Daren

Distinguished
May 14, 2004
18
0
18,510
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Does anybody know why WinXP SP2 disables the messenger service? I have
just changed this service settings to automatic because I am using
performance monitor alerts, and it's the only way I could find to get
a message box sent. Is this a security thing? I'm just a bit worried
I've made my machine less secure.
 

Daren

Distinguished
May 14, 2004
18
0
18,510
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Leythos thanks for the reply. I'm using this on my home computer for
alerts, do you know of another way for performance monitor alerts to
send messages?
 
G

Guest

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

In article <1125207554.040937.244860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
daren@dhubbard.co.uk says...
> Does anybody know why WinXP SP2 disables the messenger service? I have
> just changed this service settings to automatic because I am using
> performance monitor alerts, and it's the only way I could find to get
> a message box sent. Is this a security thing? I'm just a bit worried
> I've made my machine less secure.

Because, unless you are in a network environment, it's a spam service.
Many people that have Windows PC's connected directly to the Net get hit
with Messenger spam - and it has few uses for home users - so they
disable it.

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
 
G

Guest

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

No, there isn't. The messenger service needs to be enabled for this
function. In a home environment, as long as the system is properly
firewalled, there is no exposure to the spam issue cited by Leythos. This
service should not be disabled, as some others rely on it. The advice to
disable it is often mistakenly given to block the messenger spam when all
that is normally needed is for the firewall to be enabled.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

"Daren" <daren@dhubbard.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1125209743.100831.10080@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Leythos thanks for the reply. I'm using this on my home computer for
> alerts, do you know of another way for performance monitor alerts to
> send messages?
>
 
G

Guest

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

In article <e9imeg8qFHA.3736@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, rick@mvps.org
says...
> No, there isn't. The messenger service needs to be enabled for this
> function. In a home environment, as long as the system is properly
> firewalled, there is no exposure to the spam issue cited by Leythos.

And if it was properly firewalled in most cases MS would not have
stopped the service by default in SP2 - kind of makes you wonder why
they stopped it - huh? Since the OP didn't specific if he did or didn't
have a firewall we don't really know if it would be good for him to
enable it.

> This
> service should not be disabled, as some others rely on it. The advice to
> disable it is often mistakenly given to block the messenger spam when all
> that is normally needed is for the firewall to be enabled.

I hate to tell you this, but it's disabled in our entire domain,
disabled on every computer in my home, disabled on most people's
machines that I know, and none of them have any problems.

Now, I do agree that if you have a properly configured firewall for your
network that you can enable the service without problem.


--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
 

Daren

Distinguished
May 14, 2004
18
0
18,510
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

I do have a statefull firewall so hopefully enabling the sevice
shouldn't cause me an issue.

Thanks for the advice
 
G

Guest

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

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 08:00:39 -0400, "Rick \"Nutcase\" Rogers"
<rick@mvps.org> wrote:

>No, there isn't. The messenger service needs to be enabled for this
>function. In a home environment, as long as the system is properly
>firewalled, there is no exposure to the spam issue cited by Leythos. This
>service should not be disabled, as some others rely on it. The advice to
>disable it is often mistakenly given to block the messenger spam when all
>that is normally needed is for the firewall to be enabled.

A guy in an online forum was getting messenger spam and his firewall
didn't block it so I told him to kill the messenger service - problem
solved. Firewalls are not foolproof.
 
G

Guest

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

"Firewalls are not foolproof"

Mostly because fools mess with the firewall settings. Notice that I used the
term "properly" in mentioning the firewall.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

"Praxiteles Democritus" <no@email.here> wrote in message
news:c6b4h19dtl6895srjl9hv8fj0ufdgilgvb@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 08:00:39 -0400, "Rick \"Nutcase\" Rogers"
> <rick@mvps.org> wrote:
>
>>No, there isn't. The messenger service needs to be enabled for this
>>function. In a home environment, as long as the system is properly
>>firewalled, there is no exposure to the spam issue cited by Leythos. This
>>service should not be disabled, as some others rely on it. The advice to
>>disable it is often mistakenly given to block the messenger spam when all
>>that is normally needed is for the firewall to be enabled.
>
> A guy in an online forum was getting messenger spam and his firewall
> didn't block it so I told him to kill the messenger service - problem
> solved. Firewalls are not foolproof.
 
G

Guest

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

Rick "Nutcase" Rogers wrote:
>
> "Firewalls are not foolproof"

No kidding. I thought my router was enough till my 14 year old son
started enabling ports and such for games or whatever and me getting all
these odd messages on my computer. So I run a software firewall also.
Yah I know about the password thinggies for the router.
 
G

Guest

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

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 20:53:50 -0400, "Rick \"Nutcase\" Rogers"
<rick@mvps.org> wrote:

>"Firewalls are not foolproof"
>
>Mostly because fools mess with the firewall settings. Notice that I used the
>term "properly" in mentioning the firewall.

Configuring some firewalls is a "black art".
 

TRENDING THREADS