🚀 go-pugleaf

>
> > >
> >
> > You don't go into any detail on how you tested this. Did you use the same
> > computer both times? Windows PC's are fairly secure by default

He tested this by "penitrating" some be0tch that works in Tech Support... Nah
seriously.. Whats your means of testing this?


>
> *snort*
>
> I have ten thousand script-kiddies running "crack" on your box who disagree
> vehemently to the sound of sustained laughter.

"Crack" is a tool for running a dictionary attack on a unix password file. I
think you mean a portscanner? Isnt 139 open by default?  Windows is pretty easy
to distinguish... you can do a simple little test by running up and down a
netblock and asking every machine for a ICMP timestamp request. Windows 95/NT/98
do not respond. 2000 Does and most UNIX' machines do, unless it's being filtered.
Then you can start getting a little trickier if that doesn't work.


>
>
> If you think your 24/7 DSL-connected WinBox is secure, that's either because
> nobody has discovered you, or they think you're totally uninteresting, or
> they own you completely and are just letting you think you're secure so that
> you can be crashed or mined when it will do the most damage.

Windows by default isnt exaclty secure.. but Neither is Solaris 2.1 up to Solaris
2.7(Solaris 7)... and Solaris 8 ships wilth a hell of a lot of services open. All
that is needed is a remote exploit for those services and someone will be looking
for them. Same with RootHat(oh i Mean Redhat). most OS's do poorly out of the
box, except the BSD's, Especially OpenBSD.

Why would I want to crash some poor schmuck on a dialup or attack his machine?
I'd aim for bigger targets. Granted I am sure you can gain some interesting data
like that, but you'd be better by doing a little research and snooping and
selecting your targets carefully.

kava






>