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."