Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:33:28 +1000 (EST) From: Nicholas Brawn <ncb@zip.com.au> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net>, James Wyatt <jwyatt@rwsystems.net>, "Nicole H." <nicole@unixgirl.com>, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: scanning of port 12345 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9910111259110.15320-100000@zipperii.zip.com.au> In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19991010202528.042c0b70@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, Brett Glass wrote: > At 06:10 PM 10/10/99 -0700, Brooks Davis wrote: > > >Neither Netbus or BackOriface provide any machanisms for attacking a > >machine. > > Not so. A remote sniffer is a great way to get passwords. > > > 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? The more powerful the remote administration tool, the more potential for abuse. Remote administration tools can be used by by legitimate and illegitimate parties for various tasks. It's almost like (imho) flaming the authors of tcpdump for making such a powerful sniffer. My $0.02 Nick -- Email: ncb@zip.com.au (or) nicholas.brawn@hushmail.com Key fingerprint = 71C5 2EA8 903B 0BC4 8EEE 9122 7349 EADC 49C1 424E 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?Pine.LNX.4.10.9910111259110.15320-100000>