Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 22:43:17 -0400 From: Chris Williams <psion@geekspace.com> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: scanning of port 12345 Message-ID: <38014EC5.C2541B08@geekspace.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9910101900340.71027-100000@bsdie.rwsystems.net> <4.2.0.58.19991010202528.042c0b70@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >Neither Netbus or BackOriface provide any machanisms for attacking a > >machine. > Not so. A remote sniffer is a great way to get passwords. Note: SMS includes a remote sniffer utility. > > Netbus is sold just like any other remote monitoring and admin > >tool including several that cost thousands of dollars. CDC (the authors > >of BO) have a webpage pointing out that there is almost no difference > >between their product that the Microsoft System Management Server. > And you believe them? It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of fact. Having used SMS, it does in fact have most of the same capabilities as BO. It's also easier to install on a large number of machines without users' knowledge, and harder to remove. The only argument I can think of that you could make for SMS as a fundamentally more 'legit' remote admin tool is that it uses the domain security model for authentication. But, since SMS remote tools can be run against a machine using the local admin credentails, which is to say, without a valid domain login, even that point is pretty weak. How in the world did we end up on this in freebsd-security, anyhow? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?38014EC5.C2541B08>