> No I would not I would use an ids with properly tuned sigs for the terminal
> server abd then connect the terminal server via a proxy like vnc running
> something over freebsd or linux. I would never allow a windows terminal
> server to be directly be connected to the net...
Spot the two obviou
>It's also only possible when you've got NetBIOS/CIFS open to
>the Internet,
Yes I know... That is why I said security thru obscurity
> With this argumentation, you could sell your firewalls.
No I would not I would use an ids with properly tuned sigs for the terminal
server abd then connect t
> There are ways to find out the usernames that are admin they begin with 500_
> ( do a Google search if you want )
>
> Any script kiddy worth his salt will tell u this... So this one is off
> because renaming admin account will only be security thru obscurity witch is
> not good for the internet.
>Of course, one of the very first things you should do on a Windows box
>is rename the administrator account, so this kind of blind
>brute-forcing is not possible.
There are ways to find out the usernames that are admin they begin with 500_
( do a Google search if you want )
Any script kiddy
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:38:30 -0600, Curt Purdy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem with terminal server is not any vulnerablities that can be
> exploited, but the fact that administrator can be bruteforced (6 attempts
> followed by reconnect) and that it is screaming its existence on port 388
day, January 25, 2005 3:29 PM
> To: full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com
> Subject: Re: [lists] [Full-Disclosure] Terminal Server vulnerabilities
>
>
> On Jan 25, 2005, at 2:38 PM, Curt Purdy wrote:
>
> > Daniel Sichel wrote:
> >
> >> Naturally I
> >> d
On Jan 25, 2005, at 2:38 PM, Curt Purdy wrote:
Daniel Sichel wrote:
Naturally I
don't like this answer because of horror stories I have heard
about Terminal server. They claim there are no unfixed
vulnerabilities to Terminal Server on Windows Server 2000
Service Pack 4.
The problem with terminal
Daniel Sichel wrote:
> Naturally I
> don't like this answer because of horror stories I have heard
> about Terminal server. They claim there are no unfixed
> vulnerabilities to Terminal Server on Windows Server 2000
> Service Pack 4.
The problem with terminal server is not any vulnerablitie
