Re: How vulnerable are Windows servers if you can run e.g. Knoppix on one of the workstations?
From: Shawn Webb (shawn.webbSPAM_at_thott-solutions.com)
Date: 08/02/03
- Next message: Rightrik: "Sun Ultra 5, Debian adn SNORT"
- Previous message: erik: "Re: ssh question"
- In reply to: Frank B Denman: "How vulnerable are Windows servers if you can run e.g. Knoppix on one of the workstations?"
- Next in thread: Travis Casey: "Re: How vulnerable are Windows servers if you can run e.g. Knoppix on one of the workstations?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2003 06:40:11 -0500
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 02:28:40 -0700, Frank B Denman wrote:
> Please bear with me, because I 'm going to reveal some serious
> ignorance.
>
> I administer a number of small Win2k domains. I recently had the
> unsettling experience of booting Knoppix on one of my workstations and
> was distressed to see how easily I could read local files.
>
This is because when you boot to a different operating system, many of the
security precautions that you take go out the window. As you have found
out, Linux can read and write FAT32 partitions, and can even read NTFS
partitions. This is one reason that you want to keep things physically
secure.
> Query: Had I known my way around Linux, would I have been able to browse
> or map my way to drives on the Win2k Server and read server files as
> easily as I could read local files?
>
This is a horse of a different color, as you're wondering about a network
attack, which Win2k is better able to withstand, being designed for that.
The question at that time would be if you (either intentionally or
automatically) save the username password pairs for any resources on the
server on any of the clients. If you do, then, yes, someone can go in and
muck about.
> The answer to this question has immediate implications for a client of
> mine who is thinking about subletting some of her unused office space.
> Although her Windows server is physically secured, her tenants would
> have physical access to some of her workstations and LAN ports.
Not knowing her situation, I can't say, but in a similar situation, I
would suggest that the owner either decide that she can trust her tenants
being into her trusted network, or 1) not allow tennants access to the
owner's workstations, and 2) treat the tennant's part of the LAN as a
potentially hostile network (that is, like the internet). This will save
you a lot of headaches.
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Frank
-- __________________________________________________________________________ Shawn Webb Owner, THOTT Solutions Network Consulting Huntsville, AL http://www.thott-solutions.com Take the spam from my address for e-mail
- Next message: Rightrik: "Sun Ultra 5, Debian adn SNORT"
- Previous message: erik: "Re: ssh question"
- In reply to: Frank B Denman: "How vulnerable are Windows servers if you can run e.g. Knoppix on one of the workstations?"
- Next in thread: Travis Casey: "Re: How vulnerable are Windows servers if you can run e.g. Knoppix on one of the workstations?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
