On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 15:56:55 -0700, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "AlanB"
<foxpro@comcast.com> wrote:
>
> Jay T. Blocksom wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 15:34:26 -0400, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, Pat
> > <patsite@XXcalandyrXX.com> wrote:
> > >
[snip]
> > >
> > > Try grc.com, there is a little utility that can help
> >
> > No, don't. You don't need any of Gibson's snake oil to disable
> > Windows Messenger. Just follow the instructions:
> >
> > <http://www.itc.virginia.edu/desktop/docs/messagepopup/>
>
> Bad advice. Potentially harmful, even. Turning off Messenger Service
> only cures the symptom not the problem, which is a wide open port. A
> proper firewall will cure the real problem.
>

Nonsense.

You are confusing two completely separate issues.

To the extent that "open ports" are a concern, they are a concern for all
65,000+ possible TCP ports. Should that concern be addressed? Of course.
But this has NOTHING to do with Windows Messenger, per se -- or with any
other particular application, for that matter.

Secondly, unless you have a local LAN (sitting wholly behind a proper
firewall) *and* specifically wish to send "pop-up" messages between the
various workstations on that LAN, then Windows Messenger service most
definitely *should* be disabled (per the instructions I provided a pointer
to), regardless of any "open ports" issue.

Furthermore, the fundamental point of my article remains: You do *NOT* need
(or want!) any of Steve Gibson's crapola snake-oil to address *either* of
these issues. As you pointed out, the former issue is correctly addressed
by the use of a proper (generally meaning "hardware"; i.e., a stand-alone
bastion host) firewall; the second issue is correctly addressed by disabling
the Windows Messenger service.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -