On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Jeffrey E. Harris wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Fred Wright wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Jeffrey E. Harris wrote:
> >
> > > > JH> 1) File and print server sharing is built into ever version of windows;
> > > > JH> does the ISP define that as a "server"?
> > > >
> > > > It may be available, nut it's not always enabled. Most home PCs don't
> > > > have a LAN, and without a network connection of some kind, file and
> > > > printer sharing aren't enabled.
> > >
> > > Tim, that may be true in Australia, but I find there are more and more
> > > people in the US who have home networks, if for no other reason than to
> > > share one Internet connection (a cheap way to take advantage of a high
> > > speed Internet connection). Many of those people may not have file and
> > > print sharing enabled, but many do, particularly so they share a printer.
> >
> > Anyone who enables file and printer sharing without putting it behind a
> > firewall needs his head examined. That's like dropping the soap in the
> > shower at San Quentin. :-)
>
> I agree, but since Microsoft doesn't provide a firewall out of the box,
> most users are not saavy enough to get one. I have to tell you that from
> my perspective, though, as a System Administrator, I have yet to find a
> software implementation I am happy with. Norton and McAfee have holes in
A software firewall on a platform with bug-ridden network software is of
somewhat limited value. :-)
> The good news is that Windows 2000 and Windows XP (the successor to
> Windows 2000 and Windows 9X and ME) decouple the file and print sharing
> architecture, so that LAN clients can have access to sharing, but Internet
> connections can be denied access to sharing (that architecture may
> already exist in Windows ME, now that I think about it). The bad news is
> that EVERY machine running Windows XP (not just servers) will have remote
> control built-in.
Not only that, but you can't even buy it - you can only rent it. There's
a significant movement to boycott all "XP" products for this reason.
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Actually, Anonymizer now offers SSH1 with port
> forwarding to protect against sniffing. It
> forwards port 80 for http, 110 & 25 for mail,
SSH port forwarding for HTTP is pretty useless, since you'd need a
separate port for each server. Port-fowarding an HTTP *proxy* might be
useful, though.
This whole concept also hinges on how much you trust Anonymizer. After
all, you're not hiding anything from *their* servers.
> 119 for news. It's a snap to setup on the pc,
> but SSH1 on the Amiga is a straight unix port
> and I'm not that clear on how to explain to the
> program that I've root access so it will allow
> port forwarding. Anonymizer's tech support is
> limited to windows.
Port numbers are 16 bits, but it stores the value as a long. Just add any
multiple of 65536 to the local port and it will accept it. Or with
MiamiDx you could use MiamiTelnet's SSH mode, which probably doesn't have
the notion of needing to be root to listen on "privileged" ports in the
first place.
Fred Wright
--
To unsubscribe send "unsubscribe miami-talk-ml" to
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]". For help on list commands send "help" to
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
