>there are a few other ways to drop a file onto a Windoze box. If you're
>dealing with NT, then there are even more ways to exploit the box. So,
>yes, they are subject to attack, and they are subject to many of the
>same illegal uses. However, if someone gets a hold of a Windows9x box,
>there is no concept of permissions to stop an attacker.
Yes, but the issue is, the script kiddies don't have as much fun on
Windows boxes.. 8)
>> Does this mean that Windows is a fundamentally safer system for use on
>> the Internet?
>Well, I would have to say NO to that.
But then again, we're a bit biased.. 8)
>No, what you are seeing is the result of superior marketing and an
>extreamely high level of apathy. Your general Windoz user doesn know if
>they have been exploited or not. But also, Windoz boxen aren as
>attractive to an attacker because it doesn have the same capabilities of
>a Linux box. If you want to run *ANY* system on the internet, you need
>to assume some risk, and most people don't. It doesn't matter if you are
>running Linux or Windoze, if your system is used in an attack, then you
>are liable. Either system needs to be hardened. The difference is that
>you average Linux user has the ability to know where to look to get
>started. Your average Windoze user trusts that Microsoft has secured
>their system.
And the average driver trusts that the company that made their tires
didn't skimp and they won't fall apart whilst they're driving that new SUV
down the highway.. 8) How DARE they not notice that the rubber was
obviously defective..
