Read the 2nd and 3rd responses to the original post of this thread, all will be revealed

From: Cyber-Hun (th54_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 12/31/04 

Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:45:31 GMT

Read the 2nd and 3rd responses to the original post of this thread, all will
be revealed.

"Bruce Chambers" <bruce_a_chambers@h0tmail.com> wrote in message
news:enctdZ17EHA.2180@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Pankyscig wrote:
>> Seems this exploit needed the attack surface created by the service
>> running on port 445, this is why it's good to shut these services down in
>> addition to blocking to blocking the incoming port 445 traffuc with a
>> router.
>> Especially if you're just running a standalone, home system that doesn't
>> need to talk to other domain members.
>
>
> What _are_ you talking about, and to Whom?
>
> --
>
> Bruce Chambers
>
> Help us help you:
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
> both at once. - RAH

Relevant Pages

  • Re: this is why its good to deactivate ...
    ... > Pankyscig wrote: ... >> Seems this exploit needed the attack surface created by the service ... >> running on port 445, this is why it's good to shut these services ... >> down in addition to blocking to blocking the incoming port 445 ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin)
  • Re: this is why its good to deactivate ...
    ... Pankyscig wrote: ... > Seems this exploit needed the attack surface created by the service ... > running on port 445, this is why it's good to shut these services ... > down in addition to blocking to blocking the incoming port 445 ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin)