🚀 go-pugleaf

Kavakava wrote:

<lots of attributions missing, check thread if you care>

> 
> >
> > > >
> > >
> > > 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?

<serious voice>I was assured of this by the guy at M$s help desk.

> 
> >
> > *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? 

Could it be... SATAN? heh heh. 

> Isnt 139 open by default?  

So I hear. I dunno, I don't work with the bug-riddled piece-of-filth OS so I
not only don't really know, I really don't care until and unless I somehow
get dragooned into taking care of such pathetic boxes.

> 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.

Tell me about it. I am very fond of Slackware, but I also spend a week or so
hacking at it before I put it online. That BIND exploit scares the crap
outta me.

I have to admit that if I was going to put any machine online that was
remotely mission-critical, it would have to be a BSD, probably NetBSD
(mostly because that's what I use at work anyway).

> 
> Why would I want to crash some poor schmuck on a dialup or attack his machine?

Well, if you're former head of the CIA whatssisname, being a poor schmuck on
a dial-up machine would be interesting as hell to the right people.
Remember, the guy took a winblows laptop full of classified stuff home and
left it 24/7 on his DSL line... for a week or two.

> 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.

Doubtless. I often lose sleep at night knowing that a very large chunk of
the US Military/Intelligence community is exclusively NT.

> 
> kava
> 
> >

--
The terror of the Roman arms added weight and dignity to the moderation of
the emperors.  They preserved peace by a constant preparation for war; and
while justice regulated their conduct, they announced to the nations on
their confines that they were as little disposed to endure as to offer an
injury.
	--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" (The Antonines)