Re: [Full-Disclosure] Why does a home computer user need DCOM?

From: Nick FitzGerald (nick_at_virus-l.demon.co.uk)
Date: 09/11/03

  • Next message: Rainer Gerhards: "RE: [Full-Disclosure] 9/11 virus" 
    To: full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 00:05:43 +1200

    hobbit@avian.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

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

  • Next message: Rainer Gerhards: "RE: [Full-Disclosure] 9/11 virus"