microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin

Nicely worded Anteaus

I will have to disagree on what you wrote referring to the end result having
a useless box that will only be able to play cards...solitaire...LoL .

For example, my pc has only 1 listening service port running and that 1
service is not any of the default listening ports. Hhmm...

So...what functionality does mi computer have then? ....plenty..not only
play solitaire..surf the net...e-mail....play multiplayer games like
Fear..and all sorts of FPS games...hmm so far lots of functionality.

Importantly doing something like this in a workstation work environment
might not be desirable.

It is up to the individual home user to learn what the risks are, by leaving
services on the default setttings. Also learn how their OS functions.

Turning Off Services - http://engr.smu.edu/~kaytaz/xpservices.html


Time to play solatire...LoL...That's a Classic !


"Anteaus" wrote:

> Yes, there are a large number of potential exploit-vectors of this kind. Only
> thing is, if you close them all, you end-up with a deaf, dumb and blind box
> that does very little that's useful, apart from maybe play Solitaire.
>
> It would really be preferable if the buffer-overrun exploits which are at
> the root of the problem could be dealt with. But, I guess that ain't gonna
> happen anytime soon, as it would require a change to a programming-language
> with better inbuilt bounds-checking.
>
> I think it's also a fair bet that Linux, mostly coded with the same
> language, has the same issues; it's just that no-one has gone looking for
> over-run exploits with the same level of effort.
>
> I don't recall 95/98 having many of these issues, plus on that platform the
> only open ports were -in general- those which were actually required by
> server processes. Perhaps XP took the wrong roadmap, would it have been
> easier to fix the stability bugs of 9x than to fix the security bugs of NT?
>
> "Marbles" wrote:
>
> >
> > From the methods shown. By closing the ports at the Operating System level.
> > In theory you could leave those ports open on your firewall and there would
> > be no response from these ports that were disabled by tweaking services and
> > registry. because the mechanism that controls those ports have been turned
> > off/shut down / locked down and or disabled.
> >
> > Tho to be on the safe side, keep those ports blocked at the firewall layer
> > as well. So now you have a dual layer of security protecting those ports. :)
> >
>