Re: Security for stand alone computer.
From: David (davidwnh@adelphia.net)
Date: 12/05/02
- Next message: David: "Re: Port 67 UDP Problem"
- Previous message: SysAdm: "Re: Port 67 UDP Problem"
- In reply to: NeoSadist: "Re: Security for stand alone computer."
- Next in thread: sponge: "Re: Security for stand alone computer."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: "David" <davidwnh@adelphia.net> Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 19:42:01 GMT
Plain and simple-The Client for Microsoft Networks in affect allows your
computer to be a client on a Microsoft network. If the adapter is providing
both LAN and internet connectivity then it must be there for the LAN in a
Microsoft network. If you are using the internet to connect to a Microsoft
Network then that adapter will also need the Client for Microsoft. Networks.
However you can and should remove it from every
adapter that is solely providing you a connection to the internet
Since I do not connect to a windows network over the internet, every dialup
connection and internet-exposed Ethernet adapter I have set up at home has
the client for windows networking, file and print sharing, and netbios over
tcp/ip unbound
from those adapters. This is very well published information that can be
found
not only on Microsoft's website, but also on various other websites and
public forums all over the internet. Not to mention the vast amount of books
in which this is discussed. If you cannot do this it most likely because
your particular adapter is used for both your lan and internet connectivity.
> 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 yourself and see.
No they do not. And once you connect to your ISP with a Linux box or Apple
machine you might realize one more reason why this is such.
> ALL of them use it. The info has to get into the OS somehow. Go back and
> read about those layers again.
>
>
I never said they did. Very few use VPN as a matter of fact, but this does
have it's benefit. This takes much of the security administration out of the
users hands,and as I said before, not the way I like things, however this
can
be beneficial for many average home users. If you think in terms of plain
text passwords, packet sniffing, etc. you may start to see a few of the
benefits.
> 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
> 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?
>
These NG's are definitely known for originating many myths, rumors, and
untruths.
A good reason to verify such information with valid sources and to correct
those who unknowingly further the spread such misinformation.
> Well, like I said, this is what someone else on the NG said. If they got
> rid of it, good. It's about time.
>
No one is a book of knowledge on all subjects, and many do not have the time
to deal with these specific issues. So for those who don't have careers in
this field, or the time or interest for such matters AOL may be a good
choice. Although AOL has it's security issues, your typical ISP's do to.
Once again plain text passwords, packet sniffing, etc.
What's good for you is not good for everyone. There are pro and cons to most
solutions so the best solution is often tied to the specific individual.
> 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)
>
I do understand this and it does present a problem. Without knowing what AOL
internally filters, it is very difficult to know how big of a problem this
presents. I agree it is not the best thing to be using a VPN for a public
network, but for a user who does not know about or have the time to deal
with the vast amount of security issues, Aol may be providing more security
than some users would be able to provide themselves if they were using
another ISP. I personally don't wish to put such trust into the hands of my
ISP, however some people do benefit from this.
>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.
All of these issues are more complex that what shows on the surface. You
need to look past what works for you and realize that it does not work for
everybody. Although I have several reasons for not using AOL I do see the
benefits it provides for certain other users.
- Next message: David: "Re: Port 67 UDP Problem"
- Previous message: SysAdm: "Re: Port 67 UDP Problem"
- In reply to: NeoSadist: "Re: Security for stand alone computer."
- Next in thread: sponge: "Re: Security for stand alone computer."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
