Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Remote desktop security bugs ..............................?

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
August 14, 2004 7:46:52 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

does it exist in right now or in the history ?

or in other words , is it safe for using remote desktop server.

esp. for the computers which is 24 hrs online

thanks
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
August 14, 2004 7:46:53 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

Fortress wrote:
> does it exist in right now or in the history ?
>
> or in other words , is it safe for using remote desktop server.
>
> esp. for the computers which is 24 hrs online
>
> thanks
>
>
Simply: NO
Everything like this: If you can make it, you can brake it...
Possibility from someone to get unwanted access: Low, but never zero.
Wim
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
August 14, 2004 7:56:21 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

There was one security patch issued fairly early on in XP's existence, for a
weakness in how the encryption was used in the connection.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS02...

I agree with WimvV, and recommend logging, lockouts and password complexity.


"WimvV" <w.vvv.voort@home.nl.com> wrote in message
news:cfkji9$qn1$1@news1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
> Fortress wrote:
>> does it exist in right now or in the history ?
>>
>> or in other words , is it safe for using remote desktop server.
>>
>> esp. for the computers which is 24 hrs online
>>
>> thanks
>>
>>
> Simply: NO
> Everything like this: If you can make it, you can brake it...
> Possibility from someone to get unwanted access: Low, but never zero.
> Wim
>
Related resources
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
August 16, 2004 10:16:17 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

i would add:

changing the standard port of 3389 to something else,

making it more secure.

Much harder to break in when you can't find what you're breaking in to.


ste


Bill Sanderson wrote:

> There was one security patch issued fairly early on in XP's existence, for a
> weakness in how the encryption was used in the connection.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS02...
>
> I agree with WimvV, and recommend logging, lockouts and password complexity.
>
>
> "WimvV" <w.vvv.voort@home.nl.com> wrote in message
> news:cfkji9$qn1$1@news1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
>
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
August 17, 2004 1:05:06 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

Security by obscurity isn't security...

Implementing a VPN/Tunnelling solution can also provide additional
security.

Jeffrey Randow (Windows Networking & Smart Display MVP)
jeffreyr-support@remotenetworktechnology.com

Please post all responses to the newsgroups for the benefit
of all USENET users. Messages sent via email may or may not
be answered depending on time availability....

Remote Networking Technology Support Site -
http://www.remotenetworktechnology.com
Windows XP Expert Zone - http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:16:17 GMT, Stephen Wright
<stephenwright______@_______ntlworld.com________> wrote:

>i would add:
>
>changing the standard port of 3389 to something else,
>
>making it more secure.
>
>Much harder to break in when you can't find what you're breaking in to.
>
>
>ste
>
>
>Bill Sanderson wrote:
>
>> There was one security patch issued fairly early on in XP's existence, for a
>> weakness in how the encryption was used in the connection.
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS02...
>>
>> I agree with WimvV, and recommend logging, lockouts and password complexity.
>>
>>
>> "WimvV" <w.vvv.voort@home.nl.com> wrote in message
>> news:cfkji9$qn1$1@news1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
>>
!