Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: Why does a home computer user need DCOM?
From: Nick FitzGerald <nick () virus-l demon co uk>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 00:05:43 +1200
hobbit () avian org (*Hobbit*) wrote:
Once again, I wouldn't mind a way to turn off *ALL* the RPC stuff, including the RPC service itself, without paying the price of having almost everything I do afterward just sit there and stupidly wait for it to respond. A box with it disabled *will* run, just barely, it'll just be sluggish as hell. Or at the very least a way to run it so it doesn't listen on a socket bound to *. How 'bout localhost-only, or the equivalent of unix-domain pipes, or *something* to keep it insulated from the network?? How 'bout the same for SMB/tcp 445? Argh. There's probably some registry hack that *could* do that.
Yes, yes and yes (well, to many of your wishes and depending on which Windows flavour you have...). How many times do I have to post the following link??? Perhaps the best article on making sense of the (idiotic) default MS service binding mess is: http://www.hsc.fr/ressources/breves/min_srv_res_win.en.html.en Regards, Nick FitzGerald _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- Re: Why does a home computer user need DCOM? *Hobbit* (Sep 10)
- Re: Why does a home computer user need DCOM? Nick FitzGerald (Sep 11)
- Re: Why does a home computer user need DCOM? Jean-Baptiste Marchand (Sep 11)
- Re: Why does a home computer user need DCOM? Stephen Perciballi (Sep 11)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Why does a home computer user need DCOM? Quite Mad (Sep 14)