RE: [Full-Disclosure] Odd Behavior - Windows Messenger Service
From: Bojan Zdrnja (Bojan.Zdrnja_at_LSS.hr)
To: "'gregh'" <email@example.com>, "'Disclosure Full'" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 20:07:50 +1200
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gregh [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Saturday, 19 July 2003 7:57 p.m.
> To: Disclosure Full; Bojan.Zdrnja@LSS.hr
> Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Odd Behavior - Windows
> Messenger Service
> Sigh.... if they are started, the lan is open. Say a
There are different levels of "open".
> sensitive machine that has data on it that only those with
> passwords can see when touching it's keyboard. The machine is
> turned off for the day and someone wanting that sensitive
> data who doesnt know the password to logon locally, an
> employee, wants in. Supposing he can get into the office to
> turn the machine on, that is all he has to do in order to
> access the data.
> Dont tell me you dont see anything wrong with that?
My english or understanding is probably way below this.
And I believe you are mixing apples and .. Ummm .. Bananas.
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
From your previous post?
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).
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.