Re: Private server access

[~BD~]

Bucky Breeder wrote:
> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> blah-blah-blah'ed
> news:0a6dnXPpUrSaXrbSnZ2dnUVZ8u2dnZ2d@bt.com:
>
>> One of my ex-army friends, now a long-time
>> professional computer business owner has told me this:
>
> Were you both on the "Don't Ask; Don't Tell" program together?
> Do you both use the same hemorroid plugs for your BUTTOCKS?
>
> IOW : TMI!

Sorry! ;-)

>> "When your computer is connected to a private server,
>> you are at risk from someone with a higher access code
>> (eg Administrator) who can bypass your firewall on port
>> 3389 which is the main port used for remote desktop.
>>
>> The problem here is that an ex member of staff or someone
>> who hacks the server will not let anyone know they have
>> Administrator rights until they are caught."
>>
>> *
>> Does anyone here dispute this fact?
>> *
>
> It *IS* true!

So I understand. Not many believe me!

>> If it *is* true (and I have no reason to doubt it) that
>> presumably means that if anyone subscribes to Annexcafe
>> newsgroups or to the Aumha 'help' server they are, indeed,
>> putting themselves at risk.
>
> It rolls down to how much you trust the server's [proprietor& admin]
> to protect subscribers' privacy/rights...
>
> You can always monitor port/ports... and you SHOULD be if you're
> using these type services...
>
> Here's the real deal, on ANY VPN; the server admin can EASILY
> get behind your firewalls and change almost anything they want
> to, especially with Windows PCs... You can still monitor the
> throughput and cut your station off-line using your firewall[s]
> or just unplug it, if things get really whack...
>
> Here's the main protocol: ALWAYS make a backup image of your
> current system BEFORE you subsribe to a VPN service, and
> you'll only have to wonder a little bit less...
>
> HEY, AT&T had a big ole mess like that up in the Atlanta area
> a few years ago... IOW, your ISP can get behind most conventional
> firewalls and wreck havocs on subscribers too... It's harder
> to do with a NAT firewall in place; but, it's still doable, and
> done-able on occasion. They cleaned out all the techs that were
> involved in the debacle; however, they NEVER admitted it outright,
> even though they had their tech-support services helping out the
> effected customers who called in with similar identifiable issues...
>
> Yep, it's the Wild-Wild-Web out there alright, and as long as
> there are dishonest peeples there will be a need for you to be
> vigilent and cautious.
>
>>
>> Comments welcomed.
>
> On the usernets... blah-blah-blah... wattR-U, retarded?

Of course - I'm on the Usenets! [g] Thanks for your input, BB.

Would you class Aumha.com. Dogagent.com and Malwarebytes.com as VPN's?

*

Cross-posted to alt.privacy.spyware so that Dustin Cook can comment on
your view - *he* says this is "Horse ****" and he's 'da man'!

--
Dave - "It is much better to be hated for what you are, than to be loved
for what you definitely are not." "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you."

[Dustin]

~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
news:05KdnWNkP_iJh7HSnZ2dnUVZ7t2dnZ2d@bt.com:

> Cross-posted to alt.privacy.spyware so that Dustin Cook can comment
on
> your view - *he* says this is "Horse ****" and he's 'da man'!

In the context provided, it very much is. What does the OP mean by get
behind your firewall? That's gibberish.

Anyone who has remote desktop access and sufficient rights can change
the configuration of the workstation (read: your computer, dumbarse
punk). This isn't new or newsworthy and I never stated otherwise, as
you've tried to infer.

By configuration I mean more than software firewall settings, but those
would then be up for grabs too. Of course, this doesnt help with a
hardware firewall. Youd still have to have valid login details then. A
remote admin isnt required, you already opened the door by sitting them
in front of your desktop. they can do whatever you can do then.


However, in the dimwitted context you provided, it reaks of horse-****.
As far as your da man comment, I found your punkass didn't I?

I've removed your trollish crossposting garbage. I wont provide you the
attention you so desperatly seek. I'm done playing games with you.




--
Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too
many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and
the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J.C. Watts

[~BD~]

Dustin wrote:
> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
> news:05KdnWNkP_iJh7HSnZ2dnUVZ7t2dnZ2d@bt.com:
>
>> Cross-posted to alt.privacy.spyware so that Dustin Cook can comment
> on
>> your view - *he* says this is "Horse ****" and he's 'da man'!
>
> In the context provided, it very much is. What does the OP mean by get
> behind your firewall? That's gibberish.
>
> Anyone who has remote desktop access and sufficient rights can change
> the configuration of the workstation (read: your computer, dumbarse
> punk). This isn't new or newsworthy and I never stated otherwise, as
> you've tried to infer.
>
> By configuration I mean more than software firewall settings, but those
> would then be up for grabs too. Of course, this doesnt help with a
> hardware firewall. Youd still have to have valid login details then. A
> remote admin isnt required, you already opened the door by sitting them
> in front of your desktop. they can do whatever you can do then.
>
>
> However, in the dimwitted context you provided, it reaks of horse-****.
> As far as your da man comment, I found your punkass didn't I?
>
> I've removed your trollish crossposting garbage. I wont provide you the
> attention you so desperately seek. I'm done playing games with you.


I'm not seeking to play games with you Dustin, I simply seek the truth.

I'm confident that 99%+ of Windows users have no clue that this can
happen and that all their anti-malware precautions will be for naught.

Am I wrong in thinking that a workstation/client can, indeed, be "owned"
as you put it and the operator be completely unaware of it?

