From: tolj AT uni-duesseldorf DOT de (Stipe Tolj) Subject: Re: Windows98 + inetutils 30 Sep 1998 17:57:33 -0700 Message-ID: <36115A16.F3CB4C39.cygnus.gnu-win32@uni-duesseldorf.de> References: <36079E63 DOT 444EF684 AT sics DOT se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Steve Morris Cc: Hilton Fernandes , Olle Olsson , gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com, Hilton Fernandes > > It's possible that someone that uses MS-Windows 9X isn't particularly > > afraid of security problems; otherwise, he or she would prefer NT or > > some other OS. Indeed, any user of a Windows 9X OS is already a > > priviledged user that can do anything to the system. > > > > So, maybe there isn't any additional problem with a non secure access > > to Windows 9X. > > At the risk of responding to a troll I have to say that even win 9x people > care about security when you add remote login. I'm willing to use physical > access to control security on any box I have hidden in my bedroom and off the > net. Even my non net unix boxes have no root password. > > I need better security when my box is on the net whether it is UNIX, NT or Win > 95. I agree for 100%. As soon as you do provide service of remote access you want to restrict it for security reasons, or maybe for "newbie deadly errors" like "rm -f -r /" if mounted to c:\. :(( Has anyone tried this kill on a Win9x box?! I would wonder if it works via telnet. Regards, Stipe -- Stipe Tolj Cygwin32 Porting Project Department of Economical Computer Science University of Cologne, Germany http://www-public.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de/~tolj - For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to "gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".