Re: Security for stand alone computer.
From: NeoSadist (neos@dist)
Date: 12/05/02
- Next message: NeoSadist: "Re: AdAware vs. Spybot vs. Spyblaster"
- Previous message: NeoSadist: "Re: Port 67 UDP Problem"
- In reply to: David: "Re: Security for stand alone computer."
- Next in thread: David: "Re: Security for stand alone computer."
- Reply: David: "Re: Security for stand alone computer."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: "NeoSadist" <neos@dist> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 03:29:37 -0700
Whatever. I'd like to see you be able to use the internet with that removed
from your network properties, moron. Yes, it's used to log on to a windows
domain, but what about machines that don't use a domain? Trust me, I've
tried, and you can't log on to either the network (in peer to peer) or to
internet without that installed and bound to tcp/ip. Therefore, you're the
one that needs to get a clue. Try it youself and see.
Yes, they're a component of the OS. (Naw, I got mine from a cracker jack
box!)
"David" <davidwnh@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:gaDH9.45935$kO5.5094072@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> Which ISP do you use that uses the client for Microsoft networks? When you
ALL of them use it. The info has to get into the OS somehow. Go back and
read about those layers again.
> realize that this component is used to log onto a windows domain you might
> realize why it is not used by ISP's. Or would you prefer giving your ISP
Ok, so if I got microsoft networking I automatically log into a domain?
Bull sh*t! I bet EVERY windows-based computer you can find is using that.
What about systems that don't log into domains? It's still needed. Besides
that, it's installed in your network properties by default. Have you ever
tried using network and/or internet without client for microsoft networking
installed? It don't work, I've tried. It tells you, for morons, "Your
network setup is incomplete."
> total access to your computer?
Yeah, sure. That, and the FBI is watching you, you paranoid f*ck.
> > They do not use client for Microsoft networks,
Duh, I just said that. Read previous posts.
>
> The network and dialup connection adapters for a windows machine are a
> component of the OS. The AOL Dialup Adapter and AOL Adapter are created
> through AOL's setup to make things easier for the end user. The adapter
Gee, and like the one that's already installed (microsoft networking) isn't
easy? You don't have to do sh*t to even manually add a dial-up.
> itself is part of the OS, the components that bind to the adapter may or
> may not be MS technologies. The AOL Dialup Adapter is used specifically
for
> dial up connections and allows you to use applications other than the AOL
> client over the internet. The AOL adapter which is used specifically for
the
> AOL client is basically a VPN adapter that operates over TCP port 5190.
The
> AOL client itself does run through this VPN connection, however the other
> client applications you use, access the internet in the same way they do
> with other ISP's.
Bull Sh*t. All ISP's do not use VPN, and all do not use port 5190 and the
other aol ports in the same way. Talking to my friends, including my best
friend who actually works in computers for a big company (unlike you), he
agrees. In fact, he knows this first hand, since he's had AoL before, and
because his education (college) exceeds yours and mine. How is it that I
can talk to people about AoL, and you're the only one to disagree? How come
PC Magazine constantly rates AoL (as in an online poll rating) as being
worst in customer service and security?
> >or the standard dial-up
> > adapter. They use an AoL adapter and AoL network.
>
> AOL does not use NetBios it in fact uses TCP/IP. They did at one time use
> their own proprietary transport protocol, however that was dumped some
time
> ago.
Well, like I said, this is what someone else on the NG said. If they got
rid of it, good. It's about time.
> > Also, others have found that it's actually using netbios, not tcp or
ipx.
> Netbios is about file and
> > printer sharing, and other things, but the point would be that they are
> > basically creating a LAN out of a WAN.
>
>
> Securing the AOL client traffic is mainly left in the hands of AOL, not
> something I would prefer, however this might be a good thing for some
users.
Well yeah, cause about 90% of the people on AoL are the "ignorance is bliss"
type of internet user. Sorry to be stereotypical, but this is literally my
experience, having dealt with 10 people using AoL so far (probably more, but
oh well)
> A personal firewall can protect you from attacks that initiate from the
VPN
> tunnel and continue outside of the tunnel. And since the AOL connection
> gives you internet access apart from the AOL client a firewall is relevant
> to the service as a whole.
But I still think it's sorta weird how no one bothers making a firewall that
can be used with AoL. Have you tried to use a firewall with AoL? My point
exactly. Try it, you'll see that you can't filter anything.
> >Also, virtually every firewall
> > written so far cannot make AoL more secure, which is to AoL's downfall.
I
>
> May I recommend a good site for you to get information that will improve
the
> quality of your posts.....
> http://www.idiotbooks.com/
>
>
And may I recommend to you some sites:
http://www.valium.com
http://www.how.not.to.assume.com
http://www.how.not.to.criticize.com
http://www.how.to.experiment.before.assuming.com
http://www.oxymoron.com
http://www.pcmagazine.com
http://rr.sans.org
http://www.about.com
http://www.symantec.com
- Next message: NeoSadist: "Re: AdAware vs. Spybot vs. Spyblaster"
- Previous message: NeoSadist: "Re: Port 67 UDP Problem"
- In reply to: David: "Re: Security for stand alone computer."
- Next in thread: David: "Re: Security for stand alone computer."
- Reply: David: "Re: Security for stand alone computer."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