This is serious stuff, Dustin - it's no joke.

--
Dave - "It is much better to be hated for what you are, than to be loved
for what you definitely are not." "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you."

[Eagle]

~BD~ formulated on Tuesday :
> Dustin wrote:
>> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
>> news:05KdnWNkP_iJh7HSnZ2dnUVZ7t2dnZ2d@bt.com:
>>
>>> Cross-posted to alt.privacy.spyware so that Dustin Cook can comment
>> on
>>> your view - *he* says this is "Horse ****" and he's 'da man'!
>>
>> In the context provided, it very much is. What does the OP mean by get
>> behind your firewall? That's gibberish.
>>
>> Anyone who has remote desktop access and sufficient rights can change
>> the configuration of the workstation (read: your computer, dumbarse
>> punk). This isn't new or newsworthy and I never stated otherwise, as
>> you've tried to infer.
>>
>> By configuration I mean more than software firewall settings, but those
>> would then be up for grabs too. Of course, this doesnt help with a
>> hardware firewall. Youd still have to have valid login details then. A
>> remote admin isnt required, you already opened the door by sitting them
>> in front of your desktop. they can do whatever you can do then.
>>
>>
>> However, in the dimwitted context you provided, it reaks of horse-****.
>> As far as your da man comment, I found your punkass didn't I?
>>
>> I've removed your trollish crossposting garbage. I wont provide you the
>> attention you so desperately seek. I'm done playing games with you.
>
>
> I'm not seeking to play games with you Dustin, I simply seek the truth.
>
> I'm confident that 99%+ of Windows users have no clue that this can happen
> and that all their anti-malware precautions will be for naught.
>
> Am I wrong in thinking that a workstation/client can, indeed, be "owned" as
> you put it and the operator be completely unaware of it?
>
> This is serious stuff, Dustin - it's no joke.

I thought Dustin took a vacation from this NG?

[~BD~]

Eagle wrote:
> ~BD~ formulated on Tuesday :
>> Dustin wrote:
>>> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
>>> news:05KdnWNkP_iJh7HSnZ2dnUVZ7t2dnZ2d@bt.com:
>>>
>>>> Cross-posted to alt.privacy.spyware so that Dustin Cook can comment
>>> on
>>>> your view - *he* says this is "Horse ****" and he's 'da man'!
>>>
>>> In the context provided, it very much is. What does the OP mean by get
>>> behind your firewall? That's gibberish.
>>>
>>> Anyone who has remote desktop access and sufficient rights can change
>>> the configuration of the workstation (read: your computer, dumbarse
>>> punk). This isn't new or newsworthy and I never stated otherwise, as
>>> you've tried to infer.
>>>
>>> By configuration I mean more than software firewall settings, but those
>>> would then be up for grabs too. Of course, this doesnt help with a
>>> hardware firewall. Youd still have to have valid login details then. A
>>> remote admin isnt required, you already opened the door by sitting them
>>> in front of your desktop. they can do whatever you can do then.
>>>
>>>
>>> However, in the dimwitted context you provided, it reaks of horse-****.
>>> As far as your da man comment, I found your punkass didn't I?
>>>
>>> I've removed your trollish crossposting garbage. I wont provide you the
>>> attention you so desperately seek. I'm done playing games with you.
>>
>>
>> I'm not seeking to play games with you Dustin, I simply seek the truth.
>>
>> I'm confident that 99%+ of Windows users have no clue that this can
>> happen and that all their anti-malware precautions will be for naught.
>>
>> Am I wrong in thinking that a workstation/client can, indeed, be
>> "owned" as you put it and the operator be completely unaware of it?
>>
>> This is serious stuff, Dustin - it's no joke.
>
> I thought Dustin took a vacation from this NG?

Surely not, Dave? ;-)


--
Dave - "It is much better to be hated for what you are, than to be loved
for what you definitely are not." "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you."

[Dustin]

~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
news:i8WdnTPUCtoY_6zSnZ2dnUVZ8t2dnZ2d@bt.com:

> Surely not, Dave? ;-)

Didn't tell the poor ******* that you're trolling and trying to force
participation in a group I no longer subscribe to.. How, ehh, "honest" of
you, David.


--
Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too
many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and
the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J.C. Watts

[Peter Foldes]

"Eagle" <none@thanx.wecum> wrote in message news:jgrl8f$tnk$1@dont-email.me...

> I thought Dustin took a vacation from this NG?


LOL. Your bud crossposted like a crazy nut as usual and for what reasononly he
knows.

[Dustin]

"Peter Foldes" <okf22@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:jgro6n$cn9$1@speranza.aioe.org:

> "Eagle" <none@thanx.wecum> wrote in message
> news:jgrl8f$tnk$1@dont-email.me...
>
>> I thought Dustin took a vacation from this NG?
>
>
> LOL. Your bud crossposted like a crazy nut as usual and for what
> reasononly he knows.
>
>
>

The two of them together dont have enough working brain cells to do
anything for themselves.

--
Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too
many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and
the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J.C. Watts

[Eagle]

Peter Foldes explained on 2/7/2012 :
> "Eagle" <none@thanx.wecum> wrote in message
> news:jgrl8f$tnk$1@dont-email.me...
>
>> I thought Dustin took a vacation from this NG?
>
>
> LOL. Your bud crossposted like a crazy nut as usual and for what reasononly
> he knows.

So when are we going to meet on band? Can you do HF? I am on 17 meters
every morning, so let me know and I'll meet you.
73...