Re: just simple facts
From: V4 (dontmailme@overyonderblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 05/05/02
- Next message: V4: "Re: just simple facts"
- Previous message: x y: "Re: HTTP email security"
- In reply to: Umer: "Re: just simple facts"
- Next in thread: x y: "Re: just simple facts"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: "V4" <dontmailme@overyonderblueyonder.co.uk> Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 17:17:00 GMT
Hi Umer,
I do use Client to browse local network but not on my dialup adapter.
How is Client related to passwords please?
It is different in Win2K - DUN password doesn't get unticked, it gets
removed! As I'm on unlimited, phone bill is not an issue for me.
"Umer" <network@welkin.biz> wrote in message
news:Omwq2#C9BHA.2028@tkmsftngp04...
> Dear..
> you got messed up to much..
> Client ... is required to browse and use the network resources..
> if u dont have client.. u cant access local network..
> life file sharing n all
> but u can use tcp/ip connections..
> password saving feature is ... somehow related to Client for
> mIc...............
> it is vulnerable as it lets u save ISP passwords :)..but that doesnt
matter
> this much with win2k.. on win9x.. it was worse.. one could try to snatch
> saved passwords...
> ISP would recommend to hide their problem of authentication so u dont have
> to type password again n again
> btw.. when credentials are refused once.. password is unchecked
already....
> so Autodial would give u a biiiiiiiiiiig telephone bill
> and if u think i got confused just as much as u are.. we can keep in touch
> to be unique :D
>
> "V4" <dontmailme@overyonderblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:tp_A8.21784$Gc5.152789021@news-text.cableinet.net...
> > I'm tired, I've been reading too much. I admit I'm a security novice but
I
> > am willing to learn. Unfortunately, after following some web-based
> > recommendations I find someone else attacking me for my new found
beliefs.
> > So, I read some more [their adivce] and that is 'trashed' by another
> > know-it-all, and so it goes on.
> >
> > I'm very busy studying Windows 2000 Server [among other things] so I
hate
> > wasting my time.
> > Simply, I want to know what enabling 'Client for Microsoft Networks'
> > does/allow.
> >
> > It all stems from Win2K Server DUN 'deleting' the saved dialup password
> when
> > encountering an ISP Authentication error - i.e. My ISP, for whatever
> reason
> > may refuse my credentials (which are correct and have been successfully
> > accepted previously) and the connection is refused. DUN will then redial
> > but, as I have discovered, it now has no password to pass on (confirmed
by
> > opening DUN settings where the password had mysteriously disappeared)
and
> > will loop in this failed authentication/redial process until limits are
> > reached or human interaction occurs.
> >
> > My ISP recommended I re-enabled 'Client for Microsoft Networks' to cure
> this
> > fault, stating this process is required to "cache" my password. This
> caused
> > me some concern as I'd just followed several security articles claiming
> > Client for Microsoft Networks and File and Print Sharing are not
required
> > for Internet access and should be disabled/uninstalled.
> >
> > In my endeavour to question the wisdom of my ISP I was "told" by others
> that
> > I was [insert derogatory phrases] and pointed to many links that were,
> IMO,
> > personal attacks of GRC aka Steve Gibson. With patience, I read through
> > article after article of how "although I generally agree and cannot
fault
> > his reasoning...but I cannot agree xxxxxx-statement is entirely true or
> > proved..." and came up with nothing concrete. They really do generally
> > agree. Most of this appears to stem from the Linux vs Windows gangs - I
> > don't want to go there at all - I'm forced to use Windows and I'm stuck
> with
> > it, end of.
> >
> > Please, I just want facts.
> > What are the vulnerabilities of Client for Microsoft Networks [NOT File
&
> > Print Sharing]?
> > How does it work?
> > Is it required to remember DUN passwords?
> > Why would an ISP 'recommend' it be installed for Internet access?
> >
> > All input welcome and thank you for reading [listening to] this.
> >
> >
>
>
- Next message: V4: "Re: just simple facts"
- Previous message: x y: "Re: HTTP email security"
- In reply to: Umer: "Re: just simple facts"
- Next in thread: x y: "Re: just simple facts"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
