Re: Why hasn't Symantec addressed nastier Messenger spoofs
From:Date: 10/24/02
- Next message: Darryl Luff: "Re: Ethereal Capture Decoding"
- Previous message: Max7: "Network question"
- In reply to: Jim Kutz: "Why hasn't Symantec addressed nastier Messenger spoofs"
- Next in thread: Walter Dnes: "Re: Why hasn't Symantec addressed nastier Messenger spoofs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 06:06:12 GMT
In comp.security.misc <d703a4b1.0210231936.3d127593@posting.google.com> Jim Kutz <jimkutz@earthlink.net> wrote:
> A few [but not many] Internet providers say they use this type of
> messaging to send messages such as "system going down in 5 minutes",
> so they're not encouraging users to disable it. [ The vast majority
Then they shouldn't be using it. This is useful on a LAN, where users
are probably using fileservers and even momentary interruptions can
cause havoc, but an ISP's e-mail servers aren't sub-second-response-time
critical. Basically, there's no reason for anything off the local LAN
to ever be using Windows Messenger to send messages.
ISP pop-up blockers also won't work. They're just HTTP/HTTPS proxies,
and Windows Messenger has nothing to do with HTTP/HTTPs or the Web
browser.
> My third question is, if Symantec does introduce a filter to warn or
> disable concerning these popups, will it also be able to 'let
> through' pop-ups from approved local apps or remote sites?
If you're directly connected to the cable modem, it can. If you're on
a LAN and using a NATting router, there's nothing that distinguishes
a Messenger packet from the outside world from a local one ( this is
UDP, remember, no connection and no response needed so forging the
source address doesn't cause any protocol problems ).
I haven't seen any of these (yet), but since I'm using Samba with the
pop-up scripts disabled I'm not overly worried.
--
Don't worry about where to land -- by the time you get to it, it
_will_ be flat.
-- concering Orion landing procedures
- Next message: Darryl Luff: "Re: Ethereal Capture Decoding"
- Previous message: Max7: "Network question"
- In reply to: Jim Kutz: "Why hasn't Symantec addressed nastier Messenger spoofs"
- Next in thread: Walter Dnes: "Re: Why hasn't Symantec addressed nastier Messenger spoofs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
