RE: Raw Sockets in WinXP (maybe OffTopic?)
From: The Psychotic Viper (psyv@root.org.za)Date: 07/27/01
- Previous message: Gaydosh, Adam: "RE: Remote Administration on W2K"
- In reply to: CJ Oakwood: "RE: Raw Sockets in WinXP"
- Next in thread: CJ Oakwood: "RE: Raw Sockets in WinXP (maybe OffTopic?)"
- Reply: CJ Oakwood: "RE: Raw Sockets in WinXP (maybe OffTopic?)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 23:31:59 +0200 (SAST) From: The Psychotic Viper <psyv@root.org.za> To: CJ Oakwood <cj_oakwood@yahoo.com> Subject: RE: Raw Sockets in WinXP (maybe OffTopic?) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0107272315320.1298-100000@lucifer.fuzion.za.org>
Hi,
this may be off topic but just curious if it DOES work that way:/, anyhow
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, CJ Oakwood wrote:
> This is incorrect...
> Microsoft WindowsXP Home Edition, has 2 types of accounts
> Administrator and Limited User.
>
> Every user on the Home Edition will be a limited user, not Admins.
> The only time you can access the Admin account, you must boot into
> safe mode.
> You can never log in as Admin unless you are in Safe Mode (that may
> have changed...)
that would either make winXP insecure to a point or just a pain to use,
if you can only log into the system as administrator in safe mode that
could mean either you would need to boot into safe mode to make any
changes to hardware or software or worst yet all local users have the same
privs to the system and can do as they please and affect changes system
wide. It seems illogical to have only two profiles that work that way
(though you could add custom ones I hope). I havent used XP as of yet for
various reasons, and Im hoping its changed coz its a scarey scenario if it
hasnt, but could be proven wrong if theres anyone out there with more
expertise in that.
>
> The creation of Raw Sockets comes from the call to function
> setsockopt()
> Any program can call this function.
>
> As everybody knows, this functionality already exists in Windows
> 2000.
> So when you say "any Trojan on a typical home XP box can spoof
> packets" it should say,
> "Any Trojan on a typical Windows 2000 or greater can spoof packets."
>
And well yes thats also scarey and wouldnt matter what your privs to the
stack are and has no bearing on the past question , like i said maybe off
topic:) but curious to know regardless.
PsyV
- Previous message: Gaydosh, Adam: "RE: Remote Administration on W2K"
- In reply to: CJ Oakwood: "RE: Raw Sockets in WinXP"
- Next in thread: CJ Oakwood: "RE: Raw Sockets in WinXP (maybe OffTopic?)"
- Reply: CJ Oakwood: "RE: Raw Sockets in WinXP (maybe OffTopic?)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|