Re: Messenger Service (0/1)
From: Stupified (neosadist@hotmail.com)
Date: 01/20/03
- Next message: Duane Arnold: "Re: LinkSys BEFSRx vs. SubNets. Solved and thanks!"
- Previous message: Stupified: "Re: Router ports not stealthed"
- In reply to: chilli: "Messenger Service (0/1)"
- Next in thread: Aaron: "Re: Messenger Service (0/1)"
- Reply: Aaron: "Re: Messenger Service (0/1)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: "Stupified" <neosadist@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:06:21 -0600
"chilli" <chillimoose99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:shmo2vk81rna5sck7qjrin4quf01rbv0tp@4ax.com...
> Does anyone know anything about an intrusive Popup/under called
> Messenger Service?
> I have been spammed by a number of these in the last week. Samples
> attached.
>
> I went to the www.messengerblocker.com site to check it out.
>
> I am running W2k and Zone alarm. Is what the site claims correct??
>
> Comments and thoughts would be appreciated
>
> TIA
>
This software isn't worth it. It's a program that does something so simple
that you can do it youself. Win2k: go to control panel, then to
administrative tools, then services. Look for messaging service, and
double-click it. Select Disabled instead of Automatic or Manual, then if it
is running, click stop. Then hit enter.
This messenger service is a tool designed for network administrators to tell
people on the LAN to log off or whatever. It supposedly uses ports 137-139.
It's not an internet pop-up, it's more like an attack, since you're not on
anyone's LAN, are you? If you're at home, then you have no need for this
service.
Also, microsoft has a resource kit program you can get from them for free
that will actually totally un-register that service completely.
Also, one thing to know is that if you're running a firewall, and it blocks
137-139, that should neutralize the possibility of being attacked in that
manner, but to be safe, I'd suggest doing the above.
Besides, people spend too much time bickering about firewalls sometimes,
when they should instead harden their operating system.
There are lots of other things that you can do to make win2k more secure.
Email me at "neosadist at hotmail dot com" and ask.
- Next message: Duane Arnold: "Re: LinkSys BEFSRx vs. SubNets. Solved and thanks!"
- Previous message: Stupified: "Re: Router ports not stealthed"
- In reply to: chilli: "Messenger Service (0/1)"
- Next in thread: Aaron: "Re: Messenger Service (0/1)"
- Reply: Aaron: "Re: Messenger Service (0/1)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|