From owner-freebsd-security Sun Oct 10 19:26:50 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4150314C2A for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 19:26:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: from mustang (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA27694; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 20:26:29 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991010202528.042c0b70@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 20:26:27 -0600 To: Brooks Davis , James Wyatt From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: scanning of port 12345 Cc: Brooks Davis , "Nicole H." , freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 06:10 PM 10/10/99 -0700, Brooks Davis wrote: >Neither Netbus or BackOriface provide any machanisms for attacking a >machine. Not so. A remote sniffer is a great way to get passwords. > Netbus is sold just like any other remote monitoring and admin >tool including several that cost thousands of dollars. CDC (the authors >of BO) have a webpage pointing out that there is almost no difference >between their product that the Microsoft System Management Server. And you believe them? --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message